Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive147

Cedarhurst, New York

There is serious edit war at Cedarhurst, New York where a veteran user alansohn (talk · contribs) is trying to intimidate a new user Helical Rift (talk · contribs). For example Alansohn is calling this editors changes vandalism which is result in a block.[1] Both users have been uncivil, but perhaps the new user doesn't know about WP:CIVIL as the veteran user has raised the temperature of the argument. Alansohn has a history of referring to other editors as vandals and throwing around name calling see: Talk:B. H. Carroll Theological Institute.

An admin. needs to step in the middle of this violation of WP:BITE. Arbusto 08:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• This seems to already be resolved, other than Arbusto/oo's efforts to interfere with the resolution. User:Helical Rift had removed Category:Orthodox Jewish communities from the article Cedarhurst, New York, based on his interpretation of the category implying that the location was 100% Orthodox. After clarifying the scope of the category based on the examples of the communities already listed therein, Helical Rift was given several examples of communities with both Irish and Orthodox communities that are labeled as Irish, despite being under 100% (or 50% for that matter). Helical Rift then modified the description of the category to require a majority population. After several attempts at deleting and restoring the category, Helical Rift was told that the article has an explicit source for Cedarhurst being an Orthodox community. Helical Rift, then proceeded to remove all references to Cedarhurst's Orthodox community from several locations within the article, and then claimed that "article does not mention orthodox jewish communities..." in the edit summary. Helical Rift was warned that such removal was vandalism, removed it again and was warned a second time. After re-offering a suggestion that we label Cedarhurst as both Orthodox AND Italian, we were able to agree that this soultion would address our mutual concerns. Arbusto seems to have created this ANI in violation of WP:POINT. This issue seems to have been resolved with the user in question, but Arbusto/oo seems to have inserted himself into this issue, goading User:Helical Rift into further action after the situation seems to have been successfully addressed, even after Helical Rift pleaded to end this argument. Arbusto/oo has persisted in misinterpreting an explicit source that specifies Cedarhurst as an Orthodox community, deciding that the source is not valid because it does not state the exact words that Cedarhurst is an Orthodox Jewish community, a nonsensical standard that is not applied anywhere else in Wikipedia. This issue should be closed immediately, assuming that Arbusto/oo has no further need to interfere with the subject. Alansohn 08:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I just saw this as I posted the new incident below. I had already seen the altercation between them and warned them both about 3RR. They both deserve to be temporarily blocked for edit warring / 3RR and at least one should be cautioned for bad language. I have also nominated the category in dispute for deletion. --ArmadilloFromHell 08:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to say that yes, the issue has been resolved but Arbusto did not "goad" me. I had strong feelings on the matter and discussed it with Alansohn. To me, the matter is closed and I apologize for my bad language. Alansohn was also changing the Cedarhurst page as well every time that I did so we are both at fault. This is an incident that will not be repeated Helical Rift 09:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The Cedarhurst, New York issue seems to have been addressed with User:Helical Rift. All that stands open now is Arbusto/oo's efforts to stir up a false claim that the article does not meet the category's standards, after all, based on his blatant misinterpretation of an article that explicitly provides the needed source. Arbusto/oo's bad faith in this issue can best be seen at User talk:Arbustoo#Alansohn. Alansohn 09:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith this new user was being bullied by YOU and contacted me on my talk see below. Arbusto 21:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, this issue is closed. Alansohn is not helping the issue now by incriminating Arbustoo. Both of those editors have a past history that they need to resolve on their own. The issue at hand is between me and Alansohn. The matter has been dropped and again, I apologize for the absurdness of this. Helical Rift 09:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The category is dispute was put up for deletion where Alansohn has continued his games. You more striking is his violation of WP:POINT.[2] Arbusto 21:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Alansohn and User:Helical Rift are continung their edit war on their respective talk pages. Since I have my own issues with what's going on and would not be considered neutral, I don't want to be the one sending out warnings, but it's become very uncivil and needs to be stopped. --ArmadilloFromHell 22:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Helical Rift and I have addressed and resolved our outstanding issues, as reflected on our respective talk pages. Unless anyone else has any issues to address in this matter, it should be closed, Alansohn 19:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a personal info issue here?

I'm afraid that the editor may have exposed personal information here, but I am not sure. What is the procedure? -- Avi 18:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I meant to say Gary Weiss editor, Mantanmoreland has said categorically that they are not Gary Weiss. Arniep 18:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you spin this [3]? Another typing error? The word for what you are doing is "harassment," for which you are digging into the trash pits of the usual attack websites.--Mantanmoreland 18:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

So it is just personal attacks and incivility, not personal info. That is a relief. Personal info needs to be revereted immediately. NPA/INCIVIL can be handled through normal channels. Although I am afraid I must concur with Mantanmoreland that Arniep seems to forget WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA on a rather regular basis. -- Avi 18:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

And on just a regular basis you and Mantanmoreland go round reverting "in sync" and post sarcastic messages about vandalism with little smiley faces on userpages of anyone that has expressed criticism of Israel (actually the last bits just Avi). Arniep 18:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is called Freudian projection, Arnie . I use emoticons and smileys since body language cannot be transmitted in cyberspace. I daresay there are more non-Israel related smileys than not. Regardless, this is another example of your inability to assume good faith and what I am afraid is the projection of your own issues into others. -- Avi 19:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That is nonsense. You use the smiley faces most often when in dispute with muslim editors or people who have expressed criticism of Israel- please refrain from doing so and posting vandalism template messages telling people to "go and experiment in the sandbox" when they are clearly experienced and do not need to "play in the sandbox" and neither were their edits vandalism. Arniep 19:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid the facts would tend to disagree with you. And even not, perhaps my point is to show that I am trying toengage in open dialogue as well as see to the enforcement of wiki guidelines and policies, as opposed to some other editors that may come to mind ;) -- Avi 19:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that Avi is incorrect on this point [4]. Contrary to Arniep's feeble effort to spin it, this was an effort to reveal my supposed "identity." My understanding is that purporting to reveal the actual identity of an editor is a bannable offense whether the "outing" is correct or, as in this case, wrong. I've been attacked right and left in an attack website and tabbed the identity of a well-known author because of my edits in articles unrelated to this one. Arniep picked up those attacks and harassed me with it. He should receive the appropriate penalty, which is an indefinite block. P.S. The "in sync" business is absolute rubbish, as our respective contribs indicate.--Mantanmoreland 19:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

MM how is it your first edit today was to leap in and revert the Mahmoud Ahmedinejad article when there was an obvious edit war going on? Have you been discussing this edit war outside Wikipedia? Perhaps you would like to explain why you have used sock puppet accounts to edit the Gary Weiss article to keep it to your POV as proven here? You're the one that should be banned, not me. Arniep 19:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

And I see that you are, in addition, a meatpuppet of User:WordBomb, whom you are parroting, as further indicated by your sudden interest in Wordbomb's favorite subject[5]. As for blocks, I can learn a lot from you on that subject, as you have a half-dozen so far. [6]--Mantanmoreland 19:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think all people involved in this behaviour - whether it be incivility, false accusations, personal attacks etc, need to step back and stop editing the areas of the site where they are coming across these issues for a while. Edit something else and think about what Wikipedia is - an encyclopedia, not a battleground for personal grudges etc... Also note that personal attacks, incivility and harrassment are not acceptable. If they continue, the editor in question will end up being blocked.

If you do not want to take a break for some reason, I suggest that you go to dispute resolution.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I made an edit on Mahmoud Ahmedinejad (for the first time in many weeks) and User:Arniep, whom I have never encountered in my life, commenced the unprovoked assault on me described above. Are you suggesting that I cease editing Mahmoud Ahmedinejad because of this editor's misconduct?

"Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action." [7]--Mantanmoreland 19:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Based on the amount of arguing on this page that the 3 of you are involved in at the moment, I am advising all 3 of you to. I am going to warn the individual users using the correct templates regarding individual conduct, but it seems that the problems that are occuring are not going to stop simply because editors are warned. I am suggesting that all 3 of you calm down and realise what the purpose of this site is. What do you gain by sitting on this page and arguing between yourselves? All that will happen will be that admins come along and start blocking people for being disruptive. Rather than that happen, wouldn't you say that voluntarily calming down and doing something else for a while would be a better option?-Localzuk^(talk) 19:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I pledge to not edit Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the foreseeable future! (Trick answer.... the page was just protected!) ;) Seriously, I appreciate your effort to calm the waters.--Mantanmoreland 20:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. BTW. I am not an admin, just a friendly editor :) - ArnieP's behaviour is not appropriate and as such it should probably be taken to an WP:RFC. However, my advice was for the short term prevention of this fighting and to calm things down to allow all the editors here to understand the viewpoints of each other. -Localzuk^(talk) 20:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe WP:RFC is for content disputes. This is the correct forum for disruption/harassment, and please note another editor raised this issue here, not myself. Thanks again for your good offices and yes I realize you are just a Good Samaritan.--Mantanmoreland 20:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) WP:RFC is for article content, user conduct, and policy proposals and article conventions, so it is an applicable use of that phase of the dispute resolution process. -- Avi 20:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, this is not the appropriate forum for this behaviour... Just so you know. As stated, RFC is the place to go if you cannot come to some sort of agreement.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Arniep has also harassed me. He is a regular poster to Wikipedia Review. He engaged in what he saw as an off-wiki "investigation" into what he thinks is my personal life. He decided he knew who I was in real life, and he started posting what he thought were personal details about me on that website. He then passed what he thinks is my name to Daniel Brandt. I know it was him because he e-mailed to tell me. He said he didn't pass the information to Brandt directly, but did it via a third party, but I have no reason to believe him. However, even if that's true, he's still responsible for it. It doesn't surprise me at all that he is doing this Mantanmoreland. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the Arniep edit that (as he saw it) tried to out someone. An admin with oversight may want to get rid of it entirely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is considerably more than a content dispute, and telling three editors not to edit a page because one of them harasses and makes threats is ignoring the actual problem.

According to WP:BLOCK: "Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely, depending on the severity of the incident, and whether the blocking admin feels the incident was isolated or is likely to be repeated." Arniep has attempted to "out" at least two editors here, and shows no remorse nor desire to amend his ways. He has harrassed me, accusing me (without offering any diffs or examples to support his accusations) of wikistalking. I have had limited contact with him, and every single instance has been him making wild accusations against me while ignoring policies, up to and including replacing a signed message by me with content of his own, leaving my signature. He has never acknowledged any error, and his attitude throughout has been of a bully who attempts to paint himself as the "victim" whenever his actions have been criticised. I see no reason for an Rfc; this user is not suitable for interaction with others. Unless someone makes an incredibly strong case for not indef blocking him for harassment, "outing", and disruption, I will do so.

Background of my interactions with this user: User_talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive03#Vandalism, User_talk:Arniep#KillerChihuahua, User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Archive_3#KillerChihuahua, User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Being_Stalked_by_User - in which Arniep calls a block warning a violation of CIVIL and misrepresents Thatcher131's actions, User talk:KillerChihuahua#Your message.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There is "an incredibly strong case for not indef blocking him for harassment", Puppy. You're too late. AnnH ♫ 00:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case what can I say except that, obviously, I support your block. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, in that case it looks like we'd be better off without him. Also, my advice to not edit the page was simply to try and get all editors involved to calm down - as their dispute had rolled over to here - this seems like a pretty standard thing to ask them to do to me, as I have seen other editors and admins ask the same thing.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Community patience

Has Arniep exhausted community patience? JoshuaZ 23:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on all the above, yes. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say, definitely. I have had no personal disputes with him, but have warned him a few times. He has a long record of harassing other editors. And it's not as if he didn't know not to post personal details. He has been warned about it before. I've blocked indefinitely. AnnH ♫ 00:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The only reason I didn't request an indefblock when he tried to "out" me is that I try to ignore Wikipedia Review, and I didn't want to pay him any further attention. However, if he's going to continue with the same behavior toward others, especially on-wiki, he needs to go. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't need to have patience for this type of thing. Indefinite block is appropriate for intentionally repeatedly violating policies. - Taxman ^Talk 00:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, trolls are not allowed on Wikipedia. If you have tried every attempt to make the user pay attention to warnings, have attempted to resolve dispute to no consensus on his part, and he is still being disruptive, theres no reason not to indef block. But if he is willing to change, give him the oppritunity before calling it quits. semper fi — Moe 00:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

He has demonstrated repeatedly he has no remorse and no interest in modifying his behavior whatsoever. When applicable policies are given to him, he claims "harassment" or "stalking" or some other wrong is being done to him - and conveniently fails to respond to his own violations. I fail to comprehend in what way the repeated efforts to reach this user have been insufficient. Or are you unaware of how many chances he has already been given? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I was talking hypothetically about any user :) semper fi — Moe 00:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree and support the block. In this instance it is important to remember that this Amriep had had zero previous contact with me. I had never even heard of him before. Out of the blue he starts harrassing me for no reason whatsoever except sheer malice.--Mantanmoreland 00:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Support. If anything his already questionable behavior has been only been deteriorating. There's a Spanish proverb that says "Experience is not always the kindest of teachers, but it is surely the best." Unfortunately, in this case, Arniep seems to have learned the wrong lesson. Let's make sure we learn the right one. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

He is usually unwilling to talk or discourse, Moe, as can be seen from the actions and edit summaries here, here, and here to show a few. -- Avi 00:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well then, theres no reason to keep him here is there? Support indefblock. semper fi — Moe 00:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As per WP:BLOCK quoted by KillerChihuahua above and the evidence presented above by multiple users, I fully support the indefinitely blocking of Arniep. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Support as well. Usually the users who are always unwilling to discuss tend to be the most problematic. Khoikhoi 01:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong support for this long overdue ban. In addition to today's incident, Ariep has been repeatedly warned about his incivility, intimidation, lack of good faith, backstabbing and conspiracy mongering. Here's an attempt to reason with him a long time ago: Offensive_comments_in_Village_pump_.28policy.29_discussions, Offensive_comments_in_afd_discussions, and here's a more recent one Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive143#Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I support it as well... FeloniousMonk 03:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Throw my name in as well. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of a pile-on, I'll just add that Arniep was, I thought, trying to bait Avi on my talk page by deleting a joke Avi made there and insinuating that it was somehow an attack on me by Avi (which it most clearly wasn't). You can see it here. I wasn't that familiar with Arniep, so just let it go. But it all seems part of a pattern now. Support. IronDuke 05:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Note User:Musical Linguist has now blocked Arnie indefinitely following unanimous community consensus. Proto::type 15:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin help requested on Georgi Parvanov

Over the last few days the Georgi Parvanov article has been having some very POV external links to self published websites added by several different accounts whom I suspect are the same user. Initially an IP 207.181.10.71 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log), and more recently two user accounts Petervonpauer (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and Petervonpower (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) All edits by each account have been n regard to links to these websites. Although messages have been left by several editors regarding the links none of the accounts have responsded. Diffs [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18].

If these accounts are all the same user they have broken 3RR (though they have not been warned specifically for that), but more importantly these, links seem to be well out of keeping with our NPOV and BLP guidelines. The editors watching the articles and reverting generally seem to be in different time zones so the links stay on for hours at a time. Could an admin take a look at this? Or advise me if I need to take it to check user first, or take some other action. Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 14:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks for spotting this. The account User:Petervonpauer has already been blocked for a substantial and appropriate length of time. I have warned both the IP and the sockpuppet account User:Petervonpower that they may not be used to evade that block, since they are clear and obvious sockpuppets. If any account or IP is used to evade the block on User:Petervonpauer it will be blocked on sight. I will watchlist the Georgi Parvanov article - feel free to contact me directly if the user appears again under any account or IP. Gwernol 15:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

User name

Mr Spunky Toffee is this allowable?--Light current 01:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Whenever people mention a username they don't like, perhaps we should require they state why it's objectionable. --Golbez 01:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It could be offensive to some people. Spunk--Light current 02:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Spunk is: * a term for courage or enthusiasm" How offensive! --Golbez 03:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Amongst other things. And how does it relate to toffee?--Light current 03:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and a name such as Pussycat could be offensive to some people. To others, it's what you call a cute little kitten. Should it be banned? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Im only asking peoples opinions. I dont want to start an international incident!--Light current 03:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but please, give a reason in the future. --Golbez 03:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought the reason would be obvious. But it looks like it wasnt! 8-)--Light current 03:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Dunno as a rule of thumb I'd say, if you have to ask then it's borderline enough to let go (at worst). If the user goes on to do something they shouldn't it'll be picked up quickly enough anyway --pgk 07:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Nah, spunky toffee would take some effort to see the smut in it. I think blockable names are the ones where it takes effort to find the non-offensive meaning. We don't want to get to Beavis and Butthead land, where we start saying, "He said 'hard.' huh-huh-huh." Geogre 11:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I got away with RandyWang for quite a while, and only got a single oppose for the name at RfA. Is this so much worse? :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 13:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

OK Well those who want more background and reasons are welcome to look at my talk page wher it has been discussed at some length 8-)--Light current 14:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

User:NotAWeasel

This might interest the admins: [19], [20]. And is it possible to make a sock puppet check while at it? --Striver 11:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you meant "sock" so I changed that...if you want to get a sockpuppet check, take your evidence to WP:RFCU. Otherwise, looks like NotAWeasel (talk · contribs) needs to be blocked for violating WP:NPA--MONGO 11:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Now blocked for 48 hours for attacks and other issues.--MONGO 11:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But I think we are not very sure who is its sockpupetteer. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 15:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to message the person and ask them to cool it. I think 48 hours is excessive as per our blocking policy, though, especially since neither the NPA or guidelines actually list a time other than the "cool down block" time for this, and it looks like the user just got a bit hotheaded. I'd ask that you treat users with respect perhaps. RunedChozo 17:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Very special...so this edit summary along with the rest of nonsense was to be tolerated...I think not...and he should be happy I didn't make his block for even longer.--MONGO 23:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

PAIN case mishandling

I've been sent here by the Mediation Comitee (see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/PAIN case mishandling), so guess it's the proper place to be.

Reference: diff of the case at its removal

Controversy to be solved: There were three contradictory resolutions by different administrators:

• Shell Kinney warned me (in my user talk) for personal attacks for using the descriptive and relevant terms "nazi" and "racist". She did not mention the warn in the case. The warn read:

Calling another editor a nazi, regardless of whether you think it is true, is completely unacceptable. If you continue, you may be blocked for personal attacks. Please find a more civil way to discuss your concerns about the article. Shell babelfish 19:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Durova stated that:

Administrator blows referee whistle - This is not the place to debate ideology. Per the instructions at the top of this noticeboard, page diffs are required for reports here - not unsupported allegations or links to Wikipedia discussions. I did a search on Yahoo and did find Nazi websites that use "Thulean" and "Thule" in their titles, so - strong as the statement from Sugaar was - it appears to be fact-based and valid. There are two sides to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA that apply to this particular discussion: first, standards of civility at Wikipedia do not depend on what ideology an editor holds; second, discourse on certain sensitive topics may require the judicious use of terms that would otherwise be eschewed as hot button and inflammatory (such as when the topic at hand actually is Nazism and racism). This noticeboard cannot mediate a content dispute. It can evaluate and take appropriate actions in response to personal attacks. DurovaCharge! 23:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(bold type is mine to emphasize the contradictions with Shell Kenney's warn).

• Luna Santin stated:

*PAIN is not a dispute resolution forum. Not to be too harsh, but we need to keep things here neat, orderly, and to a pretty narrow subject material. I'm interested in personal attacks; I'll keep an eye on this for the time being, but I'd encourage all of you to just try to settle down a bit and resolve your differences through the usual dispute resolution process instead of trying to get each other blocked. If attacks continue or escalate, please provide diffs to support any reports made here. Thanks in advance. Luna Santin 09:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

(a no relevance resolution).

Furthermore I've been reading WP:PA and WP:CIV (offcial policies) and neither of them seem to justify the interpretation of Shell Kenney at all. Only WP:EQ (a guideline) seems somehow to support her reasoning (but not very clearly).

Additionally I feel that her promt archive of the case without a clear resolution was also wrong.

Context: Not sure how relevant this may be. But it's surely necessary to mention that this is part of a much complex contrversy surrounding the White people article, an entry that (sadly) has been subject to constant POV attacks and vandalizing by people of clear white supremacist ideology. It was only in this context that my remarks were made and the affected user, never willing to discuss my perceptions on his motivations, started victimizing himself and wikilawyering on all this. Right now the article is under full protection.

It's also maybe convenient to notice that another user (User:LSLM) was also treted this same way by the same administrator, with even harshest warns for simmilar alleged faults (again not supported by PA or CIV policies).

Request: that the case is reviewed according to PA and CIV policies, giving a clear resolution, and that, if my point is accepted, the warn is offcially removed.

--Sugaar 11:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone a Nazi is a personal attack. Period. No 'ifs', nor 'buts'. "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Calling someone a Nazi is commenting on the contributor. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you quote the relevant WP:PA paragraph that implies that? I can see it nowhere.

"Nazi" is mainly a shorthand for "neonazi", which is a real ideology, equivalent to "white supremacist" and other tags. It was fully relevant for the discussion, as after all it was about his POV modifications (POV-pushing) of the article.

I am sure that other ideologies such as conservatism, liberalism, socialism, anarchism, etc. do not have the same protection. Why this difference?

Also, just for the purpose of clarification: if "nazi" is considered a PA (what I think is wrong according to WP:PA), is it the same with "racist", "neonazi", "white supremacist", etc.? Is it the same with "conservatist", "liberal", "socialist", "communist", "anarchist",

"rightist", "leftist", etc.? Why or why not? --Sugaar 12:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It makes a judgement of the individual. Any of those above tags might be a personal attack, or might not be, depending on the manner in which it was intended and in which it was taken. If that tag was used to pass judgement on the other user, it constitutes a personal attack. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 13:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult to say, specially for me who was the one making those comments. I can only say that all them were relevant to the discussion (a new user, mass-editing a page with a large history of the same kind of attacks, with clearly that POV) and, later, the "aggraviated" user came to my user talk to push the issue further. Being my reply on my own user-talk page used as main evidence in the case, if I understood correctly. It's all still there if you want to check.

The ideological matter is clearly relevant to the discussion and, informally, I was reprobated also (by the same admin) for using the terms in abstract: as descriptive of the ideology being POV-pushed. Much of the same happened to LSLM, who was severely warned, I think (none of the warns is sufficiently clear), for explaining in the dicussion page what Nazi Nordicism was and is, again relevant to the discussion. --Sugaar 14:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sugaar - I don't see a conflict to resolve. You probably should have been more careful in your choice of terms, you're obviously bright enough to see that, and nobody other than yourself seems to want to pursue this - what, exactly, do you need resolving? Proto::type 14:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Where on WP:PA (or whatever relevant policy) says that that is wrong (I don't see it anywhere).

If a case can be archived with no clear resolution, as was this case (three contradicting ones).

If abstract description of an ideology as relevant to content dispute (as LSLM did before he was severely warned, apparently) is also a fault and why.

Thanks, --Sugaar 14:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, Sugaar, what do you want to happen? You were asked not to call anyone a Nazi (or a nazi). You were not blocked for this, you were asked, politely, not to do it again. Thulean acting like a child was not helpful either, but this is not relevant. Instead of accepting that you were wrong to call someone a nazi, or accepting that you will not from now on, you are quoting a bunch of policies. Please, you are making yourself look worse. Accept that you were not right, don't call anyone a nazi again, and move on. Proto::type 14:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to be thorough and to remove any doubt, I figured it might be prudent to cite the precise policy sections - all from WP:NPA...

• There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors.
• Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.
• Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.

The primary characteristic that defines a personal attck, and thus the primary reason that "User:X is a nazi/liberal/left/commie/etc" is a personal attack, is because it is a comment on the contributor rather than on that persons contributions.

It's worth noting by the way that PAIN cases are not held on the board for debates and disputes between either users or administratrs - that's what "user talk" is for. Pain cases are typically routinely archived (or rather, removed from the page to be found only through oldid's) soon after they have been dealt with by an administrator. There was no imprper action in your case with regards to that - just standard procedure. The WP:NPA policy is pretty specific about what is and what isn't a personal attack, and so arbocom or RFC style cases are not required.

As to the three opposing admin interpretations, I don't really see that they are each mutually exclusive. All three note a problem, two of them note strong statements made by yourself, and while one of those (Durova's) wasn't a clear ruling one way or the other, Shell's was a firm ruling. From that perspective, what's happened is that al three administrators have noted a problem, two of them have gone as far as to say that your behaviour was at least marginal, and one of those has gone as far as issuing a warnig in accordance with the exact spirit and intent of WP:NPA Crimsone 14:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quotes, I could not find the third one where says: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. But now I did. I was a little disappointed that nothing of this was clear in the hearing nor the resolution. But still I see how can my comments be understood as PAs. So far nobody had been clear enough.

I am concerned nevertheless that what I said in my user own talk was used to build up the case against me. I guess there's no specific rule that says otherwise but truly it makes me feel less confident about freely speaking or even engaging in communication at all with certain people. This does not favor free discussion, specially when things get hot.

As per the contraditing resolutions, I do find some fault in that: there is doubt on which one is the valid one. If one says my comments are valid (or somewhat valid), the other says the case has no relevance and the third warns me, there is a clear conflict of resolutions. I don't know how you manage this, but typically that should mean either discussion among the contradicting administrators to get a unique ruling or the lesser penalty for the alleged infractor, in this case me. Shell's ruling wasn't even in the case: only in my talk page. This is one of my concerns. Though guess I'm powerless to push it further.

I am concerned about the warn indeed. Not so much for how much can it weight against me in possible future cases, maybe against the same person or a very simmilar character, but specially because it served this user as means to campaing to drive away contributors (see WP:DE) and POV-push the article.

This is all I have to say. --Sugaar 20:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Pop art et al

I would like to ask administrators for help at the article Pop art. The sections about Origin of the term "pop art" and Pop art in Britain were edited by an editor, Ottex, whos main indent seems to be to establish John McHale as the main artist of pop art. This includes an attempts to change the attribution of Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing? from Richard Hamilton to McHale based on original resarch by McHale's son, which as far as I can see was not published by reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I and other editors have removed some of this edits per BLP concerns. Now Rory55 has posted this messages to my talk page asking for adminisrativ intervention. As his last message mentions legal actions and Ottex keeps on inserting content violating WP:BLP I also think an administrative intervention may be necessary here. The same applys to the article about John McHale (artist). Thank you. --VirtualDelight 16:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)--

I second this. It was posted over at the BLP noticeboard last week, which is when I stubbed the "So Appealling" article after Ottex had a rather long statement regarding McHale, and later a message to editors about apparent censorship of the position. I can't find anything about this attribution issue, but I'm notoriously bad at Google, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

history merges

User:Benzamin's article move methology features a creative interpretation of the the GFDL. So far I found the following, I think this is all of them:

• [21] to [22]
• [23] to [24]
• [25] to [26] (which I've undone before inspecting his contributions closer)
• [27] to [28]
• [29] to [30]
• [31] to [32]
• [33] to [34]
• [35] to [36]

The problem here is that according to my very favourite policy, WP:UE, the new titles are correct, so while the move method is not, I can't just revert him, instead there's a lot of admin bitchwork. --user:Qviri 04:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I merged the first one listed, but then I got to thinking, should these really be in English? Are they really best known to English speakers under the English translated title? Fucking Åmål for example, has an English distribution title, but it's rarely referred to as that by English speakers. (and technically there's a whole page for requesting history merges, WP:SPLICE).--W.marsh 16:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out SPLICE, I shall use it from now on. With regards to titles, this is the first time I heard the English titles (maybe with the exception of Mr. Wołodyjowski). Further, a lot of these, especially by Bareja, feature lots of references that anyone not well-immersed in the Polish culture wouldn't get (thus wouldn't find the movie funny and watch it in the first place...), and someone who is immersed would use the Polish title. I'm obviously biased here as a Pole.

I think that we should do a merge (on pages needing one, that is; Man - Woman Wanted obviously doesn't) and then let the naming get decided by a WP:RM. --user:Qviri 18:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning removal

User:Elysianfields is repeatedly removing warnings from his talk page. I reverted him, and he switched it back. Someone else reverted him, and he left a mildly rude message on my userpage. I think I should just let it drop so as not to be a bully, but if there's some standard way of dealing with this, I don't know about it. Thought I'd mention it here even though my suspicion is that nothing needs to be done. --Masamage 22:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Your suspicion is correct. Nothing needs to be done. If he vandalizes Wikipedia, warn him. If he is nothing but a vandal account, he will surely be blocked eventually. semper fi — Moe 23:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

User page and VfD pasted on article talk page

I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure that pasting user pages on the talk pages of articles is a no-no. A user placed an advertisement for his religious group on the Talk:Ebionites page. Directly, below this, there is a VfD for an article about the same group that was speedily deleted and page protected. The user is taking the opportunity to protest the deletion, which is ok, but we have procedures to do this, rather than using another article to make your point. Please remove all this stuff so that we can stick to topics relevant to the current article. Thanks. Ovadyah 23:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed. It was a WP:POINT action to start with; throw in the "complete with ... one admin that may had been duped by Ovadyah", and the fact that it is not actively discussing the article in question (as stated at the top: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ebionites article"), and it was a sitting duck for removal. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Silentbob4477

User:Silentbob4477 has once again given himself Barnstars. (Revision as of 2006-11-11T13:16:15) one he give himself, and the other is a copy paste with another signature. The is the second time he has done this. He also has a past history of contributing to the Percy "Nobby" Norton/hoax issue Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Percy Nobby Norton - which he perpetuates on his user page. He did not sign his post there - but it says

This article was deleted and recreated on Nov 2 with the intention of providing a completely factual account of Norton's life. I am asking Starblind to give me 1 hour of my life back after he so blatantly deleted this article. STARBLIND YOU ARE AN ELITIST AUTOCRAT WHO TAKES PLEASURE FROM CRUSHING THE DREAMS OF THE WORKING CLASS WHO WILL ONE DAY RISE UP AGAINST YOU. YOU AUTHORITARIAN PIG-DOG. You have yet failed to provide a decent response explaining why this article was deleted again. I assure you, I will recreate this article under differnet names every week for the next year on every different IP adress I have access to. There is no limit to how much I will write and I warn you, a LOT of spare time has come across me and I will find it enjoyable to torment you motherfuckers.

Do we really ne4ed this? --ArmadilloFromHell 08:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at that AFD, it would also appear that there is a lot of, either, sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry going on also - with significant numbers of new editors only having posted to that AFD.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that also, if I knew how and had the time, I guess I could request a trace, it almost certainly would show something. --ArmadilloFromHell 18:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Meh. I considered deleting the hoax from his User page, but I guess it does no harm. Forging other people's sigs isn't appropriate, though. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about barnstars, but I don't like his using wikipedia as a free web host for perpetuating the hoax. I've removed it from the user page on those grounds. Friday (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I took a tour through is contribs, and I see no redeeming qualities in this user. Apart from the edits to that deleted article, about 90% of his edits are to his userpage, and a good portion of the remainder is worthless. We keep him around why? --Golbez 10:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

He has had a short term block for vandalism, but it should be permanent, as far as sockpuppets, note Enknowed and these two related histories [37] and [38] --ArmadilloFromHell 15:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• I filed a RFCU for Silentbob4477 and Enknowed. Hopefully, that'll show what's what. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him earlier today for his vandalism to User:Ryulong (he marked it for speedy deletion as nonsense -- at the very best a strong WP:POINT violatoin). I support a community ban here -- anyone else? Mangojuice^talk 16:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried hard to assume good faith with this user, even when he cloned my user page, complete with barnstars and the admin template. But looking at the trouble he's caused versus the actual contributions he's made (nil as far as I can see), I've got to agree now with Mangojuice. --Guinnog 16:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Silentbob4477 came back as Likely. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that Silentbob has been indef-blocked, could someone drop a block on Enknowed as well? I'd do it, but I don't have The Button. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. For what it's worth I should have some of the blame for these recent shenanigans: I cleaned out the Nobby/Briefs sock drawer last week, and I forgot all about these two. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Joining the party totally late here, but I think the OP shouldn't have begun the post with something about self awarding barnstars. It seems that this user's other activities are way more serious than self awarding barnstars. That offense is pretty minor compared to forging sigs and WP:POINT violating edits. ~ crazytales_{-My talk-}^{-Your talk-} 00:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

User:James James

Hi, I noticed that [[User:James James]] had been renamed to User:Rose Garden at around February. There's a new User:James James who joined Wikipedia in August, who's now vandalising Wikipedia.

• History for User:James James
• Logs for User:James James
• Contributions of User:James James

I posted about him at WP:HD and was told that it might be worth mentioning here. Could there be a problem with User:James James, related to hijacking? --Kjoonlee 15:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, some of User:Rose_Garden's signatures on talk pages still link to User:James_James, so I'm a bit worried. --Kjoonlee 15:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

For the lack of any useful edits, I've gone ahead an blocked the new James James and restored the user and talk page redirects to User:Rose Garden. Thanks, Kjoonlee. ×Meegs 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This is why it's always a good idea to, after a username change, re-create the old account name to prevent impersonation. ~ crazytales_{-My talk-}^{-Your talk-} 00:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Memphis Improvisational Theatre

Memphis Improvisational Theatre (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

I've nominated this one for deletion (AFD here). Looks like it needs to be deleted due to total lack of third-party sources. In the meantime, there's been an ongoing revert war on the article and sniping back and forth on the Talk Page and editors' Talk pages. Should somebody address this, or should we just wait for the AFD to conclude? Fan-1967 16:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Warn the users with civility and NPA warnings. Report the reverters at WP:AN3RR. ~ crazytales_{-My talk-}^{-Your talk-} 00:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Treva135

Where shall we start with the editor and his short but eventful career -

Maybe his charming and pleasant userpage. Here he is again making useful comments to users in disputes with other editors.

But don't worry it's not all userspace stuff, here he is trying to speedy delete a stub about a City because it's a waste of space, restoring vandalism in the process and then trying to recreate a article that was deleted yesterday.

Hey but he did create an article, well by create I mean straight copy it from the internet - but don't worry it's ok because I should get a life

--Charlesknight 19:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

User has now had his earlier indefinite block reinstated due to continued personal attacks despite warnings. Gwernol 20:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Evading his block here --Charlesknight 09:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Article for Speedy Keep

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beit_Hanoun_November_2006_incident; users Burgas00 and Striver (to name just two of them) have been trying to POV this article. When they failed shortly after its creation, user Striver created a POV fork at Israeli_shelling_of_Beit_Hanoun which has been up for deletion. Burgas00 has now created a bad faith AFD trying to get the original article deleted in order to protect his friend's blatant POV fork. Can we get an admin to speedy keep please? RunedChozo 22:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. As an uninvolved party (with no POV on any Middle East conflicts whatsoever), I find edits such as [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] to be "canvassing", and an attempt to create a possibly-false sense of concensus. Let some more opinions from those who weren't solicited come in. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, forking is not the answer. Speedy kept, see my closing statement for details. El_C 23:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out an abuse of the process is not "canvassing." RunedChozo 23:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly unacceptable to send mass talk messages to editors that expressed only a particular viewpoint on the previous debate, such as only "Keep" voters or only "Delete" voters is. That's what you did, judging by the other AfD and the opinions of those who you spammed had. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

BUT, this was not a "re-consideration of a previous debate", this was a bad-faith nomination by someone who didn't like that his friend's POV fork was up for deletion and nominated the original for deletion out of spite. RunedChozo 23:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's still canvassing. However, the debate was closed (I'm still seeing what other people on IRC think of the close, some are indicating DRV, although I'm not too sure I want to), so lets just move on. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As one of the users contacted, I was otherwise uninvolved other than a recent vote on the PoV fork. However, I could not fault the reasoning and it was a bad faith nomination, as the admins have agreed.--Rosicrucian 00:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, the more people dispute the close on IRC, the more likely the decision was correct! ;) /IRC wave El_C 08:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Too true! That's why I'm letting it slide - because I now agree with the close. I apologise for my hasty conclusions, which were misguided (as I've found out from some background reading). Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• "I'm still seeing what other people on IRC think of the close" is that where these things are now decided? Giano 08:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No. I was just seeing if my view of the incident was marginalised, before I wentto DRV. Thankfully, I realised it was a misguided view, and so I didn't make a fool of myself by sending it to DRV. In the end, it would have been the community who decided what to do with the article; my intention was to see if there was just cause to send it through that process. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

24.91.132.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)/76.19.123.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This user vandalized Micropachycephalosaurus, and then from another IP vandalized it again three minutes later, in the hopes the first vandalism wouldn't be caught. I'm normally quite lenient with blocks, and do normally start out very small (24 hours), but since this IP has never been used before to edit Wikipedia it doesn't appear a long block will do much harm, and may do some good. Review appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think a month on each is excessive. Both the edits were obvious vandalism - they would only not be caught if the reverter wasn't paying attention. (I've seen vandals make a vandalistic edit, then make a minor non-vandal edit to hide it from the 'last diff' link, but that wasn't the case here). The IPs could be dynamic - as those were the only edits, I think the blocks should be shortened to ~24 hours. They can be lengthened if the vandalism is resumed. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for the advice. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, 24.91 looks like an open proxy or zombie per [48] so I indef'ed it. It was well-planned vandalism. The other one looks like its probably ok, although it does not have an RDNS entry, which makes me suspicious. Thatcher131 03:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, it looks like the blacklists have entire Comcast ranges because Comcast doesn't seem to give a damn about its customers spamming, but nothing indicates this particular IP is an open proxy. Reset to 24 hours. Thatcher131 03:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Either way, I'll be watching for mischief from these two. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Google hits must not be taken as a yardstick in Asian related AfD's

Google hits must not be taken as a yardstick in Asian related AfD's. Newspapers of Vernacular Languages may have millions of readership. For example, in India every state has its own language. There are more than 20 widely speaking native languages in India. But the news reports from the newspapers of such languages are not available in google search.Take the case of Malayala Manorama Newspaper. Currently this Malayalam language newspaper has a readership of over 9 million, with a circulation base of over 1.4 million copies according to Audit Beureu of Circulations. Manorama is one of the India's largest selling and most widely read news paper. There are more than 50 such newspapers in India. News reports from such dailies are not available in google eventhough it have millions of readership. But news reports from English dailies with 1000 or 2000 copies are available in google search. It is really misleading...Isn't it...? In this context of notability tests based on google hits may be a worthless, foolish effort. In such circumstances we must consider the words of native wikipedians with more importance. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 05:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, may I ask how this "requires administrator intervention"? I think it'd be better suited to WP:VP, more specifically WP:VPP, rather than here. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/FYI ??? WAS 4.250 06:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been taken there. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone wants to move on this quickly (Bogus looking RFC)

Straight forward trolling I think. Looks to be a repeat of that nonsense RFC that was started on Sarah Ewart last week,. --Charlesknight 11:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah looks to be a sockpuppet express - history has two editors - both new users, both just making edits to that RFC. --Charlesknight 11:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted. Someone else seems to have blocked the users and rolled back the changes to the RFC page. Morwen - Talk 11:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity username

There is an editor whose username is Escriva, the name of Opus Dei's founder. Lafem 03:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody else has that surname? Anywhere? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's just "Escriva" it's probably fair game.--Rosicrucian 04:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any possibility of confusing the editor with Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not seen any User:Bush nor User:Blair. Anyway, I leave it to your good judgement. Lafem 10:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There is User:Arbustoo; "arbusto" is "bush" in Spanish. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

An imposter! Oh noes!! --Masamage 19:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

political agenda

User talk:Molobo he uses his discussions site for political statements of dubious nature. like germans and russians formning anti-polish alliances, or alleged insults against poles by the city of new york. I cant really imagine that political activism was the intention of the user pages--Tresckow 13:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Marudubshinki and bots again

User:Trubbles and User:Drubbles have both appeared, claiming to be bots operated by User:Marudubshinki. I indeffed one and User:Gwernol the other. I left a message on Maru's talk page; if I remember correctly, he got into trouble before for running unauthorised bots. I wondered if this was someone trying to get him into more trouble? His user page claims that he has left the project and he has made no edits under that account for a month. I'd be grateful for some second opinions on the matter. Thanks. --Guinnog 13:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well done on blocking Trubbles. Gwernol's just blocked the other. I wouldn't worry if they belonged to someone. They are just spammers, be them bots or not. -- Szvest ····> ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 14:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki Maru was desyopped and may be blocked for using bots. However, Maru's problem was repeatedly running unapproved bots and self-unblocking; his bot edits were generally useful (interwiki links, fixing redirects, etc). In fact, there have been one or two anonymous bots since he "left" that I think were him. But this looks like someone flying a false flag. Thatcher131 14:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Thatcher on this, looking back at Maru's history it doesn't seem like his pattern of bot behavior. These accounts were outright spammers, I'm not even convinced they were bots. Probably some spammer out to try and hide his tracks and failing, as they usually do. We should all probably stay alert for more in the next few days. Gwernol 14:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Or it could be some troll who didn't get the memo trying to create a theme, like those "automated bot run by Jason Gastrich" vandals a while ago. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think these accounts have anything to do with Marudubshinki other than trying to get him in trouble joe job style, and have denied their unblock requests and protected their talk pages. I think it is just some random troll, nothing to see here, move along. Kusma (討論) 14:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

User:MawiWorld and User:KarotWorld

User:MawiWorld was blocked a bit ago. User:KarotWorld began posting very similar content shortly thereafter. Suggest a possible IP block might be in order. Waitak 13:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Same fate for the second! Szvest ····> ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 14:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

We can't do direct blocks on accounts' IPs because only checkuser can find them out, and that would only be justified if the vandalism became much more difficult to deal with. There's still the autoblocker but it's not 100% dependable. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

User: 204.39.176.32

Anon user is going around blanking talk pages, removing unsorced info, and generally being a pain on Detroit related articles edit history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isotope23 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Blanking talk pages is annoying, but why not warn him before bringing him here? And removing unsourced info is a good thing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha, Sorry that should have said "sourced" info... yes, removing unsourced info isn't much of a problem is it.

I've run into this person before (I'm presuming it is User:Mitchellandness1 editing from his IP based on the edits and the IP address) and a warning isn't going to do any good. He vacillates between fairly useful edits and complete POV or template removal edits. Regardless, he appears to be done for the day, so it appears no action is required.--Isotope23 15:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Second opinion on matter

Recently a friend of mine got banned by User:Crzrussian. The admin in question claimed that my friend had been trolling, and thus banned Uncle Mart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) his account, his 2nd account, and his IP indefinately. He later went on to vandalize his User page User:Uncle Mart removing any content he had, and on the talk page of Uncle Marts profile Crzrussian claims that Uncle Mart had deleted several entries from talk pages, where the fact is he only removed entries on his own talk page. When i asked the Crzrussian to elaborate on the matter at his talk page, he refused which brings me here. (Cloud02 16:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

Regardless of what the first account may or may not have done, sockpuppetry to avoid a block is unnaceptable, and does not show good faith in the least. --InShaneee 16:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming the block was in order, then marking the page User:Uncle Mart with that tag standard practice, and not vandalism. edits like this are unhelpful. I have been trying to find which article it was which was deleted to cause this in the first place - can you tell me where it was created? Further, your "friend" would do well to read Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography. Morwen - Talk 16:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Uncle mart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). See also personal attacks on talk (deleted of course). - crz crztalk 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, this user has already addressed queries to several administrators and to the unblock list. - crz crztalk 17:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the abuse that had been placed on Talk:Uncle mart, I think a block was entirely in order. If User:Uncle Mart wishes to be unblocked, then I feel that an apology would be necessary first. I shall be happy to unprotect his talk page such that this can happen. If User:Uncle Mart wishes there to be an article about him, he could provide references to music press articles about him, and other people could write one. Morwen - Talk 17:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Uncle Mart must also understand and be prepared to abide by policies including verifiability and autobiography is bad and the Music notability guidelines. Thatcher131 17:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I categorically oppose unblocking uncle mart, apology or not. I received quite a bit of trolling from this person and his various identities. - crz crztalk 18:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This just got bought to my attention so I suppose I should have a quick say in the matter... Firstly the original incedent was over me creating a page, the page was marked for deletion and things went silly, I should have at this point backed down and respected the original wiki admins word and I admit this was a mistake on my part, I would like to apologise to the admins I was rude to over this, im not going to make excuses as that doesnt excuse my behavior, after some time I decided that (reluctantly) I would accept the decision (and will continue to do so, the question of me making a page is no longer the issue and when Crzrussian decided to get involved this dispute was LONG over with). the next thing I know is that my talk page was deleted and replaced with an older version by Crzrussian, I went to his talk page and explained this and asked him to not edit MY talk page and said something along the lines of "this has been sorted out now", the next thing I know is that im banned, not only by account but by IP. Obviously this was unfair as I never actually broke any rules whatsoever. I then thought I should create a new account and speak to another wiki admin about this unfair treatment, I made a new account, made a user page and before I even had the chance to contact anyone Crzrussian had taken his vendetta to new extremes and decided to use the "sock puppet" excuse, despite me having edited any other articles than my own user page. Now I dont know what "trolling" he's talking about to be honest, because the orginal dispute with the other admins had finished long before he got involved, perhaps he thinks he has more authority than other admins and that they handled me badly, well he was very off the mark, despite my original bad behavior I can say the original admins were friendly from the start, reasonable and did everything they could to explain it while being fair and neutral, CrzRussian on the other hand.....

Suffice to say that im not really interested in getting my account back but I would like the pages he locked deleted as these contain my real name and despite the saying "all publicity is good publicity" I would rather not have my real name posted here as I also have an alias and an artist name, which I would not like connections to be made between.

I would also like to request that Crzrussian be removed from being a wiki admin as he clearly cannot perform the duties that the other admins are, he has the rouge thing on his page and after looking on google it appears that the man is pretty hated in general, being hated is one thing but when you're hated because you cant do a simple job properly will cause problems for wiki (its lucky he decided to attack me as I dont consider defacing pages to be smart or clever like he does, but there are plenty of people out there that im sure he will annoy in the future that will take their anger out on wiki, which is not good for anyone). Im happy as the situation stands in my area, I dont need my account back but I would like to apologise to the original admins for my bad behaviour, I was out of line and I admit it, however Crzrussian gets no apology as I've got nothing to apologise for. Its up to you guys what you want to do now because personally, I dont really care, I'll still use wiki, I'll still donate to articles but only on the condition that Crzrussian doesnt harrass me like he has in the last two days. Im afraid he is a detriment to the site and I think its pretty clear to see that from his talkpage, he is also a perfect example of someone who abuses the little power he has in life. Thanks to the other admins, and the people who came to my defence in this, I appreciate it very much, however this is my last words on the subject, I dont hold wiki responsible for his behavior and still view wiki as one of the neatest things to happen on the internet, but I hope that wiki can see that people like Crzrussian only ruin this great site. One other thing I thought I should mention is that crz banning every single IP I happen to use doesnt affect me at all, my IP changes very fequently, this is something I cant help and is not to avoid bans, but by dong this he is stopping many potential wikipedians from using the site just because of some silly childish vendetta he has against me. Anyway, thats my say on the matter and im sure its in good hands providing no more of my posts I make go missing or change. Martin Tibbs 85.178.238.225 19:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Just want to add something quickly... "I categorically oppose unblocking uncle mart, apology or not. I received quite a bit of trolling from this person and his various identities." I dont want unbanning for one, and thinking you would get an apology is pretty laughable im afraid, but you're welcome to keep hoping. My other point about the Various identities, hmmmmm, well you see if you check the account that you banned you'll see it only edited its own userpage, and nothing else so I have no idea where you get this various personalities from, I think you probably attatch more importance to yourself than you deserve, I started an account after and you banned it, you saying you got abuse from me is laughable as it simply didnt happen, but to be honest I wouldnt expect something truthful to come from you anyway, its clear that you saw the situation had ended and I wasnt banned, and yet you decided to deface my talk page to try and provoke me into breaking a rule so you had a reason to ban me, you couldnt manage that so you banned me anyway. so once again, im not requesting an unblock, im not requesting my pages unlocked, im just requesting and stating that you do a terrible "job" here and wiki would be better off without you. Peace out. btw, when replying to me, try to remember I wont be reading this as I have more important things to do, thats not meant as a jab but you have wasted quite alot of my time already and I dont have anymore for you. 85.178.238.225 19:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

User refuses to discuss

User Encyclopaedia Editing Dude contiuously removes links to the Soviet archives, declassified in early 1990s from Josef Stalin, insterting links to an eyewitness interview made by BBC and other biased and/or non-reliable sources. He refuses to talk and removes my comments from his talk page [49]. He also said that he will break any rules to restore his version. I requested RFC on this topic and in two weeks received only one comment (in favor of my version). Please do something to make the user to discuss his changes.--Nixer 17:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You say to someone "please stop adding Nazi propaganda" and expect them to discuss matters with you? Can I suggest you merge your version into his rather than revert again. It is silly to flip between A and B when we should be at F or possibly J. Morwen - Talk 17:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

He could do it with mine, but he deleted my sources. And if I do merge, he will revert again. But this outcome will be acceptable if possible (although his sources do not meet the WP:RS criteria.--Nixer 17:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the specifics of the issue and the sources: personally I'd try that in an editing dispute to determine the precise sticking point - from the outside this doesn't look at all clear cut atm, sorry. Morwen - Talk 17:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Inserting Nazi propaganda does not make article about Hitler NPOV, it makes disgrace to Wiki. Insterting Stalinist propaganda does make article about Stalin, NPOV it makes it disgrace to Wiki. Whitewashing Stalin and presenting Stalin's crimes as interest free loan giveaway is pure evil.//Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 18:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you call archival sources declassified in 1990s "stalinist propaganda"? Just the opposite: your BBC interviws with not known by anybody pesons (and probably, Nazi-supporters) is just propaganda. Besides, anecdotic evidence is clearly prohibited by WP:RS.--Nixer 18:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution: This page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process.

This is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If you came here to complain about the actions of a user or administrator, or if your problem is a content issue and does not need the attention of people with administrator access, then please follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include: mediation, requests for comment, and as a last resort requests for arbitration.

Vandalizing personal page & Death threat issued to Tamilians and WP:NCSLC members

A vandal who has vandalized my page twice with personal attack phrases and also other pages many times has been caught. Poor guy he forgot to turn off his signature script and the user is none other than a registered user who previously vandalised the Velupillai Prabhakaran page - SnowolfD4. Note the ones below:

1). Please check this topic "F..ing Demalu, we want you all dead. Your and your NCSLC bull. Need some good 'ole lynch. --snowolfD4( talk / @ )". He has vandalized my userpage and talk page with foul language and racist remarks. He had to do two changes, one with his signature and the other with his signature removed and both of them from this IP 208.101.4.34. He is caught redhanded trying to vandalize pages with his signature turned on by mistake.

2). His post in my talk page which is clearly personal attack/vandalism

3). FYI, the user has already been blocked thrice in Wikipedia. He has resorted to using abusive language and 'Demalu' means 'Tamilians' and he basically wants all 'F** Tamilians to die, which quite evidently is a bad racist remark and also my WP:NCSLC project closed, which goes completely against Wiki policies.

4). Please notice that the same IP/User has involved in anonymous IP Edits Killing Wiki editors, abusive language and blanking out in another page and also killing of all Tamilians in another usepage as evident from his contributions page

I kindly request you to step in and take stern action so that it can be avoided in the future. Thanks, and expecting your prompt action to maintain Wikipedia norms. If he is continuing even after three warnings including a 24-hour block, I think he is really going berserk. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 17:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Note - Blocked indef by Naconkantari. -- Szvest ····> ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 17:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I am not sure if the IP has been blocked or the user as the case seems to be the user masking his IP and mistakenly posting his signature. Can someone please help me with the Checkuser procedure? Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 17:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have done a checkuser procedure I don't know if I have done the right thing. I kindly request an admin to help me with this procedure or possibly figure out the relationship between the signature left on my userpage by the user and the IPs he has used. Thanks and looking forward to this mess being cleaned up soon. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 18:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit summaries

I don't know if it's possible or not, but if so, indef banned user Won Dong Bon's edit summaries (Won Dong Bon (talk · contribs)) should be removed from edit histories. Thanks. Deli nk 18:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Send an e-mail request to WP:RFO. Admins could do it but it would be a huge task. Should be simple for oversight. Thatcher131 18:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking care of it, as well as Wang sang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Messier Mark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Put Rick Tocchet Hall of Fame (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Air Canada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Ttubdeah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Gamaliel 18:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Found another one, Eavis & Butthead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This might take a while. Gamaliel 19:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Lmks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dodnuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Might need some help here. Gamaliel 19:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Still need cleaning: Ttubdeah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Lmks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), SlapshotGoal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Dodnuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Gamaliel 19:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I am working on Ttubdeah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Tizio 19:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Tizio 20:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fakir005 request for Adminstrators' Intervention against Rampant spamming of Wikipedia Content by Vendors' themselves

Zedo page has a note stating that this Zedo description looks like an advertisement and needs editing. One user DoGooderjohnnyD stated in its discussion page on October 6 that he has notified zedo that this page needs correction because it is their product and they know it best how to edit it. I take the liberty of reproducing the DoGooderJohnnyD statement below:

I notified Zedo so that they can correct this article. I'm sure they could do a much better job than I could of describing their products and services. -/s/ -User:DoGooderJohnnyD|DoGooderJohnnyD 21:24, 6 October 2006

This is obviously a violation of Wikipedia policy of independence of the wikipedia content. The vendor himself can't be relied upon to provide an independent and correct description of content describing itself.

I've reviewed the following Wikipedia Content Technology-Internet-Adserving and find that the whole section is completely in correct. There is no mention of the fact that the ad serving companies place the ads of their clients on the web pages with the permission of the the publishers of the web pages and they share the revenues produced when the visitors to the webpages click on those ads with the publishers of the web pages. I edited the content of adserving to reflect the point. DoGooderJphnny called it defacement and reverted it. Further he has provided a list of companies that he calls ad serving companies. All these compnies can't be verified as Ad serving Companies except by the statements made by these companies. Indeed the search engines (Yahoo, Google, AOL, Iwon) call all these companies as Adwares, Trojan Horses that invade the web sites and instal their software without the permission of the publishers of the websites. For example see the keywords zedo-adware, powered by zedo, remove zedo, zedo trojan horse and so on.

All these companies are doing tremendous damage to the reputation of Wikipedia to promote themselves in search engines. For example Zedo has gotten itself listed together with Wikipedia under the Keyword Zedo-Wikipedia (adserver).

I do believe this matter deserves Adminstrator attention and intervention fakir005 21:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

He made that comment on October 6. Looking at the history of ZEDO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), there doesn't appear to be any intervention by IPs or "new" Wikipedia users, so I fail to see what exactly is "deserving of admin attention and intervention." This seems like more a content dispute ... unless you can cite any questionable edits on this or any other page. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 22:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous Jats

On a request, I ran a check on some of the suspiciously new users in this discussion. At least three of the users who commented there werealmost certainly the same person: Pethj (talk · contribs), Vickop (talk · contribs), and Sbei78 (talk · contribs). I hope an another admin can look into this. This is an old AfD, but it may be worth rerunning as well. There are other related AfDs that soe of these accounts commented on, and there may be more sock discoveries when I go over those. Dmcdevit·t 23:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of my comments from the village pump

I need help on this. I don't understand what I did wrong. User:Charlesknight removed my comments on the policy section of the village pump. I was trying to make a point that either an article that violated policy should be deleted or policy should be rewritten to reflect actual practice. Mr Spunky Toffee 01:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where you have discussed this with the User in question before coming here. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

He removed your comments because they looked to be vote soliciting at the pump. Direct solicitation, while I don't know of a policy against it, is often frowned upon. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:SPAM#Canvassing. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

em... I haven't removed any comments... --Charlesknight 09:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like I'm the actual culprit, as Charles points out above. I removed the section because it was primarily a solicitation for an AfD vote, and not a policy discussion at all, and thus irrelevant to the policy village pump page. Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." Daniel Bryant's link above is also relevant. -- SCZenz 09:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In WIki terms, what is vote soliciting? For example, were I to go to a project talk page and tell them that a particular article under their banner was being nominated for deletion, and made a case against it being removed, would that be soliciting? perfectblue 11:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Another celebrity username

User:MelanieSmith is vandalizing Melanie Smith. Can someone do whatever is appropriate here? (block, or WP:AGF and confirm that this user is not the melanie smith.) --nkayesmith 04:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a notice on this user's page saying that this user is not the Melanie Smith of Melanie Smith? Or not? --nkayesmith 06:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This person appears to be genuinely confused, I think the recent note posted on their talk page ought to be sufficient. Since Smith is the most common family name in the United States (according to us ;-)) I don't think a username block is warranted, and continue to assume good faith until there is reason to do otherwise. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:U#Inappropriate_usernames specifically includes "Names of well-known living or recently deceased people". As such, I think this should be a block, with permission to change to another name if she's so inclined, or permission to keep it if she's willing to verify her identity. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I was called the fifth Beatle, baby. Bring back the Midnight Special!Billy Preston 22:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the Melanie Smith Melanie is notable enough to invoke the well-known real person clause, but the MelanieSmith (talk · contribs) user is sure being disruptive, whoever they are. Georgewilliamherbert 00:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Miltopia

Miltopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an ED trolling account...editor has been stalking my edits and making comments for sometime now. On his fifth edit, in response to a comment left by User:Guinnog on User talk:Alexjohnc3 regarding that I didn't need to hear anymore about encyclopedia dramatica, Miltopia responds, "Yeah, it'll just make him go apeshit again.". Followed that up here, "Serious business" is a popular theme on encyclopedia dramatica. Let's not be going around allowing wikistalking to go unpunished. This editor showed up, out of the blue on an article I have been working on at Dysgenics [50], then soon comes to an article I just got through creating [51] and well, look at the other stuff, like [52], claims he is trying to avoid me, completely out of the blue comment here, [53], [54], [55]. I blocked this editor indefinitely and for good reasons. My block was overturned by User:Gentgeen without one word beforehand to me asking why I did the block. I can understand a shortening of the block, but when admins are going around wheel warring with each other over whether it is sound to block an obvious trolling account, then this place is going down the tubes! Stop reverting each others actions! At least have the assumption of good faith that, just maybe, it would be both courteous and professional, to inquire why an admin did something. See: [56]--MONGO 10:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Along the same lines of what I mentioned at User talk:Miltopia, I for one am not yet convinced that the user should be summarily and indefinitely blocked, essentially without review, because the same person is victim, judge, and executioner. I do apologize for having unblocked without first discussing it with you, MONGO; if it's any consolation, there was a lengthy discussion on IRC involving a number of people, and a very speedy request for checkuser was put through to help look into matters. I am not yet convinced that this user is a simple, blatant troll, and so more than anything, I just want a few more eyes to look at this. If consensus is that I should not have unblocked, or if this user continues to do anything even resembling stalking MONGO, I'll happily apologize and recant. Luna Santin 10:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't rollback my block. Folks around here need to look at the diffs. He's never encountered User:Konstable before, but is now recommending desysopping over at arbcom....?[57]--MONGO 10:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

His current userpage is linking all junk that goes to the Wikipedia:Sandbox onto his userpage due to his misuse of the template [58].--MONGO 11:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is yet another reason why admin business should be done on-Wiki, rather than on IRC. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The account looks quite fishy to me — not at all like a genuine newbie. He registered in July and made one edit, but the account really came to life on 30 October. So, for the purpose of Wikipedia experience, it's two weeks old. Yet he's taking part in deletion reviews, AfDs, and even an arbitration case that he is not personally involved in — and is doing so with extraordinary confidence. Complaining about being stalked while following his alleged "stalker" around and showing up on articles he has edited does not add to his credibility. Also, his edit to his own talk page on 7 November seems to be an simply a way of "getting round" the prohibition on linking to a website that attacks Wikipedians. AnnH ♫ 13:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just come across this user while on speedy deletion patrol, and I'm amazed by the amount of flak he/she's getting just because he happens to edit a website critical of wikipedia. Mongo, although I've often (quite rightly) been criticised for biting, I'm astounded by the way you're treating this, and other, users. Looking at the diffs you provide, I see you've made a threat of blocking a user who tried to defend him, just because he linked to the "don't be a dick" Meta page? You've then been incredibly rude to both Gentgeen and Luna when they didn't agree with your arbitrary block. I'm sorry, but although Miltopia does look slightly fishy, your actions are blatantly agressive. yandman 13:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and I'll remember it.--MONGO 14:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And now you're threatening me? However much your page on ED annoys you, you really shouldn't let it cloud your judgement. yandman 14:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not threaten you. I don't care about what some little children write about MONGO on that other website...they can write whatever their little adolescent minds desire. What I do care about is when an one of them comes here to stalk my edits and activities for the sake of harassment. Get a clue.--MONGO 14:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility --CBD 12:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume the user has been informed that his unblock is conditional on active attempts to avoid MONGO at all costs, correct? JBKramer 14:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge...Admins shouldn't be reverting other admin actions on a whim...Geenteen didn't bother to say a word to me until after he did the unblock. It rarely happens to me, but I am sick and tired of watching admins going around reverting other admin actions.--MONGO 14:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That seems a common sense condition, and I've just now notified Miltopia of it. Being a common sense condition, I don't think it quite applies indefinitely -- should they happen to run into each other a month or two from now, say, and play nice with each other, I don't really think there's a problem. But over the next few days, especially, the more distance between them, probably the better. Luna Santin 15:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Note

Not gonna get into this, 'taint my style, but I'm not at all a wiki newbie. Recent changes are kinda my thing. And I'm familiar with Wikipedia, it comes up at ED. Plus a friend of mine got banned :-( Anyway, my edits aren't problematic so I won't be sticking around this thread, y'all can choose to calm down now if you wish, but if anyone has any specific questions they can go to my talk page. Sayonara, Miltopia 14:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Should we treat this as an acknoledgement that you understand your unblock is conditional on your active attempts to avoid MNOGO? JBKramer 14:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If he resumes what he was last up to when he started messing around, I'll block him again...it's that simple. The trolls can do whatever they want on that childrens website, but I won't put up with it here for one minute.--MONGO 14:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with MONGO that admins shouldn't undo the actions of other admins without the courtesy of letting them know on their Talk pages, and, ideally, asking if it's okay first. If they don't get permission, and still feel they need to undo the action, then go ahead, though warily, but please let the original admin know. I'm thinking about writing this up as part of Wikipedia:Wheel warring. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Welcome to the Hellmouth (Buffy episode) is an article presently on WP:DRV. About eight months ago, it had a few paragraphs added which were a copyvio. Hence, the article was recently deleted. I've undeleted all revisions prior to the insertion of this copyvio. While the article is now back, the editors have lost eight months of work on it, most of which was unrelated to the copyvio. Given the GFDL, is there a better way of handling this? (Radiant) 15:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

One very tedious method would be to take each diff in turn (not counting reverted edits as they don't contribute to the final state of the article), edit out each one, and use it to reconstruct the entire edit history minus copyvio on the talk page, starting with the most recent revision and a history on the talk page (which is permitted by GFDL). If there were a lot of revisions it would be a pain to do by hand, though. --ais523 15:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• 82 edits total. I don't think I'll be doing that by hand. (Radiant) 16:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  How much was the copyvio section edited? If it kept consistent wording, a simple solution would be to use Special:Export to dump the history, find-and-replace to remove the copyvio, then to place the copyvioless history on a Talk subpage. --ais523 16:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Resolved now. I've dumped the history on the talk page, and compiled a new version incorporating all edits except the copyvio. (Radiant) 10:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Death threat

I've had a death threat in response to an AfD I initiated from User:Durin's Bane issued here [59]. I really don't think it's serious, but throughout this entire process he's been extraordinarily uncivil -- nearly all the exchange between us took place on User talk:Durin's Bane and is the entire content of that page so there's no point in giving a diff -- and perhaps some consequences are in order. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Death threats get the banhammer, end of story. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Request temp block

User 81.214.149.234 - repeated vandalism - or is it a group IP? Danlibbo 00:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You should use WP:AIV. Cbrown1023 00:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

cheers Danlibbo 00:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

iwiki link removal

A group of Russian users concentrated around Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board is going through wikipedia and removing links to articles in ru-sib: caliming to be doing so based on WP:EL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.16.230.249 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 16 November 2006.

Could you give some concrete examples? It would help Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[60], [61], [62],[63],[64] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.16.230.249 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 16 November 2006.

Just a note, the links that were removed in those articles are all links to the pages on the Siberian-language wiki. Cbrown1023 01:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed; I've sent the one guy a message, and now that I have another dif, I'll be sending the other guy one too. Here's the thing, though; a bot will probably pick up the interwiki on another language version, and it'll be restored soon enough. But it's still suspect. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Siberian wikipedia is up for deletion at meta. I am not sure what is the procedure for removing links to proposed deleted projects, but some of the bots who added the links were requested to not add them again until we know what is going on with them. I think we should wait and see how the deletion goes. If the project is kept, then add the links back in. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better the other way around? Delete the interwikis after the language Wiki is gone? Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The so-called "sib-wiki" is a disgrace of the Wikimedia foundation that was deceived into hosting this obscene project which is nothing more than a combination of smut and hate-speech. The so called "Siberian language" is a one man project of Yaroslav Zolotaryov (talk · contribs) who carried his crusade at different places, most recently at LiveJournal, but now moved his lobbying to the various Wikimedia projects. His view that Siberian langauge exists as a feasable one is not a subject of the discussion at WP:ANI. Nor there is any interest to discuss his one-man crusade to codify this imagined language, also so far unsuccesful as not a single book on or in such language was published. In any case, should the foundation have decided to grant him the resources to promote his interesting linguistic exercises, few people would have been conserned about that. That's why his initial proposal to get himself a Wikipedia hosted by foundation met little opposition. But what grew out of it is a disgusting site filled to the brim with frivolous articles at best and the propaganda of ethnic hatred at worst.

Some examples from this "Wikipedia":

• an article about Hamlet, (ru-sib version) includes Zolotaryov's own translation of this great work of world literature. The original line (Marcellus: Peace! break thee off! Look where it comes again!) is translated in this article as "Motherfucker brought his ass here again")
• an article about Pushkin (ru-sib version) tells you this about his Eugene Onegin novel. "A novel about a noble who has nothing to do so he screws the chicks around him."

This is all funny and may even seem almost harmless but there is more.

• There is a ru-sib Wikipedia article called "The Scum of Moscow". The article uses horrific expressions and threats from Zolotaryov to "Muscovites"
• Another article is called "When the time will come" This "article" makes serious death threats directed against several ethnicities such as "from Ural to Chukchi Sea all the land will be ours and lest the death meets the rest" and also "We will cover our path with corpses".

Need I say more? Wikimedia's sites hosting obscenities, hate speach and even death threats are bound to undermine the reputation of the foundation. If we allow such Wikipedias and links to them, why not allow their own wikiepdias and links to Ku Klux Klan and National Socialist White People's Party? This entire project is the disgrace to the foundation and is now finally under the vote to close it. But even while it is yet open, linking the articles about medieval histories to the sites that promote the hate speech is unacceptable.

This has nothing to do with censorship. I will welcome the article about Zolotaryov's movement with refeferences to his statements, if he is deemed notable. --Irpen 03:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• I am second to Irpen. Until this ru-sib Wiki is cleaned up and radically improved interwiking to it is the spamlinking in tis worst. I think we need a formal RfC to decide if we want any links to it. Alex Bakharev 03:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a fanactical mess over there. The fact is, we already deleted the article on this ficticious langauge of Siberian as non-notable, so linking to it doesn't make sense. There is no verification that it exists in any way. I hope they do delete it, but in the mean time, removing the links is a good thing. (And good luck with the madman on meta!)pschemp | talk 03:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You can check the vote and even cast your own but the trouble with Meta votes is that they are always hijacked by sock- and meat-puppets. So, I am not sure what will come out of this. Perhaps, Jimbo's decision is needed on that. In any case, for now iw bots should be tuned to not link to this disgusting project. --Irpen 03:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the meta? I'd like to look at the vote; also, if you have any online russian translators, it would be helpful (because, if you say that siberian isn't a language, and can understand it, I imagine I can just type it into the russian translator). I'd like to be able to vote at the meta project and see if this is all true. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

meta:Proposals for closing projects/Close Siberian wikipedia is the link to the ongoing vote but it is now a multilingual mess where meatpuppets curse each other in the mix of English and Russian (no "siberian" there) with occasional sane voices from established users. The online RU-EN translator may be found at translate.ru but it will be of no use to you since the so called "siberian" used by Zolotaryov entirely consists of distorted Russian words. So, the online translatior won't recognize a thing. If you doubt that the translations by me are honest and want to verify, you can ask other users from Category:User ru (make sure you pick those at the level of ru-3 to ru-n since intermediate speekers won't be able to deconstruct Zolotaryov's distortions). You may also check the discussion I had with another user at user talk:A4. Some of it is in Ukrainian as the other user insisted in not using English but from the English parts you can figure the rest pretty easily as I used English specifically to make this discussion available to anyone interested. If you have questions about any particular article in ru-sib, feel free to ask me at my talk page. --Irpen 04:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Avshalom Feinberg Vandalism

An IP vandal did stuff of the Avshalom Feinberg page. User_talk:64.240.244.98 has some warnings from Jan 2006 but came back. I don't really know what else to do besides reporting it here. Is this correct? --66.82.9.82 02:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You probably want to go through WP:AIV; that's where to report obvious vandalism. You can also see WP:VAND for guidelines on warning users, as a user will probably not be blocked before being warned. Good luck. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Best place for reporting for this is on WP:AIV, I would suggest you to use WP:AIV next time when you want to report vandalisms. Daniel5127 (Talk) 05:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Poopman6969

I'm unsure where to put this since this might go under Personal attacks, 3RR, and Sockpuppetry, so hopefully someone can help me here anyways, or point me in the right direction. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Poopman6969,

The usernames seem like they're both throwaway accounts. The second name was created after the first stopped editing, and both have been working on the same page. The page is also obviously a speedy delete candidate, but the second username took over editing, so drmspeedy templates cannot be used, which makes me think it's a sockpuppet. Simply look at the page's reversion history.

• 1st Revert
• 2nd Revert
• 3rd Revert
• 4th Revert
• 5th Revert

I just noticed that Poopman6969 is now blocked --ArmadilloFromHell 02:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And the page was deleted the minute after I posted this, so someone can just remove this, probably. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Fui_fui_moi_moi1

• Special:Contributions/Fui_fui_moi_moi1
• User:Fui_fui_moi_moi1 blocked
• Special:Contributions/Fui_fui_moi_moi2
• User:Fui_fui_moi_moi2 blocked
• Special:Contributions/Fui_fui_moi_moi3
• User:Fui_fui_moi_moi3 blocked

His last edit summary was "User talk:Fui fui moi moi3 (anal sex with monkeys....... c u tomm)". If he intends to keep vandalising, IMHO this vandal needs to be prevented. Would IP-blocking be a good idea? --Kjoonlee 03:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Fui_fui_moi_moi4 was created just after Fui_fui_moi_moi3 was blocked: [65] this isn't good, is it? --Kjoonlee 03:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the dates/times, you'll see that he kept on creating new accounts after receiving the blocks. --Kjoonlee 03:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Fuifui Moimoi. {{usernameblock}} could also be applied, if req'd. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you block IP 220.227.207.31?

Can you block IP 220.227.207.31 who is dumping non-sense on Hinduism? swadhyayee 06:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

With only two challenged, not blatantly vandalist edits? No. If it becomes a problem, there are 3RR and vandalism boards to report it on. --Golbez 07:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but similar things was reverted by me yesterday. The matter has been opposed by editors on talk page. Yet, the deliberate nuisance continues. swadhyayee 07:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, vandalism should be reported on this page, but only after the individual has been warned a few times (given a test4 level warning). This page is not for reporting things like that. Hope that helps, Localzuk^(talk) 08:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry., I checked his contributions and he has been vandalising other religious and Indian articles. I am not familiar with use of warning tameplates. Could you kindly give him warning? Please. You may check his contributions. swadhyayee 08:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Kislev

An anon editor is copypasting in a copyrighted summary (complete with copyright) into Kislev. I reverted him twice, but I need to go to sleep, so someone needs to warn him/keep an eye on the page. --PresN 07:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's always better to revert and warn. Some users just think their changes got lost and repost. I've warned him and it's on my watxch list, but I too need sleep --ArmadilloFromHell 08:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

All those edit summaries you have left there sound like newbie WP:BITEing. Please be polite with the newcomers and leave a message on their talk page explaining why you reverted their edits. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 09:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

SPUI.. again

How does everyone feel about a community ban on SPUI? After two blocks for adding the SQUIDWARD edit summaries he stopped. But as soon as he returned, he was blocked for 31 hours for a 3RR violation. It's becoming very obvious that he is coming to Wikipedia to disrupt with every edit he makes and not to contribute positively. semper fi — Moe 19:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

All prior warnings, notices, and recommendations that he stop become covered by an admin. Yes, you can revert so that it is visible, but when its been covered several times, recovering becomes an incredible hassle. Looking at his block log and his recent edits, it seems as if he does not want to constructively contribute to Wikipedia after "leaving." How many "second chances" must we give this destructive user? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. He's had too many chances. --Kbdank71 19:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to see SPUI community-banned. He's made a lot of good encyclopedic edits, and I think he's a good user. OK, so he had a moment of madness, but he's a decent editor, IMHO. --SunStar Net 19:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

God let's end this already. Yes, he was a very prolific contributer, but I don't think he's here to be constructive anymore. Also, all my recent real-life experiences tell me that I would rather have someone who contributes less but doesn't cause any trouble, than someone like this. Grandmasterka 19:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

His 3RR block is kind of odd. He reverted the featured article of the day 4 times by removing what he considered was unsourced original research, and then reported himself on the en-wiki mailing list. Thatcher131 19:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing his recent 3RR block as typical of any past disruption he may have been involved with is not fair, IMO. Even the best editors go into 3RR from time to time, and this specific instance involved enforcing the Wikipedia original research policy on the article that sat on the front page all day. Whether he's exhausted the community's patience, I have no real input on, although I think he does valuable work here. But let's not try to frame this specific instance from yesterday as part of anything greater than what it was. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)...or as Thatcher said above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose community banning. SPUI deserves an RFC to start with anyway, not some AN/I discussion. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 19:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

We tried that. Others came and defended him, ignoring the evidence. WP:RFC/SPUI --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The current popular principle behind a community block is that if no admin will unlbock then the block was probably OK. That isn's going to hapen with SPUI.Geni 19:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose community ban. He is hardly contributing and not really a problem now. If he is indefblocked for something he has recently done, I will unblock him after a reasonable amount of time. Kusma (討論) 19:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because he's hardly contributing doesn't mean he hasn't been a problem. Ever since the beginning of October he has been a problem. Lets look at the facts shall we:

• October 12-13 he edits with SQUIDWARD summaries: [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]

He recieves a block: 03:41, 14 October 2006 Lar (Talk contribs) blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 15 minutes (Please stop SQUIDWARDing...)

• He returns October 23/24 to edit with the SQUIDWARD summaries again: [71] [72]

Blocked again: 05:19, 24 October 2006 Konstable (Talk | contribs) blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 8 hours (again, please stop SQUIDWARDing)

• He returns on November 3-5 to edit V for Vendetta (film) and it's talk: [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78]

Blocked again: 03:35, 5 November 2006 Phil Sandifer (Talk | contribs) blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (Violation of 3RR)

Literally the only edit he hasn't been blocked for in the last month is blanking his talk page with an Image of a duck. semper fi — Moe 19:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sad, isn't it? Apparently as long as you have some good contributions, you get to act however you want, and your admirers, defenders, whatever, will at best hand out a series of 24 hour (or less) blocks, and at worst, ignore the behavior completely. Can anyone explain why this has been allowed to continue? --Kbdank71 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Because he's made 74,000 contributions. Of which 40,000 are probably controversial page moves which have been corrected by new

guidelines now.. :\ semper fi — Moe 20:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and we have no real method of knowing which contributions are constructive. The page moves did nothing but create mass controversy and led many editors to quit in disgust. It's even worse when one or two admins reverted his blocks because he was such a good editor. I'll repeat what Lar spoke of during some controversy that SPUI created: "No one editor is indispensable to the project." If SPUI becomes a nuisance, then he should not be able to contribute in that manner; yes, he made good edits, but so have we, and the project continues forward. Whether or not we have SPUI is irrelevant; there will always be other editors to take his place, as clearly demonstrated today. After his "leave", we still have editors on road topics throughout all 50 states that do fine without SPUI. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because we're here to contribute? On a more serious note, I don't see what exactly is bannable here. Prior to the V 3RR thing, he got blocked for using weird edit summaries on edits that either attempted to remove OR marginally-encyclopedic material or were RfA votes. His second block was for squidward edit summaries on two talk pages. How is this significantly more grounds for banning than using no summary at all? Are people that bothered to see "squidward" on the RC list twice in two days (in latter case)? I agree with Jeff on the description of the V incident. --user:Qviri 20:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to review all of his prior blocks to get a good idea of how much he's gotten away with... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

SQUIDWARD! is the name fast-pace vandal. The vandal generally gave the edit summary SQUIDWARD! as he was vandalizing. SPUI copyign that was inappropriate, whether he was vandalizing or not. semper fi — Moe 22:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's because the case is not made at present. If the guy is reporting himself for 3RR, then it may be WP:POINT, but it's hardly serial disruption. Basically, we can't see how he's going to behave after the last block. He has built up a lot of animosity from some people, and they're very ready to get the gallows ready, but I don't see him currently earning the noose. I think it has to be an unrepentant pattern, and the only unrepenting problem was the edit summaries, and now he's repented. Geogre 20:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR may not be serial disruption. What would you call the remainder of his block log? And so what if he's repented? Maybe it's just me, but to see problem, repent, problem, repent, problem, repent, would seem to indicate we have a problem with more than just SPUI. Look, I make no assumptions that this will go anywhere; as I said, there are too many people willing to overlook too much. --Kbdank71 21:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It was a serial disruption when SPUI was disrupting page after page with his own naming conventions. It's been done in the past, which should not be overlooked. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely: it should not be overlooked, and I wouldn't advocate turning the other way. The question isn't, I hope, all or nothing. I just didn't see anything going on since that nasty episode. If it does, I'll be on board with a community ban, but I think community bans should be when the other person isn't acting out of an interpretation of what's best for Wikipedia. When the other person is misinterpreting or being petulant about their views of policy and practice, ArbCom's deliberative process should be best. When a person is just exhausting everyone by insisting after a clearly settled issue or pride or a desire to play gotcha with someone or a desire to settle political scores (real life ones, like the nationalists and monomaniacs), then it's community patience. That's my view, anyway. Geogre 02:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's my take on the situation. Give him a block that will actually prevent him from disrupting (a few days or so). See how he acts then. If he socks during, or continues acting up after, then I think that should remove some doubt. --InShaneee 03:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah why not? A community ban for a few days? Or a week? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A short block with the intention if we can bait a user into sockpuppeting is not something I could ever support. However, a permanent community ban for SPUI, who has committed many, many times more infractions and disruptions than plenty of other permabanned users, has ignored countless requests, decisions and judgements, and is bizarrely and inexplicably supported by some admins (is he nice to them on IRC?), and has driven good editors away from Wikipedia, is something I would get behind. This needs to go to ArbCom, and this needs to be resolved. Proto::type 12:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose any community ban through ANI. This better be taken through an RfC. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Note, it's been taken through RfC before... He's exhausted all of our patience, and its senseless to keep taking it to ANI, RfC, etc. if the outcome is going to be the same: status quo. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a short block would solve either. While I've given SPUI blocks in the past to try to get him to stop being disruptive, maybe those just don't work with him. On the other hand I DO think he adds value and would hate to see him permanently banned. Is there nothing else? No other way to reach him and get at whatever the root issue is? I guess I am more willing than some to keep trying with SPUI. But in the end Wikipedia is not... a lot of things, including a selfhelp org for those that don't want to change, or a babysitting service, or a group therapy session, or a twelve step program, among others. If there is no change possible then, so be it. One more chance maybe but, really, no more. (as an aside, I totally reject the notion Badlydrawnjeff advances above, that "even the best editors go into 3RR sometimes" I've never, ever, ever done that...) ++Lar: t/c 12:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I longer short block than before would accomplish something in the fact that it would actually prevent him from doing something, whereas the previous blocks of a few minutes/hours it has been suggested he may not have even noticed (I did not mean to 'draw out' sockpuppets as suggested above; I merely meant that a preventative block must actually prevent something to be effective). --InShaneee 16:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had enough of this. He needs to be banned. Now. ANYONE who has the mentality that they can do whatever the hell want, like SPUI clearly does, should be blocked. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 12:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok... so when the huge edit war over road names he was involved with wound up with a decision he opposed being forced through in unusual circumstances despite a lack of true consensus (again, there were reasons this had to be done and as one of the people who backed it I am here criticizing myself) the 'massively disruptive' reaction he had was to continue making valid contributions, but using the edit summary "SQUIDWARD". For this heinous crime he was blocked... twice. Then, when asked to stop using such summaries... he did! Dastardly. Instead, he went and explained that he was making changes to a new page to remove original research... some sort of theory about how the 'V' in 'V for Vendetta' was probably a reference to the roman numeral for five. That looks like original research to me. Removing it with explanatory edit summaries was therefor... proper. Edit warring when it was re-inserted was not, but seems hardly grounds for a community ban. It seems to me that SPUI is giving his detractors thin pretexts to demonstrate their bias and animosity towards him... and they are happily obliging. SPUI is not being a model Wikipedian, but as reactions to brow-beating and tossing consensus out the window go this isn't exactly the end of the world. --CBD 16:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree CBD. We shouldn't be simply community ban someone for a 3RR or for a few mild edit summaries, but when is enough, enough? His edits aren't as much as the problem as the attitude and straight-fowardness of his edits. It's not that his edits are wrong, but he pushes the issue until his opposition either gives up or a third party gets involved or blocks him. Really how many things has he done that has gotten himself blocked over his time on Wikipedia. Just to name a few:

• Moving Highway articles a lot
• Move warring
• 3RR violations
• Incivilty
• POINT violations
• Blatant vandalism
• Disruption
• personal attacks
• Copyright violations
• Testing Wikipedia's browser blocking code on User:SPUI/jajaja
• per ArbCom decisions for putting pro-pedophile userboxes on his userpage
• Probation violations
• SQUIDWARD! edit summaries

Again, he may not be wrong, but the way he edits is disruptive and non-helpful. It's not a question anymore of how useful or correct he was a year ago or a few months ago as some people agrue. We have community banned former administrators before. SPUI has made several useful contributions before, no question, but so have other banned editors. How far do we push each ourselves with SPUI? How far before we say 'enough'? semper fi — Moe 17:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You ask 'how far'. My standard is quite simple... 'has it reached the point where it seems clear this user will never be a positive contributor'? I look at 'squidward', a 3RR violation in pursuit of 'no original research', and ducks in a pram and see 'silly git'... not 'irrational monster beyond all hope of redemption'. Everything else you list up there is what, months old? And many of them seemed, to me, as much over-reactions and misrepresentations as the accusations of 'blatant vandalism' which accompanied his silly 'squidward' edit summaries (despite no vandalism actually being involved). To put it another way... SPUI made positive contributions, but put a silly 'squidward' edit summary on them. He was then falsely accused of vandalism and a community ban called for. His reaction? He issued no personal attacks, made no disruptive edits, and stopped using the silly edit summary. Where I come from that's called a phenomenal improvement in behaviour compared to the SPUI from months back you describe above. So where the indication that he is a bad bad man who will never do any good? --CBD 18:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I rephrase my question. It's been over one month since he has contributed without getting blocked. How long do we put up with his nonsense before he becomes a 'positive' contributor again? semper fi — Moe 19:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Your framing assumes that blocks for 'squidward' edit summaries were valid. I don't believe they were. 'How long without being blocked' isn't much of a standard when blocks are placed for things which represent no real 'damage' or 'disruption' to Wikipedia at all. To my way of thinking, SPUI has made exactly ONE block-worthy edit in that time period... his fourth revert on the 'V' original research. --CBD 19:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The only reason the blocks for the squidward edit summaries may not have been valid is because he was never warned about it. After sternly warned, yes, he stopped. But does that excuse him from copying the well-known vandal edit-summary? If I suddenly started using those edit summaries and continued after a block (and yes SPUI did), would that not be disruption? semper fi — Moe 22:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The other concern is that he has chased many users away from Wikipedia (names can be provided on request) directly or indirectly because of his actions. And made the highways area an unpleasant place to work. Also, SPUI has not made any uncontroversial mainspace edits in over two months (uncontroversial excluding SQUIDWARD or the 3RR). Not that that necessarily mounts to anything however.... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And in the realm of the truly bizzare...its either a sockpuppet or a fanboy here. Though why be either, I haven't a clue. pschemp | talk 04:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also Bushcarrot (talk · contribs). —Centrx→talk • 04:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Very well, then. Are we going to continue to argue or actually do something here? // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 04:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we vote? Have a more formal discussion? There is no clear-cut answer here, unless we send this to ArbCom. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the issue is here. It is really quite easy to not be disruptive. He has had more than 50 chances to do it over the course of a year and a half. —Centrx→talk • 04:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well then who will hit the block button if it is to be done? Discussing it and doing nothing else doesn't help. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who will block him, because someone like CBD will come along and unblock him. Look at his block log; just a series of blocks and unblocks. I'm not going to be the one to start a wheel-war with people who look at his attitude and say, "Eh, it's not THAT bad. Why, 50% of his contributions are completely uncontroversial! What are you all complaining about?" Until someone like Jimbo puts his foot down, SPUI will continue to act like he does, half of you will continue waste your time to undo his shenanigans and argue for his permablock, and the other half will waste their time arguing why he should stay and unblocking any errant blocks. Don't you think all this wasted time could be spent better elsewhere? --Kbdank71 20:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is...if someone's going to inappropriately wheel war...then we can't block appropriately. --InShaneee 20:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is I'm not going to waste my time blocking SPUI just to see someone unblock him. You can wheel war over him until the cows come home if you think it'll do some good. --Kbdank71 21:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone wheel wars, it should be dealt with. In the meantime, that shouldn't prevent us from making legitimate blocks. It's like saying, "Why bother writing articles, they'll just be vandalized." --InShaneee 21:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So our options at this point are to a) block or b) send this to RFC or ArbCom. Meanwhile, nothing is getting done. As I was involved in the ArbCom stuff it would be conflict of interest to block so in reality I can't. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, and will say again, to make the message clear... ban ban ban ban ban ban ban. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 00:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but we might as well take it back to ArbCom. It should not be "300 strikes and you're out", and he's been blocked enough times to make anyone realize that he isn't going to do much of anything that's actually constructive. I'm not 100% sure ArbCom would be able to solve the problem, because they've dealt with him before, and he doesn't seem to have any respect for their decisions. It could still be worth trying, since ArbCom could just decide to indefblock/ban him. An ArbCom block/ban would be less likely to result in a wheel war. --Coredesat 00:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this matter can be handled without involving ArbCom. The terms are simple: I think we are all agreed that his behavior needs to improve, that he needs to make a serious & sincere effort at playing by the rules; the disagreement appears to be whether he can be convinced to improve or that he is beyond all hope & we have no choice other than to ban him from Wikipedia. As constructive as he might be (I haven't followed his edits, but for the sake of argument let's say he is), if SPUI -- or any Wikipedian -- is being disruptive to the point that he has received multiple blocks yet no one cares enough to intervene & save him from a permanent ban, then the community has made its decision & clearly wants him gone. So is there anyone who is working with SPUI offline from Wikipedia with the aim of improving his behavior & avoid having him banned from this project & losing his constructive contributions? If there is, I hope that would be enough to convince the "Ban SPUI" faction to have some patience & give him one more -- even if it is only his last -- chance. If there is not, & no one is willing to volunteer to help SPUI from being banned, then it's hard not to conclude that the proper solution is a Community Ban. All it would take is for one person to volunteer to work with him to keep him; otherwise, silence is consent & it's clear, despite what some may say, everyone wants him gone. -- llywrch 01:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am more than willing to assist SPUI in becoming a constructive editor here again as long as he doesn't continue with his extreme forms of silliness. As long as he is willing to be a positive contributor, we can always use another hand on Wikipedia. But this my only offer to help the guy, if he continues being disruptive, I'm not going to be as helpful the next go-around. semper fi — Moe 02:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

SPUI can be banned by any administrator from any area he disrupts. If he does not comply with the ban he may be blocked. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation. Any administrator may do this. Fred Bauder 03:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. We still have the option of banning rather than blocking. Banning being "you can't edit this article anymore because you've disrupted it." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that CBD's summary of the cause of the current situation is very apt. The 'highways' situation became extremely unpleasant -- SPUI was basically at one point being told that not only would he be sanctioned for not abiding by a non-consensus decision, but that he'd be sanctioned for pointing out that it was a non-consensus decision. (Admittedly he was pointing it out rather frequently, but when a bare majority is repeatedly mischaracterised as a "consensus", a certain feeling of frustration is somewhat understandable.) There's been lots of nonsense and silliness from SPUI before (I've been on the end of a small portion of it myself), but this seems to me to be different. This is sheer surmise and speculation, take it for what it's worth, but it appears to me more that he essentially quit the project over that issue, but due to on-going wikidiction and/or wishing to express residual resentment, isn't quite able to go "cold turkey", and so is making periodic forays back. I'm not especially hopeful this will end well, and in the circumstances, I doubt that "area bans" will be at all useful (since if I'm correct, it'll just force him to find other ways to vent, which he'll rise to the challenge of). I'd urge the community not to take any far-reaching steps just at the moment, but if he doesn't knock it on the head immediately, I'd be in favour of a "medium length" block (a week to a month or two, say) to stop him digging himself in yet deeper in the meantime. Alai 08:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• I would have thought mentorship would be a solution, in a way. --SunStar Net 11:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Motion to ban SPUI

I have made a motion to ban SPUI for a year at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#SPUI Fred Bauder 10:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I support this. If I had to "learn" to behave myself then so should he have. He's had his 1,000 chances and now should cool his heels for a bit. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 04:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have opposed this there, for what it's worth. SPUI can't be banned for a year by that arbitration committee ruling until he has been blocked justifiably under its probation restrictions five times. I count four, at least one of which I feel was unjustifiable. I also feel there is not consensus for a community ban; there is, from what I see, considerable clamor for one, but also some opposition. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, as long as SPUI watches it and contributes productively I have no problems with him around. Actions such as the Squidward edit summaries will result in an immediate block from me though. In short, as long as SPUI doesn't mess around, I welcome him here. If he wants to be disruptive, then we have to think about measures. Let's not jump the gun here -- Tawker 09:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've found that in most cases once SPUI is blocked once or twice about an issue he stops doing it. The sole exception was what he got an arbcom ruling about - edit warring about highway names (in other words, a genuine content difference, not the silly provocation of most of the other stuff).

We should also be cautious about baiting someone under probation and blocking him for things that if other editors did them would not be blockable offenses. I've on occasion noted a way of thought that goes, "SPUI is a troll, therefore ..." Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So in reality, we're back to where we started. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to ban SPUI for a year at this time. I still remain hopeful. If ArbCom so rules I'd be disappointed. ++Lar: t/c 00:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The concern is we've said that so many times, giving SPUI slack, and he then takes it and runs. If any of us had done all that SPUI did... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose until a suitable replacement is found. —freak(talk) 00:53, Nov. 12, 2006 (UTC)

Not an admin, but damn it would be disappointing to see SPUI go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SchmuckyTheCat (talk • contribs) [79].

Oppose. SPUI, no doubt, deserves banning - but, since we don't do punitive, what he deserves is beside the point. I'm convinced that it is not in Wikipedia's interests to ban him, per this wisdom from an unlikely source.--Doc^g 01:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

See, it is things like that link which make me like her even though we disagree on alot of issues. :] Well said indeed. --CBD 10:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Flat out oppose per the reasoning of Bastique should have an RFC and I see no community concensus for banning and agree it is not in the communities interests to do so.--Dakota 06:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose as well. Per his userpage, "I used to edit a lot. Now I only edit when I see something that really needs to be fixed. Some say this makes me disruptive." He isn't that active anyways, so it's not really a problem. Khoikhoi 06:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons listed above. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support strongly. SPUI's behavior is not acceptable. As one opposing admin indicated, blocks/bans are not meant to be punitive, but preventive. SPUI's behavior disrupts Wikipeida; worse, he either doesn't realize it or doesn't care that it does, which means that we can expect periodic disruptions from him. --Nlu (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• And again, nothing happens. As I said a week ago, there are too many people willing to overlook too much. --Kbdank71 18:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd say at this point that we need some RFC or ArbCom to do anything. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yah, overlooking the 'massive' problems caused by the word 'squidward' and a 3RR violation. Why... it could be the end of the wiki as we know it. :] --CBD 12:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Right, because I'm really concerned about "squidward". If that's all you think this issue is about, then you are indeed overlooking a lot. --Kbdank71 18:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
        • At this point, I disagree with the results, but I'm going to let this one go. If SPUI deserves blocking, he'll do something else. And then people won't be able to disagree with it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I know that this has been more or less resolved since Rschen said he's "going to let this one go", but the self-centered part of me wants to think that people care what I have to say, since I've been vehemently opposed to SPUI on several different fronts. However, I truly think that if there has ever been or will ever be a time to permablock SPUI, now is definitely not it. Every edit he's made since blanking his userpage and talk page (with the exception of the ducks in a pram, which doesn't matter since it's his own talk page) has been in good faith. The SQUIDWARD edit summaries on shunpiking proved he was a "silly git" as someone else said, but the edits themselves were removing original research. Had he used a productive edit summary as he did on V for Vendetta, it would have been more obvious that he wasn't actually committing page-blanking vandalism. His SQUIDWARD RfA votes -- while they did slightly reek of continuing to fail to accept the consensus of WP:SRNC -- expressed his honest opinion of what he honestly thought would benefit the Wikipedia community. The highway naming debate that sparked 99% of the SPUI-related controversy has been resolved, and now he's sitting in a corner doing nothing worth commenting at all. If we wanted to impose a permablock, the time to do it was when he was disrupting literally hundreds of highway pages, not when he's minding his own business. It didn't happen then, and it certainly shouldn't happen now. -- NORTH ^talk 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi again

See User_talk:Tobias_Conradi#Blocked II ... Tobias Conradi (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has now been put on notice that his next ban may well be indefinite. There is a lot of history here, this user has been discussed here many times in the past. ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please supplement the claims with supporting page diffs and links to the archive files. Durova^Charge! 23:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that I'm not claiming anything. If Redvers (the blocking admin) doesn't get a chance to give more information here, I'll see what I can do to help out though. As you know it's fairly non trivial to find multiple incidents in these archives. Tobias's block log speaks volumes though. ++Lar: t/c 00:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This guy equates admins he doesn't like with people who commit "rape, violence, robery, murder, mobbing". Should have been blocked a long time ago... his behavior seems simply awful. --W.marsh 01:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, anytime an admin calls him on his incivility, tells him not to attack folks, or deletes an article he feels he owns, the admin is immediately accused of abuse. He operates at a hair-trigger, ready and willing to strike. He's labeled me as one of the abusive admins because I deleted an article he had created that met WP:CSD A1. He has made comments to the effect that he should be above the policies or they should be modified to his needs because of the number of edits he's made (which apparently number above 10k). I'd really like to find some way to get him onto the right side of the tracks because he's a very productive editor, but I've had poor results trying to work him through his admin issues. A heads up, CBDunkerson (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) has sided with Tobias in the past when he was being abusive, so anyone who tracks CBD's unique admin community interactions may wish to monitor this as well. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

THere's certainly a history of not being able to tolerate a difference of opinion: [80], [81], [82] --Merbabu 03:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

He's passive aggressive and has a persecution complex. He complains about abuse, but refuses to police his own behavior (when he moves lots of pages for example, he claims it's not his responsibility to clean up double redirects - it's the responsibility of the person complaining to him about the moves). He needs to be heartily beaten with a clue stick. Maybe a permablock with an out that says "If you apologize for every troll you've made, you can come back with a clean slate" would work, but I very much doubt he could swallow his faux pride. --Golbez 10:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

With this diff [83] he basically confirmed everything I said. The last few days, he's ceased being a worthwhile contributor, he spends all of his time now whining. --Golbez 11:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Various incivil and inaccurate statements above aside... the matter at hand: Tobias Conradi got into some content disputes with Evertype. Both were incivil and edit warring. Various people warned both of them about this. Tobias Conradi removed one of those warnings from his talk page and Nandesuka restored it. He removed it again, she restored it again, et cetera... then she protected his talk page. He called this abusive and Naconkantari blocked him for that as WP:NPA.

Frankly... edit warring to keep warnings on someone's talk page is harassment. I've held that position for a long time and I'm not alone in it. Protecting a page you have been involved in editing is one of the few things admins are specifically told not to do. Protecting user talk pages specifically is generally discouraged as it cuts off communication and thus is only supposed to be used in the most extreme cases of vandalism / profanity / releasing personal info / et cetera. Thus, protecting a user talk page you have been edit warring on to enforce display of a message you know the user doesn't want to have there is, at best, a 'very bad idea' <tm>. Tobias Conradi calling it 'abusive' was certainly incivil, but within the realm of semantically feasible descriptions. Blocking him for a week over that seems to me excessive.

Put Tobias Conradi in opposition with any other user who also trends towards being obstinate and incivil in disagreement and you have a problem. That's a valid issue which needs to be addressed, if possible. The fact that some of those other users are admins is also rather a problem, and vilifying Tobias for complaining (vociferously) about improprieties doesn't make them any less improper. --CBD 12:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression, perhaps wrongly, that the NPA block was related to this which although not the diff listed in the block log was the statement which was visible on the users page at the time the block was placed. --pgk 13:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd fit the bill. I'd looked at the diff in the block summary, but it does seem likely Naconkantari meant the entire string and just didn't notice that part of it was added in the subsequent edit you linked. --CBD 15:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Correction to my summary above - Tobias did not actually remove the warning again after Nandesuka restored it. What he did was move it up on the page to a section with another warning he had been told to keep displayed. Thus the 'lie' he referred to was Nandesuka's statement that she was protecting the page because he had deleted the text again... he hadn't. Though he now acknowledges that she could have just missed the relocation (which seems likely). --CBD 22:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Tobias has a talent for making enemies on Wikipedia; if you went back though his edit history I'm sure you'd find many many examples. This is a comment left on my talk page after an episode I (and a number of other editors) had with Tobias (Caniago 13:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

I can't think of another user who has not yet been banned who is so consistently disruptive to both community and project. I dislike witchhunts but when and if you decide to file on this user, please ask for my help. John Reid 07:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for Tobias Conradi

I think that this user's penchant for clearly unreasonable behavior and wikilawyering make a community ban a reasonable option. Just as the latest example, he lists pgk's response to his unblock request as an example of "admin abuse." As an experiment, when dealing with his latest 3RR violation, I deliberately did not block him, but approached him informing him of the violation, and asking him to change his editing pattern. His response was to characterize it as a "threat", immediately remove the warning (and I disagree with CBD about this being acceptable), and add me to his List Of Enemies. Someone who can't distinguish between "civil interaction and disagreement" and "abuse" is not going to be able to participate meaningfully in an arbitration case. I'd therefore like to propose a community ban in this case. Thoughts? Nandesuka 14:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

He clearly has no respect for the rules or the other users here, and has had far too many opportunities to change his ways. Support. --InShaneee 16:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've never interacted w/ Tobias but after checking all the above i still see that it would be very appropriate to place them on probation. An indefinite block would be harsh to an established editor who joined wikipedia in 2003 (be them a pain in the ass or an angel). -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm torn on this. On one hand, he often makes useful edits and he's very productive. On the other hand, we're all volunteers here and quite frankly, he's shitting all over a bunch of people who really don't have to be here, and that's just poor chess. This is not a job, and we're not paid to put up with abuse. As he has shown no interest in speaking civilly with people he disagrees with and responds to just about everything that isn't glowing praise with baseless accusations, I think an RfC is entirely appropriate, and perhaps a ban is a proper possible consequence of the RfC. AN/I probably isn't the right venue for determining this editor's future, though. I don't really have the time right now to put together a representative case, but I'd be willing to assist. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite a coincidence on the unblock request thing, given it was posted about an hour before my comment above and about a month after the incident. I can't say any run in's I've had with this user particularly stand out in my mind. Looking a few diffs beyond that one I see this which seems to back up some of the sentiments above, agreeing with a blocking admin when it's against his view point is somehow "mobbing". He was clearly entitled to query my reasoning behing denying the unblock later something which my talk page clearly shows he hasn't (Though given there is a subjective nature to disruption It's also more than possible he still wouldn't be happy with the response, nor would I perceive an endless debate to be useful). Being frustrated at a denied unblock is understandable, but to my mind maintaining such lists a month after the event without seeking any input seems pretty unhealthy and certainly seems to require some action, if this can be getting to (and resolving) the root cause or an outright ban is debatable, though some of the comments above seem to suggest the former is unlikely to be attainable. --pgk 17:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't investigated this situation at all, but by coincidence, on MfD right now is a page in this editor's userspace compiling some of his more unpleasant interactions with admins. He seems to have compiled it to assist him in some contemplated (but never pursued) RfC or whatever, but as an outsider it primarily reflects the difficulty of dealing with this user. See WP:MfD#User:Tobias_Conradi.2F2006_summer_admin_incidents.

Please note that I'm posting this link because it might be relevant for someone following up on this thread. I hesitated before doing so because it might be viewed as publicizing some of the personal attacks made by this user. If this is a concern to any of the admins named on the page, please feel free to revert this edit. Newyorkbrad 17:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I did indeed make the comment cited above. I can't recall the ugly details of my interaction with Mr. Conradi but I can't get the taste out of my mouth, either. I would really prefer not to dredge up what went on between us but I will do so if it will help put a lid on this.

It is not clear to me that a community ban will be effective, however. This editor has all the makings of somebody who will not stay gone. If we throw him out hot, I fear he will be back -- and back and back and back. Diplomacy is called for but has already been attempted and has failed. I will make another effort but really, I don't know what else to do. John Reid ° 17:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Instead of a ban, this would make a good case for a probation period John. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If probation were attempted, I'd suggest monitoring closely. I suspect, based on past interactions with him, that he would categorize the probation as an attack of some sort and as more evidence of cabalism. A user operating under those assumptions would likely disregard it, go out in a blaze of glory, or simply switch to a new account. The only way I could see any administrative intervention working with this user is if CBDunkerson (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) was the implementer. He is the only admin Tobias seems to interact civilly with, though I suspect this is because of CBD's historical enablement of Tobias's indiscretions. This brings with it its own set of challenges, of course, but should be considered. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course they would be monitored especially that their case concerns a dozen of admins. I would also support CBDunkerson to be their mentor though not responsible of their acts. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

How about a mentorship, in the context of a probation, then? I honestly don't think CBD is the right person though, I'd pick someone (on Tobias's enemies list, frankly) that has a widely held reputation as reasonable but firm, and who doesn't have the reputation of being a coddler, and put it to Tobias "either you let this person mentor you, and take their input and advice on board, nicely, and without arguing, or... you're gone...". ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I have "a widely held reputation as reasonable but firm" (some people seem to think I'm block happy and others think I'm a "softie") but ff at least one other admin is willing to do it with me, I'd be willing give it a try. JoshuaZ 21:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I am admittedly a 'softie' in that I think alot of blocks do more harm than good. I wouldn't object to some reasonable person trying to mentor him, but I definitely think it ought not to be one of the admins who has engaged in personal attacks or harassment against him. Chairboy's insinuations about 'enabling' abuse by Tobias are a curious way of describing my objections to the abusive treatment he has been given. I've been 'mentoring' Tobias to avoid incivility consistently, but it is difficult when various users falsely accuse him of vandalism, say he knows nothing, et cetera... and then he gets blocked for any incivility in return. Theoretically, I could block the other people violating policy... but as we've already established I'm not a big fan of blocks unless they are really needed. --CBD 22:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

See, CBD, I think it specifically OUGHT to be one of the people on his list. If he can't learn to get along with people he misjudged, he's just not going to make it here. Pick whoever on that list is considered the most reasonable. ++Lar: t/c 22:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Which admins, exactly, have been "harassing" Tobias? That's a serious accusation, and one that shouldn't be bandied about just for laughs. Nandesuka 00:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

CBD, from an outside perspective, you do appear to be enabling Tobias's poor conduct. I appreciate that you've attempted to mentor Tobias, but it appears that it's failed. I completely agree with Lar's statement above. If Tobias can't get along with someone that he disagrees with, Wikipedia isn't the place for him. SuperMachine 01:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, yeah. Seriously folks, the idea that the proper person to mentor Tobias Conradi is one of those who has called him "a ridiculous petulant child", "almost pathological", "utterly ignorant", et cetera seems like a less than feasible plan. Oughtn't his mentor on civility be someone who can abide by it themself? If not being able to get along with people who violate Wikipedia's behavioural standards is a bannable offense then half the admin-corps would have to go. :] As to politely suggesting that Tobias be civil "not working"... I assure you that it works considerably better than the alternative, and is not itself a policy violation. --CBD 02:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Only a person previously uninvolved could be a mentor in the case. Neither CBD nor any of the admins who have blocked him should do it. Anyone who has previously tangled or wrangled or enabled or whatever him already has an opinion, and he of them. A completely neutral party should be found. pschemp | talk 03:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming such could be found, sure. But I still think someone on his list (that we agree isn't really deserving of being there) is a good choice. For instance I don't think I ever used "a ridiculous petulant child", "almost pathological", "utterly ignorant" in my dealings, and, frankly, I don't buy the incivility charge that CBD is so fast to play loose with when he characterises EVERYONE on that list... my point being that there are those on there who clearly don't belong in any such category. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I am not an administrator, I would be happy to act as a mentor in this case. KazakhPol 04:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know that there are any uninvolved parties anymore. The joke here is that if we took this to ArbCom, maybe all of the arbitrators would have to recuse. I don't know.

I've certainly had my doubts about this editor but I'm working with him now. Give us a chance. John Reid ° 09:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha, ha - yes I saw that. Nice effort. It seems to have calmed down. "I will think about it" --Merbabu 09:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine now that eveybody agrees about Toabias having a mentor. But does it matter who this mentor would be? IMHO, it doesn't because being soft or tough, a mentor is a counselor. I just don't think that this person should be on the list of Tobias' adversaries. The important is that the mentor should be trusted on his voluntary job. True, we don't have to ask Tobias for his view about this because of the circumnstances but we should be neutral (let's remind ourselves that our concern is neutrality). Nothing more, nothing less. I suggest then to go further and settle this issue for now. Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does matter who it is. It should be neither anyone on his enemy list or CBD (or anyone involved in prior disputes, on either side.) As long as its a previously uninvolved person (doesn't matter if they are an admin or not), that's fine. pschemp | talk 15:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant just the same pschemp. The mentor has to be a neutral party (i.e. someone who never interacted w/ him maybe?) -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully we still have a few uninvolved's left... this time. But I say let John Reid give it a try, and John, a) thanks for taking it on and b) don't hesitate to holler for help if you need it. ... best of luck! ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi coolth

Thanks Lar. Better to be lucky than good. Tobias is currently taking a short break. I don't think that makes me his mentor but I do think he needs a friend. I don't know if he accepts me in that role either but for argument's sake, let's say I am that friend.

So, I'm going to ask, very politely and with no grounds at all, that in the course of the next few weeks if you should question something Tobias has done, please bring it to me first, if at all possible. Feel free to email me if you like, though I check my talk more often. I certainly can't be responsible for any other human being, bar possibly my wife and daughter; but I do take on the responsibility for myself of hearing complaints and seeing what little I can do to address them. We are not going to throw away this editor because one of his edges is a bit ragged. Let's be sure we've exhausted all possible remedies before we put him down the chute.

I have promised Tobias that he can work to curb abusive admins when he manages to regain our community's respect. This does presuppose there are abusive admins and I think nobody doubts this is true. It does not presuppose that any particular involved admin has been abusive to Tobias; I don't know and don't care. I will do all I can to steer him onto the now. If someone takes the opportunity to kick him when he's down, I will be concerned.

I can't tell anyone to do anything but I do suggest that it may not be helpful to land too much conflicting advice on his talk page. I urge you all to address your concerns directly to me; I assure you they will get top priority and prompt attention. Thank you. John Reid ° 18:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"if you should question something Tobias has done, please bring it to me first, if at all possible"... that's basic mentorship process... everyone should indeed do just that, until and unless it's clear that the mentorship failed. (whether we formally call it that or not is irrelevant). Give John the space he needs to try. ++Lar: t/c 19:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on his past, I suspect he may be gaming us right now, but I hope that's not the case. I'm one of the maaaaaaany admins he has accused of abuse, and while I heartedly hope he can be recovered, I have a certain amount of skepticism as to his good faith status. He may have more than one 'rough edge', and I hope the perception has not been set that we are trying to 'throw him away', but care needs to be given to keep him from chasing users away and becoming a time sink. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Primetime = plagiarism

• Primetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Primetime

Also editing as 67.2.145.xxx, 67.2.148.xxx, and 67.2.149.xxx)

We just discovered many Primetime sockpuppets, some dating back to January (he was banned May 12 2006 [84]).

Virtually every significant contribution Primetime has made is plagiarized. When confronted, he lies, blusters, and refuses to add sources or produces oddly formatted bibliographies of old books. Typical sources for him are online reference sources (World Book, Grove's Music, etc) that require special access and are not searched by Google. He'll keep insisting he has written the material himself until confronted with proof, when he becomes contrite and promises to repent. Primetime is a true troll, picking fights to cause disruption.

His general areas of interest recently have been encyclopedias and other reference works, letters of the alphabet (esp. A, J, T), the Spanish language, Latin America, World Heritage sites, Third World countries, and China. He has participated as a staunch inclusionist in AfDs, especially those for list of slurs. He's even created MOS guidelines (also clearly plagiarized) and tried to get them adopted.[85]

This new crop of sockpuppets have been accused repeatedly of adding inappropriate material or even plagiarism, but no one guessed the connection. Anytime we suspect plagiarism and it's being vigorously denied we should consider that it may be the work of Primetime. -Will Beback 08:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I can help out with the subscriptions. I have World Book, Grove's music/art, AccessScience, Britannica, MacquarieNet, ABS, Safari Books Online, NetLibrary and more. Contact me if you need me to check something in future. --nkayesmith 08:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I was contacted by someone who admitted to using a large number of accounts, but denied being Primetime. After further investigation I've decided that he is probably correct. I've asked him to refrain from using socks in the future and have unblocked his main account, Balthazarduju (talk · contribs). -Will Beback · † · 19:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

An Article for Deletion

Neem Karoli Baba was given an AfD tag by a very new editor (18th edit). The tag was removed by another editor, and then replaced by the tagger. This appears to be an abuse of the deletion process, since the subject has several books written about him, and is extremely well known in the yoga community in the U.S. and in India. Can an admin speedy keep this? It seems that just having the tag stay on the article longer than neccessary is inappropriate. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neem_Karoli_Baba Thanks, ॐ Priyanath 18:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Just keep the tag and go vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neem Karoli Baba. W/ a few speedy keep votes it would be archived and speedy kept by an admin and then back to work as usual again. The thing is that we can't speedy keep it after a couple of minutes especially when the nominator got a valid concern. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - there are now five speedy keeps, two keeps, and no 'deletes'. Others also feel that this is a bad faith nomination. I'll be patient.... ॐ Priyanath 19:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Out of interst, if a deletion tag is added as pure vandalism (for example a "pure vandalism" tag being added to an article that clearly isn't pure vandalism), is it OK to simply revert the page as you would do if the page had been vandalised with abusive language etc, or does it have to go through the normal consenus proccess? perfectblue 11:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think under the rules you're supposed to let the AfD run its course no matter what, but if someone put an AfD tag on an unquestionably notable article like George W. Bush or Japan or Pope Benedict XVI or Earth that would seem to me to be a perfect example of when to apply WP:IAR. Demiurge 12:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be be two different things - if a Speedy tag is added and it's nonsense, then as long as you are not the author of the article, then I'd say remove. However if it goes to AFD, then I'd like the community speak (if even it's a speedy keep) - mainly because it then provides an AFD to point to when dealing with POV-pushers and the like. --Charlesknight 11:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's be more specific. Earlier, I went to the page Wikipedia:Citation templates and found that user IP 208.108.100.94 placed the following tags on it

{{Vandalism}} and {{content}} 

. I determined that the edit was pure vandalism and deleted the tags, leaving a message in the discussion page to explain why I had deleted the tags rather than left them up to the comunity. I'm just checking (all be it after the fact) that I did the right thing (in case I run across something similar again).

That IP's edit history shows that it has made a lot of nonsence edits, and has also placed vandalism or similar tags on a couple of user pages and made a couple of nonsence edits to templates too.

perfectblue 13:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• "Abuse of tags - Bad-faith placing of {{afd}} or speedy-deletion tags on articles that do not meet such criteria" is mentioned on WP:VAND so it looks like the rules do cover this after all and there's no need for WP:IAR. Demiurge 13:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive and inconsistent editing - Alec - U.K.

Alec - U.K. (talk · contribs) has a history of making confusing changes to articles. In many cases his edits appears to be totally correct, but in other cases changes are made that disrupt or distort articles. He has strong POV's regarding certain issues like the word disease that are inserted into changes. The result is that many articles are left in a state of uncertainty, I am often suspicous that he has made changes that are incorrect, but unless it's obviously wrong, I have no grounds to revert.

There are continuous problems with overlinking unimportant words, creating red links for no reason, creating red links because of spelling errors, linking to DAB pages, linking to the wrong article, etc. Also changes to train station routes that left trains going nowhere and edits that appears to hve no validity. Several UK editors have had to spend time reconstructing articles as a result. About 300 articles have been changed by him, some (as I stated above) without problems, but other really require review to ensure their validity.

I was about to create a report a week ago, but his editing appeared to have stopped. However, it is now evident he is also editing as 87.194.35.230 (talk · contribs) and has been using both accounts for some time. --ArmadilloFromHell 23:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this user needs formal sanctioning/warnings/monitoring. See User_talk:Alec_-_U.K. for a truly awful discussion page full of unheeded warnings. This uncivil disruption to User:Quotes userpage who then notified Alec-UK of this as vandalism. Further example is this nonsense move of Genetic disorder to Race related disabilities as "The fraise, "Genetic disorder" is very very offencive" - which clearly completely misses the distinction of genetic abnormalities (which can occur in any person) from racial genetic tendencies (i.e. specific concentration of genes in certain racial groups).

There are many edits which are uncivil or hard to identify what Alec is trying to achieve, eg this posting to Zisa which is surely just churlish uncivil aggressively quizzing of an editor now about the Asthma stub article they created in March 2002 and which has long since been expanded.

I would agree that User:87.194.35.230 has acted to deliberately disrupt and confuse the asthma article, see this sequence of edits, and this disruption to bronchitis, and trolling with this piece of nonsense to ArmadilloFromHell.

These further edits to asthma article follow on from what I eventually concluded was trolling and pedantic arguing on the asthma talk pages following some very idiosyncratic tagging to split the asthma article - see Talk:Asthma#.22Disease.22 and Talk:Asthma#Split.

If truly User:87.194.35.230 is a sockpuppet for Alec - U.K. to continue disruption to to the same selective group of articles (very likely given both edited in similar disruptive manner to Asthma & Bronchitis topics as well as Tulse Hill and other Dulwich related topics) then, given the failure of Alec to collaboratively engage with numerous editors, I would urge that an admin take firm action. David Ruben ^Talk 02:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A great number of this users edits (from both accounts) have been reverted by a wide range of editors. There have been numerous attempts to reason him but there continues to be systematic disruptive and non-useful editing. Polite warnings have also been unheeded. MRSC • Talk 20:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above statements. Unusual articles created, bizarre moves and continued amends against consesus and a refusal to discuss amendments or respond to notes & agressive comments left on long unused IP adress users all, to my mind, point to deliberately disruptive editing. Regan123 23:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Cork

Cork has been unilaterally moved by someone and cannot be moved back. A vote on this issue closed less than two weeks ago and concluded no consensus to move this page. This move now is very unfair and an abuse of process. If people find they cannot get their way and then go ahead anyway their would be major upset and termoil of wikipedia. Please investigate and rectify. Djegan 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The page Cork just went through a unilateral move. It originally referred to the city in Ireland. The city page is now Cork (city in Ireland) which is non-standard for Irish cities (see the redir page Cork, County Cork, etc). The page Cork (disambiguation) is now full of circular references and furthermore, the page Cork now redirs to Cork (material). Recently, the Cork page survived two votes to move it (see Talk:Cork (city in Ireland)) only to have this happen. Not being an admin, I can't undo the damage. Help! - Alison^✍ 00:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The best I can say is to go through the process at WP:RM to get it undone. But I would talk to the user first; if they admit a mistake, it won't be controversial. But the bad naming convention is a problem, you're right. Cork should probably be a disambig page, and Cork, County Cork or Cork, Ireland (I looked under Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles), and it surprisingly had no mention of which). -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That's also already been discussed here on WP:IMOS. Thanks for the help, though :) - Alison^✍ 00:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I've just seen the above post; so there was a vote on this. Yes, that's a problem. I'll wait for an admin to intervene. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• The first failed move vote can be found at Talk:Cork (city in Ireland) - Alison^✍ 00:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• The second failed move vote can be found at Talk:Cork_(material) - Alison^✍ 00:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Now the page has been moved to Cork, Ireland, I remember that saying which must of applied here; "screw process"? when you cannot be bothered doing things correctly and dont give a damn. Djegan 01:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• What a mess! :( It's a little better now, what with the dab page, but it's still wrong. At the very least, Cork city (I dare not wikilink any more!) should be at Cork, County Cork as per the discussion on WP:IMOS. However, the whole thing is in the air now and after two major pagemove debates, I'm very disappointed that this has now happened. Not good. - Alison^✍ 01:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Cork, Ireland is now in major conflict with County Cork as for most Irish people, the former relates to the county, not the city. - Alison^✍ 01:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, before you all get your panties in a bunch, let me explain. The disambig page needs to go at cork, and it needs to go there now so the rest of the mess can be straightened out. In order to do this, I picked an arbitrary city name amd moved it so the disambig page could be correct. Now you can fight about what to call the city article, as I really don't care in the least what you use. So go fight about that, but the disambig page is correct now pschemp | talk 01:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"I really don't care"...the new policy must be "screw process" when you dont have a consensus but want to push things thru'. The reason why consensus is important is that guidelines are just guidelines and not policies and guidelines do not often agree or are not always absolute for every stutation. Is their an admin in the house, please! Djegan 01:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Putting a disambig page in the correct place is not screwing process. The city had to be moved to something in order for that to happen. Use whatever process you like to decide the name of the city, I don't care. However, the disambig page belongs where it is. You have to start somewhere to clean up the mess. pschemp | talk 01:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

At least your honest that you dont give a damn, just want things your way and screw everyone else. Obviously you know better, why dont you become the encyclopedias sole editor. Have fun. Djegan 01:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And another move, now to Cork, County Cork. Can an admin please comment or investigate! Djegan 01:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You vitrol seems to have blinded you to the fact that I don't care what you name the city article, not that I don't care about process or anything else. pschemp | talk 01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I realize that you guys just had a difficult fight over this one, but sometimes Manual of style considerations are most important. Also, please see WP:CIVIL - I personally care nothing either way for cork material or for the city, which is more important. However, this page deserves to be a disambig. It won't hurt anyone looking for the Irish article. Having the article at Cork, instead of a disambig page, was creating confusion, as should have been clear by the fact that the newbie thought it deserved to be moved. It's fairly standard on Wikipedia, if there is confusion, to not just link to the more popular article (which county cork could only arguably be): see George Bush, which could just point to "W.", as he's probably the most popular search, but it properly links right to the disambig page, in case we're looking for "H.W." (Father), or another. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As i said before, fight amongst yourselves about what the city should be called, but cork is the proper disambig page. As much as you guys think Ireland is important, the city is not the most common use of the word. Consensus, and or lack of it does not trump common sense. pschemp | talk 01:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the recent RM discussions were mainly about whether the city should remain the primary topic for DAB purposes (which would suggest the city remains are Cork, like Philadelphia which is not a dab page). Both discusssions ended up with no consensus to move the city from Cork, so the recent move was controversial and lacked any consensus. (It also breaks about 1,200 internal links too) While personally I'm neutral on whether the city is the primary topic as there are cases to be made (and have been made) either way, I don't think it's appropiate for two discussions that said "no agreement to do X" to be followed up by doing X anyway, as that will simply cause more ill will in the long run. We are supposed to be encouraging discussion to resolve disputes, but ignoring discussion outcomes will do the exact opposite. Regards, MartinRe 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not participate in the discussions, so accusing me of ignoring them is silly. This is a simple thing. Cork referring to the city is not the most common usage of the word in English, therefore, Cork should not point to the city article. Common sense here trumps "lack of consensus." pschemp | talk 01:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but let me point something out. Pepole that monitor a page often are fans of this thing, and they keep the page fairly biased. The people that voted in Cork looked to be trying to support their hometown rather than keep Wikipedia correct. If people monitoring the Mohammed page decided to change the text to say "it's a proven fact that Mohammed was the Prophet; worship him or go to Hell", it still wouldn't mean it's not NPOV, just because it was consensus. To be honest, consensus is normally the way to go, but if it trumps policy, guidelines, and common sense, then perhaps an outside source needs to step in. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"The people that voted in Cork looked to be trying to support their hometown" - you're kidding, right? Where's the evidence for *that*? - Alison^✍ 01:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC) (not from Cork, BTW)

Let me say it again. This is a simple thing. Cork referring to the city is not the most common usage of the word in English, therefore, Cork should not point to the city article. Common sense here trumps "lack of consensus." Now, stop fighting and go do something constructive. pschemp | talk 01:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly consensus and votes count for nothing, as long as you have the required admin rights you can do what you want and screw process. Djegan 02:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As we have seen I cannot disagree with you their. Its all about having sufficent rights to do as you please. I hope the people that moved it around will help with all the redirects now, or will they? Incidents like these are a genuine reminder as to why you should not waste too much time around here. Djegan 02:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As the user who moved the Cork article, here is why I did it. I typed "cork" into the Wikipedia search box, with the intention of reading about the material. However, I was redirected to an article about a city in Ireland. I've never heard of this city before, whereas almost every English speaker knows what a cork (material) is. So I decided to move the city article without reading the talk page.

I'm very sorry for causing trouble, but I wasn't trying to go against the 2 weeks of debate, because I never read them. --Bowlhover 02:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. You didn't cause any permanent harm. This is exactly why cork should be a disambig page. I didn't know about the discussions either, but logic dictates the solution here regardless. Your actions ended up fixing a long standing issue. pschemp | talk 02:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this thread only after I reverted all things as were before, but nevertheless I stand by my revertion. I see the RM being re-debated here over and over, but has anyone take a goddam look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Cork? 99% of the stuff is meant for the city, and it takes a bot to sort out; it would take few hours even with AWB. The arguments were put forward at the RM, and I don't see all of those can be attributed to "Irish nationalism". Breaking things that ain't broken is the just wrong way to do. Satisfying few people looking for Cork (material) means pissing off many other people and many articles. Yes, there's WP:IAR but there's also WP:PI. And Cork, County Cork, where it ended up, is about the most stupid article title I've seen for a city. Duja► 10:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please prove that the most common usage in the English langauge, all over the world is the city name. Otherwise, I will move it back. There are a lot of links here because we have a lot of people working on Irish related articles. Moving something and leaving a redirect does not "break" links or require a bot to fix. That's the whole point of redirects. But I'm serious here. You need to back up your assertation that most people seraching for cork mean the city. pschemp | talk 13:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

pschemp. We had this debate already - twice. And covered exactly the topic you note above. If you move the page without consideration to the previous discussion, or without attempting to gain some concencus/agreement, then any change you make will likely result in the same "request for admin" as this one did. Please don't make the change without opening a discussion in according to the appropriate renaming policies. Guliolopez 15:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an Irish nor I particularly care where the Cork city article resides. I was merely the closing admin at the RM who had the page at the watchlist, and was trying to extinguish the fire created by the unilateral move. The arguments for the move were not dismissed as a bad idea: actually, one of strong arguments against the move was the job involved in fixing all the links and suggestion that the move wasn't worth the fuss, and that following WP:MOS to the letter would be process wonking not worth the trouble. May I remind you that people come to articles more often by following a link from another article, than by typing into a search box? I can't prove (or disprove) what's the Average Joe's expected target when typing "Cork" in the search box, but I can prove that it's not Average Joe's expectation that he ends up in a dab page by following a link from elsewhere. And I endorse Angus's comment below. Duja► 16:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a couple of dozen editors !voting demonstrates anything much, even when I'm one of the in the majority. The fact that this has come up again, now with added wikidrama here, suggests that moving Cork-the-city to somewhere and Cork-the-dab-page to Cork may not be a bad idea after all. As for Philadelphia, I think of the stuff in silver plastic tubs, but what does that prove ? Having said that, leaving 1500 wikilinks pointing to a dab page is a Bad Thing. Any move needs to be conducted in a transparent-to-readers way. Decide where to move to; change the current Cork-the-city links to point there; move Cork-the-city there; move Cork-the-dab-page to Cork. No fuss, no drama, no big deal. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Great. As I said before, I have no opinion on what the name of the city article is. However, leaving a disambig page at an incorrect place because people can't be bothered to agree about the city article name is not a good reason to do so. Also, not moving something to the correct place because it will require work is hardly a valid reason either. I'm not going to sit around and wait a year to fix the disambig page because of a petty argument about the city article name. So, please, pick a name, any name but Cork and get it fixed. pschemp | talk 18:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is nothing but a content dispute now. Further discussion should be directed to the talk page of the city at whatever name it is at today. pschemp | talk 18:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

With respect to your comments here your just another admin, wikipedia may not be a democracy but your starting to sound like a dictator (re: "I'm not going to sit around and wait a year to fix the disambig page because of a petty argument about the city article name.", et al). Perhaps one of the most fundemental qualities of an admin is someone that can step back from an issue that they have an interest in {your comments make it clear that you believe that the city is not at all entitled to be at Cork} and not make the final decision. Let another, hopefully independent admin, make the final decision - if and when that point is reached. Been an admin is not about casting the final vote that sways the balance and then using your admin rights to carry it out. Djegan 00:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Blockle

This user seems to be an admitted sock. Is it OK to delete his posts at the RD or should an admin deal with it? --hydnjo talk 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If his posts haven't been replied to and add nothing of significance, best to revert them to discourage sockpuppetry and avoid wasting editors' time replying to them. It doesn't have to be an admin that removes them - we just have some extra buttons, we don't have extra power to make decisions except where those buttons are needed. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks Sam. --hydnjo talk 02:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As I checked blocklist he was already blocked for admitting socks. Daniel5127 (Talk) 05:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ive been deleting the ones I found on the RD and talk:RD pages.--Light current 16:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Sixty Six thread above

Not sure if anyone noted my post to this thread above dealing with User:Sixty Six. Has any admin had an opportunity to take a look at this situation? The nature of the discussion on that user's talk page is concerning. Newyorkbrad 04:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Has anything happened since last night? The user was left some strongly-worded warnings then, and I'd only want to take action if this continues. Morwen - Talk 15:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My post was from last night and I see subsequent warning. Not aware of any activity since then. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 15:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User Fashion1

I have blocked Fashion1 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for violating WP:3RR at Lindsey German (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have reverted him a few times over there but am not the only one and am not really involved in the conflict other than in an enforcement capacity; he is insistent that any addition or restoration of an image he does not like is "vandalism". At least he is now starting to talk about it rather than just engaging in drive-by deletions. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Machine head1994

This user has created an attack page (Lee Sumner), which included the individual concerned's myspace account name. The article was posted for speedy deletion, but User:Machine head1994 deleted the tags (now restored). They have been cited for unwiki-like conduct three times today by three different users.

perfectblue 15:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked for vandalism all contributions.--Dakota 17:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

88.3.25.248 removing Basque content

FYI: 88.3.25.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) went on a short spree removing references to the Basque Country (autonomous community) today. I've reverted those that I've seen. Slambo (Speak) 15:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

not a weasle, again

this [86] was within 1/2 hour of end of a cooling down block (spose he has toned down a bit:) figured it goes here as the 1st one is above, . & i'm more worried about the abuse of process than anything else. i've left a note w/ User_talk:Netsnipe#User:NotAWeasel (who blocked him 1st time) so ignore if u think that's enuf. thx  ⇒ bsnowball  16:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

eventualy i remember to rv it & warn user for bv, so again, if that's enough, ignore  ⇒ bsnowball  17:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Indian politician images

WikiProject Indian politics has been creating Indian politician stubs with a image from the Indian government website and tagging them with {{India-politician-photo}}. Around 600 images were uploaded by various members of the project. Today, User:Abu badali comes round and tags them all to be deleted. I would appreciate some advise on this. I feel the politician photos are correct under Wikipedia fair-use policy. When a free-image is available, the fair-use can be discontinued and deleted. I am concerned with this user saying on his user page, "No, I don't dislike images. I just prefer them free.". This is not fair to people who have put-in a lot of time in uploading the images. Please advise. -- Ganeshk (talk)

From WP:FUC: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. [...] However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." These images are correctly being tagged with {{subst:rfu}} by Abu badali, at least assuming that the images he is tagging are for living people. --Yamla 18:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User:87.78.181.124

This user is otherwise known as User:Subversive element, User:Tit for tat, and User:Jan Jakea. All have been indefinitely banned. I am certain that the user is the same because he uses the same IP block, and has formerly admitted, while editing from this IP range, to being the above-mentioned users. Moreover, his contributions are unmistakeable.

In spite of this, the user has continued to edit Wikipedia, disrupting ArbCom nominations, and is currently deleting my comments and replacing them with his own disruptive posts at User talk:Williamwells (I have reverted his edits there in accordance with WP:BLOCK, but in my view admin intervention is required). Thank you. Jakew 19:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In the immediate, you could report to WP:AIV and the user can be temp banned. Perhaps an administrator will take a look at this report after that, though, and give a longer ban. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Blanking page - edit summaries

Maybe it's just me, maybe I haven't been paying enough attention to recent changes, but there seems to be many anon. vandalism edits where they put "Blanking page" in the edit summary. (such as [87] [88] [89] [90] just to point out a few that have come recently) and vandals providing edit summaries, such as "Replacing page with..." [91] These are not coming nearly at the volume that would indicate a vandal bot, but wonder if there is something to this pattern? --Aude (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Those are automatically generated edit summaries. It's a new feature that's been added to the software. -- Steel 20:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)q

Nevermind, I see this is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Is there a new vandal tool out there? --Aude (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The goddamned WikiCouch

I created User:PHDrillSergeant/WikiCouch. I copied it to project space (Wikipedia:The WikiCouch, leaving User:PHDrillSergeant/WikiCouch behind in case the essay (not even a policy. An essay.) didn't go over well. Which it didn't.

So after the projectspace version was gone, I decided to continue working on/improving The userspace version. I figured, it's an essay! It's opinion. I can keep it there until it's improved.

On the same MfD as the projectspace version, Cyde began to argue that the Userspace version should be deleted too.. Well, who the hell am I to argue with an admin? So I put {{db-author}} on it and it was deleted at my request. I had saved a code copy on my computer, and fixed it up, requesting User:Gurch to recreate it. He did so.

Keep in mind, I had changes and altered and improved the essay at this point.

Today, Cyde deleted the page for recreation. This action:

• Is not right since it was a seriously atered version of the page
• Is not right because it was userspace and follows different deletion guidelines
• Is not right because I had deleted it in the first place
• Is not right because I was not notified and had no say in this second deletion
• Is not right because it is an act of Wheel-warring

So what am I supposed to do? Why should I stay here if I can't even attempt to help Wikipedia without having my hard work destroyed?

I'm not trying to speak out against Cyde, I'd just like to have my page restored. ~ PHDrillSergeant...and his couch...§ 20:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried asking Cyde? --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes he did. IMHO opinion, Cyde was a bit out of bounds with that. If he wants to delete something in PHD's userspace, we can go through another xfd. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps not. Maybe you should go to Deletion Review? I was under the impression that some people had voted userfy on the afd, but I don't see it. Perhaps they will take up your case. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I would except that Deletion Review does not cover speedily-deleted articles. ~ PHDrillSergeant...and his couch...§ 21:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Who said it doesn't? Titoxd^(?!?) 21:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate images in album cover pages

Copied from WP:VPA (because admin intervention is required). --ais523 17:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC) The user User:NickelodeonSlimeTime is uploading "owned.com" images to replace album cover images and then reverting them so they remain in the upload history. I have no idea what he's up to, but the images should be deleted regardless. Peter O. (Talk) 20:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mass organised harassment

I don't know how many people are aware of the ongoing incident with the Genmay article. It was tagged for speedy-deletion and I had the misfortune to be the one to evaluate it and delete it. Twice in fact, the first for the hasty reason that it appeared to be nonsense (I failed to check the history properly), and the second time when it was recreated on the grounds that the original and the repost fell under A7. Through the protests that ensued, I discovered that this was a repost after a delete-consensus AfD under a different name. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Mayhem.)

Since then I've been the target of mass harassment by the members of the forum. They have a thread where they organise and boast about their vandalism and harassment of me and my family, as well as the results of their attempts to Internet stalk me. Their mods seem useless and their site owner seems to take a hands-off approach. Worse, the results of their stalking have turned into bounties on my home address and phone number, as well as proposals to enable a member to track me down where I go to school to assault me. The user "Straw Man", who is very likely The Straw Man (talk · contribs), in the above thread: "so who's going to beat him up, then? I'm sure we have Vancouver [M]embers". Regardless of whether their stalking has turned up the right "target", this is seriously out of line and way beyond illegal.

I've already blocked User:Genmay for posting what's intended to be contact information for me, but I know it's been spammed across many articles. That was a clear-cut block (inappropriate username) and deletion, but I shouldn't be the judge of the rest of the sockpuppets and meatpuppets as I'm their target.

Their thread has hit over 1500 posts about me and this page's deletion, and they don't seem to be anywhere near to losing interest. They've tried spreading their harassment attempts beyond Wikipedia and their forum to Digg.com.

I can take a lot of this garbage, though pulling my family into it is bad since I can't shoulder it for them. What I can't accept lying down are the bounties on my location and the threats of bodily harm. What does one do in such a situation? — Saxifrage ✎ 00:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you genuinely afraid for your person or family? I think the chances of some nerd actually hunting you down and killing you with a replica Klingon sword or bad body odour or something are extremely slim; but if I'm wrong about this then I really wouldn't want to have been the one to be complacent about it. But the number of death threats made by forum geeks vastly outweighs the number of murders done by forum geeks by something approaching infinity to one. It's a lot easier to threaten to do something illegal when you know that you're completely incapable of it, physically and mentally. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Contact your local police and let them know what is going on. Go to the alexa page or whois page for the forum's website and contact the local police at the address of the page owner. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Easily the safest solution to be honest. If I lived on the American continent and had a family I would probably be vastly more inclined to make the effort. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I've had a number of people threaten awful violence against me on Wikipedia, as I'm sure almost any of us who does counter-vandalism has. But if they're trying to post your home address, and they have a thread about you with over 1500 posts to it, then that's pretty over the top. I would also advise going to police. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked the Straw Man. Seriously, tell them I'm the one actually responsible for the deletion so they can come harass me, I don't really care. They sound like hollow threats, but I can understand your being bothered by them. Aside from legal action, the best way to make trolls like that go away is to just ignore them... all they're really going for is getting under your skin. --W.marsh 00:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're right, they're wrong and they're just pissed that something they care about a lot is not worth including... it's the same with teenager's bands... The threats are empty so you don't have to worry about them. Cbrown1023 00:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Also agree you should go to the police. In the meantime I am closing the deletion review per WP:SNOW and per this being unacceptable behavior. JoshuaZ 00:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be at least one long-term user upset with my closing at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 13. If anyone else wants to take a look at the discussion and give opinions I would appreciate it. If another admin thinks what I did should be reversed feel free. JoshuaZ 01:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely right to close it early. None of these trolls gets anymore air-time on Wikipedia, period. If Rizla's last post [92] is in fact the end of it, then I suggest leaving the page in that state for now, with just the discussion between JoshuaZ and Rizla. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I will then rollback any edits to the section by Genmay sockpuppets or anons. This will also hopefully take some of the heat off of Saxifrage because I'll be the one pissing them off. JoshuaZ 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

i'll just say this much - it's one thing to close down something early. It's another to give in to trolls, which is what I believe we've done here. Let's be consistent about it for god's sake. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Um ... excuse me? In the first place, no one gave in anything to anyone; the page is still deleted. (I have never seen the underlying page, and have no opinion on the deletion.) In the second and far more important place, and with all due respect, I am afraid I have to strongly question any reasoning that prioritizes rigorous adherence to the deletion review procedure over the issues raised in this thread. The repeated and credible threats of real-life harassment and retaliation against an administrator (or any user) as described above are extremely serious. The need to deter and mitigate the effects of such conduct is of such importance as to supersede consideration of such matters as how long a deletion review is supposed to last. Newyorkbrad 03:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Someone seems to have done something, as they took down the offending thread on their forums, apparently. --W.marsh 03:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Some of their threads are user only. Someone may want to get an ID and check if its still there. JoshuaZ 04:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • "Sorry, registration has been disabled by the administrator". Oh well, maybe one day, eh?--Dreaded Walrus 04:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I hope that doesn't mean the administrators have just made it impossible for non-users to read the death threats, and that they're actually still there. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm pretty sure that's the reason actually. From what I've seen of their moderators they can be as bad as the users. They have a strange pay-the-moderator system of enforcement, so irritating people are banned by having enough people pay the moderator to do so. It's entirely possible someone paid to have the thread hidden and to have new account creation disabled. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Is anyone aware of anyone who already has an account who might be able to take a look? Meanwhile, Saxifrage I hope you've contacted the local cops. JoshuaZ 19:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
            • I have. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Does the Foundation not have any policy about handling this? I do have reason now to think they're serious, and I'm taking the measures I can as a private individual. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You certainly should contact the Foundation office if you haven't already. Any further discussion of steps to be taken should probably occur off-Wiki. Newyorkbrad 04:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Cute 1 4 u/Pumpkin Pie

I just determined that Pumpkin Pie is an abusive sockpuppet of banned user, Cute 1 4 u. As per WP:BAN, I am enforcing the ban by reverting all edits (at least, all with the rollback button still active) from this user. --Yamla 02:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that the new user account had also been blocked for numerous personal attacks. Even with a fresh start, this user is unable or unwilling to abide by Wikipedia policy. Please keep this in mind if considering unbanning this user at some point in the future. --Yamla 02:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

She came back? She really loves us! /endsarcasm—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not directly involved in this sockpuppet problem, I thought that Cute 1 4 u has another sockpuppets that has never been mentioned before. Yes, This account was used abusively, and I think best idea is to keep an eye on this disruptive user for while. Because I saw that this banned user used sockpuppets to make personal attacks. Daniel5127 (Talk) 05:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is still going on since about 3 months ago. Daniel5127 (Talk) 05:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I checked the history and added a {{sockpuppetproven}} tag. --Coredesat 06:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, {{sockblock}} is good for those accounts. 68.39.174.238 15:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe that she made yet another sockpuppet. I was all for her unblocking, but now... The RSJ ^¿Qué? 03:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

User:IZAK criticizing same-sex marriage on talk page

Rather than discuss the article content, or even discuss the criticism of the article subject, IZAK has instead decided to criticize same-sex marriage on an article talk page (example):

"Shame on South Africa, as it has now violated the Bible's prohibition which specifically forbids male homosexuality as stated clearly in Leviticus 18:22: "DO NOT LIE WITH A MALE AS YOU WOULD WITH A WOMAN, SINCE THIS IS A DISGUSTING PERVERSION" (וְאֶת-זָכָר--לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה: תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא) [93] ...one wonders what will come next?"

Despite repeated removals by others, IZAK has continued to add this opinion back to the talk page, and criticize others who complain about his actions. He's up to his 4th addition of that content to the talk page. See related discussion at User_talk:IZAK. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-11-16 14:18Z

I'd protect, and block for 3RR. Will ^{(message ♪)} 14:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate fact to consider here is that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This applies to talk pages just as much as articles. Morwen - Talk 14:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So, um... who is user KeeperHL (talk · contribs)? —freak(talk) 20:18, Nov. 16, 2006 (UTC)

This is a good law but invariably a distraction from the most pressing problems facing South Africa. Shame on the Tripartite Alliance for selling out the South African masses by serving the rich. Oh, and תועבה translates as "abomination" not "disghusting practice." Am I on topic yet? El_C 22:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Either translation seems reasonable although yours is somewhat closer. Its a strange word that doesn't show up many times so there doesn't seem to be much context for translating it IMO. JoshuaZ 03:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

For a useful discussion of this issue, see Saul M. Olyan, "'And with a Male You Shall Not Lie the Lying Down of a Woman': On the Meaning and Significance of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13" (G. D. Comstock and S. E. Henking, Que(e)rying Religion: A Critical Anthology, Continuum: 1997, pp. 398-414). Chick Bowen 05:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, members in the current South African regime are imperialist-lackyes who betrayed the people. As an aside, תועבה originated during biblical times as a pejorative term used by the Israelites to denote animals considered holy by the goyim. El_C 10:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

User:172

"you are no longer welcome on my talk page, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox for fringe political activists" was the response to my [offer to enter mediation] on two content disputes. User:172 has consistently reverted addition of anarchism-related content to both the Communism [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and Socialism [1], [2], [3]. Given my recent block, I am trying to remain civil, but this is not acceptable. This is clearly not a simple content dispute, but a tendentious editor who thinks he owns these articles and can change things without discussion and ignoring valid arguments that disagree with him. Donnacha 18:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completly with User:172. JBKramer 19:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You agree completely with User:172 about what, exactly? His edits? If so, that's beside the point. His response to an offer of mediation? Nice to know, but that brings him right up to Point 5 of the policy on Dealing with disruptive editors (talk page tried, mediation rejected). The guidelines say the solution to that is: "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents administrator intervention: warning or temporary block as appropriate." Donnacha 20:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with Donnacha. User:172 apparently feels that his claim to be a "professional" historian provides him with more authority than other editors on wikipedia. His reasons for deleting various information essentially amounts to what he personally holds true. He is unaccepting of divergent viewpoints grounded in history, which nullify any claims on his part of neutrality. He acts exclusively rather than inclusively. Blockader 20:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is spurious complaint and clear misuse of the administrators' noticeboard. The noticeboard is meant for users to post complaints about the conduct of other users, not for content disputes. Users who misuse the noticeboards should be admonished by experienced editors not to do so in the future, and sanctioned if they continue the behavior. Donnachadelong (talk · contribs) was blocked for 31 hours on November 15 for similar conduct-- "violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA." [94] I recommend that administrators and other experienced editors continue to assist this user on developing more constructive ways of engaging people who raise questions about the content he contributes to articles. 172 | Talk 21:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that both of you take a few steps back and cool down; 172, your language is out of line, and Donna, this isn't the right place for this. --InShaneee 21:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's Donnacha. Am I misreading the guideline or what? Point 5 of the policy on Dealing with disruptive editors (talk page tried, mediation rejected). The guidelines say the solution to that is: "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents administrator intervention: warning or temporary block as appropriate." I am following the guidelines to avoid a heated argument with a disruptive editor following my (disputed) blocking. Donnacha 22:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the disruptive editor is you. Stop with the Anarchist POV pushing. It's bad enough in the anarchist walled garden. Don't damage the rest of the encyclopedia. JBKramer 22:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't once pushed my point of view, the piece on anarchists was already in the Communism article. I simply gave it a section heading to make it easier to read[95]. Another editor asked me to source it properly, so I did just that. Anarchist Communism is a very important part of communist history and it's POV-pushing to remove it. As for the socialism article, my so-called "POV pushing" has been to add a wikilink to a description already in the article. Wow! 172's objection is that the term is a neologism, despite Libertatia's post that he can show a use of the French translation socialisme libertaire from 1894 and I've shown a modern use by Chomsky (the person who has popularised the term) from 1970. Wow, a 36-year-old neologism! Donnacha 22:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that "Anarchist Communism" is a "very important part of communist history." File an article RFC to get more uninvolved eyes on it. Agree to abide by the results. User:Libertatia is part of your problematic walled garden. JBKramer 23:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And you accuse me of POV? Your agreement or the lack thereof is not the issue, any neutral observer can see that the split in the First International, the development of anarchist communism in Catalonia and the Ukraine, its influence on the IWW, the New Left and recently the anti-globalisation are notable issues. I suggested mediation, a less confrontational way to resolve the dispute than RFC, and was rudely rejected. Donnacha 23:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My language is not really out of line. My edit summaries mentioning 'anarchist POV-pushing' are a bit blunt, but they were provoked after I was accused on vandalism following an initially civil reply. 172 | Talk 21:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

172, calling him a 'fringe political activist' and accusing him of 'anarchist POV-pushing' are more than blunt, and 'he started it' is not a valid excuse. Donnacha, there are other steps in dispute resolution; if this is about content, you might consider a Request for Comment. JBKramer, settle down and stop with the accusations. --InShaneee 22:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not about content, it's about a disruptive editor who has rejected an offer to enter mediation. 172 continues to remove sections of the Communism article without consulting any other editor (I'm not the only one to have reverted his changes). I've shown the seven times he's done the same edit. Is the Disruptive editing guideline a guideline or not? If so, 172 has rejected mediation, which was my attempt to go to step 4 (Request an Wikipedia:Requests for comment or other impartial dispute resolution.), thus it is now at step 5 when the guideline states "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents administrator intervention: warning or temporary block as appropriate." Donnacha 22:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

File an article RFC and swear to abide by the results. JBKramer 22:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So it's not a guideline then? I'd like an admin to clarify that. Does an offer to enter mediation not qualify as "impartial dispute resolution"? Donnacha 22:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiLawyering is wrong. File an article RFC. JBKramer 23:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly settled, thank you. I do not see a policy about calling spades windmills. When I see spades, I call them spades. There is a spade here. JBKramer 22:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No one has to swear to anything, and all of you seriously need to settle down and take this to dispute resolution elsewhere. The next person who decides to throw out another accusation is getting blocked for disruption. --InShaneee 00:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict; I tried to post the following before InShanee had, & I hope InShanee will take that into consideration)

User:172 has had a long history of incivility & hostility to others that extends back, well, from the moment he started editting on well, from the moment he started editting on Wikipedia four years ago. (Some of his early comments would have resulted in a permanent ban under contemporary attitudes.) He has been excused for this behavior because "he makes useful edits". I believe Donnacha has ample grounds to dispense with the steps in dispute resolution -- although I applaud Donnacha's steps to assume good faith & to work towards an understanding between them -- & open a case before the ArbCom. -- llywrch 00:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this and, without any accusations, am honestly asking what next? If the Disruptive editing guidelines are inaccurate, then they should be changed. If the ArbCom is the way to go, then I'll take that advice. Donnacha 00:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC might be a good place. If nothing comes of that, than arbitration may indeed be needed, as suggested above. --InShaneee 00:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom doesn't interfere with straightforward content disputes, which is what this appears to be, and the Anarchist Communism section did look inappropriate — a bit like adding a section on Jews for Jesus to Judaism. This isn't the place for content disputes either. The best way forward is, first, to read the content policies very carefully (WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV) and to follow them religiously, and if that doesn't resolve things (and it usually does), then to file an article RfC for neutral input. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Arlington High School

Hi, we have noticed some issues on the Arlington High School page lately. Arlington_High_School_(LaGrange,_New_York). A user User:Nationalparks continues to blank sections out. After i issued a vandalism warning and placed the section back in, he deleted the section again. This has been an ongoing issue with this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgarnes2 (talk • contribs)

The place for this is Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Also, in the future please sign your posts. --Masamage 22:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that it has any chance there at all. Take a look at Nationalparks' edit [96]. Most certainly not vandalism. Metros232 22:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, now that I look at it further I see you're right. This is a content dispute; take it to the article talk page and decide whether the information there is encyclopedic and verifiable. --Masamage 22:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

How do we go about handling a content dispute? Mgarnes2 22:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what Masamage said directly above you, "take it to the article talk page and decide whether the information there is encyclopedic and verifiable". Metros232 22:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have replied to the warning on my talk page, and in talk page of the article itself. Also, I only removed it once. Other user(s) had removed it previously. And the vandalism warning had been placed in the article itself, so I removed that, as well as the paragraph that was unsourced, unverifiable, and POV. Nationalparks 00:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of revisions from Roger Needham

On November 15, Centrx attempted to remove a number of incidents of vandalism from the history of this article. Unfortunately, Centrx also deleted at least one legitimate revision of the article: the most recent version, which contained an infobox added after the article was protected. It is possible that Centrx also deleted other legitimate revisions of the article. While it was quite appropriate to remove the vandalism from the page history, I request that all legitimate revisions of this article be restored. Thank you. John254 00:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you try talking to Centrx or just putting it back in? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Since article is currently fully protected, I cannot edit it. Furthermore, we really shouldn't have legitimate revisions of an article deleted from the page history. For this reason, it would be much better to restore the deleted legitimate version(s) of this article than to restore the infobox and to hope that nothing else is missing. John254 03:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Centrx made that mistake with me once, when I was a newbie, he reverted too far back, and a lot of good contributions were lost. But I never said anything, and it was a mistake of his, and so I can't blame him. If you never say anything to him, coming here won't help anything. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I found where Centrx had moved the old edits, including the last version with the infobox (only admins will be able to follow those links, sorry). The infobox was the only thing that was lost. I agree that ideally, the original edit would be restored to the article's history, but since a) I made that edit originally, and have made it again, b) I didn't compose the infobox myself in the first place, but copied it from the talk page while the page was protected, and c) restoration of a single edit is, frankly, a pain in the butt, I think it's OK for the purposes of the GFDL to let this one slide. I'll drop Centrx a note to make sure he sees this discussion, though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you could have just asked me to fix it. —Centrx→talk • 04:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Brigitte Gabriel

Anti-semitic vandal 70.50.202.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) vandalizing Brigitte Gabriel and posting lengthy diatribes about the evil Jews on Talk:Brigitte Gabriel. Tiresome. Please block without further ado. KazakhPol 02:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would if I could, but I can't, so I won't; but I do agree that someone should. Tee-r011. Georgewilliamherbert 02:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry; about his people are watching the guy right now. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

User:KDRGibby

This user was banned Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby

• KDRGibby (talk · contribs)
• 71.15.112.129 (talk · contribs)
• 129.120.46.164 (talk · contribs)
• Note incivil comment at [97]
• The banned users old userpage [98]

This concerns a banned user evading the block by returning using ips obviously at Che Guevara now moved to talk [99] and Classical liberalism to further it's own particular pov. Please consider appropriate blocks.

--Dakota 06:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Milton Friedman

I would like to suggest to impose bans or blocks for

• Brooktwn (talk · contribs)

and his possible sockpuppets

• Jdonman (talk · contribs)
• Oranjube (talk · contribs)
• Elisamin (talk · contribs)
• Paperkitten (talk · contribs)

because of racism and vandalism at the article above (see [100]) Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 09:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

 Note: KoS blocked the last three; they are all SPA's for vandalising, so I see no problem with the request. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked one, and El_C did in the other. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 09:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Aye, very nice , thanks. ~~ Phoe _talk 10:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

repeated offensive vandalism

user NotAWeasel (talk · contribs) has repeatedly vandalised [101], [102] this wikipadia namespace page, & deleted a previous warining about doing so[103], also continues with offensive headlines etc.[104]. has been block 48hrs this week, appears to have no effect.  ⇒ bsnowball  10:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The user has been given a final note by Husond. His last edit was at 03:48, November 17, 2006. Leave the issue for now but if he doesn't stop the disturbing and racist behaviour that will be dealt with. Szvest → ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 10:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Similar accusations have been made by RunedChozo (talk · contribs). See for instance Talk:Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 10:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen a number of editors trying to POV that article, including an instance where they created a POV fork and tried to get the original article deleted in bad faith. They have also tried to load the article with emotional content that does not add anything to the facts. We have NPOV standards for a reason, people. Aecis, I have warned user Notaweasel about his behavior as well and asked him to calm down, but I understand how hard it is to deal with rampant POV-pushers and especially people like bsnowball, who (along with his friends) spend much time trying to deliberately bait their opposition. RunedChozo 17:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Editor keeps re-adding copy-vio material

We have an editor who keeps inserting instructional poorly written cruffly guidegames material into this article. Normally that would be a content dispute but it's also a straight cut and paste from here, therefore a copyvio. I have communicated this fact to the editor here but they do not wish to communicate. Can someone with a bit more firepower explain why we don't just cut and past other people's copyrighted material into article? --Charlesknight 13:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave him the very flashy {{Usrcvtext}} - if he/she readds it, maybe modify {{cv}} to include a "final warning" phrase, then if he/she does it again report to WP:AIV. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 13:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to sleep, so I'm sure a real admin will come along and deal with this if it occurs again - don't forget that you can ping the IP for 3RR as well, and you're exempt. Just keep an eye my user talk for an angry retort by the IP, too. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 13:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Lance

Dear Admins, I have recently encountered problems with User talk:Lance6968. This started with his placing a question that amounts to a personal attack on my user talk page [105] (I had no alteraction with him for quite a while so I am unaware of might have provoked this). I reacted by warning him about personal attacks on his user talk page [106] and he removed my note (which is his right) by calling it "vandalism" [107]. I didn't mind the removal much as I only wanted to inform him, though I resented it to be called "vandalism" and I told him about that in another post [108], which he again removed as vandalism [109]. After this prelude, he recently popped up at Host desecration and made various controversial edits. I reverted him and he reverted me back. I then explained my objections on the talk page to which he has replied with giving quotes and references (of questionable connection to his points and my objections). He also, and that is what I want to complain about, mixed in personal attacks, this time equating me with "Holocaust denial kooks." [110] and also posting various speculation and niceties about my "superstition". I am asking the admins to put a stop to his vitriolic behaviour. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have left him a warning. The Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard is also available. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Impersonation of my Wiki profile

Please note that my existing userprofile: Sudharsansn is being vandalized by an impersonator who has created an id similar to that of mine.

1). The new impersonating vandal id that has been created is this: Snsudharsan whereas my real profile page is here: Sudharsansn.

2). Please note that this is not a coincidence as the vandal has left a comment in my remarks page making it appear as if I have edited this. He has also taken a picture from my website and posted it in my profile page which strictly confines it to vandalism and impersonation.

Kindly help urgently to prevent miscreants from vandalizing other pages using a profile name similar to that of mine. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 16:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the contributions page of the vandal/impersonator to note that he has changed only my page by which he is trying to give the impression of being the real me, and has added my photo. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 16:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, is this actually your picture? If so, how do you think the vandal came by it to upload? Notinasnaid 16:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've indefblocked the impersonator. Mangojuice^talk 16:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your prompt action. Answering Notinasnaid's question, my picture is available in my internet homepage which has been linked in my Wiki profile page. Thanks again for the prompt ::action. I greatly appreciate it. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a relief. Thank you, it seemed that there was the risk that the impersonator had access to your personal information. Notinasnaid 17:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand the potential risk you are talking about. Thanks for your concern, I appreciate it. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 18:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Help, JBKramer is vandalizing my userpage

I do not know if this is the right place, but User:JBKramer is reverting my edits and labeling me a "sock" on my Userpage. My only invovlement with him was when I thanked him on his talk page for convincing me to sign up for a Wikipedia account. Could someone please ask him to stop, as he reverted my request to do so on his talk page, and he reverted my page, and my edits. If this is the wrong place to ask, please point me in the right direction! Q Jenkins 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Above "user" has threatened my life here. I have contacted local authorities and the foundation. JBKramer 17:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked YOU indefinitely not because of sockpuppetry but because of threats and vandalism! -- Szvest → ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 17:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Standing Violations of WP:Harassment, WP:NPA and WP:Living

[This has also been posted to the Personal Attacks Intervention Noticeboard. It is being reposted here in case this is deemed a more appropriate venue for the incidents being reported.]

On his talk page, ScienceApologist is attempting to reveal personal information regarding me in violation of WP:HARASSMENT. Over a week ago, I politely requested that this user remove the information in question, but to no avail. This user claims that (1) since he put his accusation in the form of a question, it is not really an accusation (despite its clear association of my username with a putative RL identity); (2) he has reason to make an exception to WP:HARASSMENT, namely, (that I supposedly have) a pattern of non-NPOV edits to certain Wikipedia articles. However, since no such pattern exists, ScienceApologist is unable to substantiate this allegation. Furthermore, in repetitive violation of WP:NPA, ScienceApologist has attempted to insert biographically irrelevant information on one particular affiliation of the Wikipedia bio subject to whom he accuses me of being identical, evidently as a means of dismissing or discrediting his views (this also constitutes a violation of WP:LIVING). Accordingly, I am requesting that the personal information in question be removed. If it is not, then I will regard this as exhausting the normal means of dispute resolution in such cases. (Since this user has recently drawn censure from at least two members of the Arbitration Committee, I would ask to be spared any general AGF-type rationalizations of his/her hostile behavior.) Thank you, Asmodeus 17:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• To clarify (without naming names, though the name involved is easily discovered), it has been suggested that Asmodeus is in fact a certain notable individual with a Wikipedia bio, who has been actively promoting theories developed by that individual on Wikipedia in contravention of WP:AUTO and such. SA has asked if Asmodeus is indeed this individual, claiming similarity in certain known biographical details about Asmodeus and the individual. Asmodeus--well within his rights--has refused to answer the question.--EngineerScotty 18:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• The above allegation by EngineerScotty is false. That is, I have not been "promoting the theories" of any Wikipedia biography subject. In the future, please try to be truthful. Asmodeus 18:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • To make it clear, "who has been actively promoting" is an antecedent of "it has been suggested that". --EngineerScotty 20:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not cross-post. This belongs at WP:PAIN and is being discussed there. FeloniousMonk 18:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not quite accurate. Several issues are involved here, only one of them being WP:NPA. Asmodeus 18:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As Shell noted when removing the request,[111] Arbitration is probably required in this case. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 20:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Also recommend arbitration. It may be that an article ban is warranted, per the remedy proposed towards Elerner in the pseudoscience case now in the voting stage. But I think it is beyond the scope of this board to decide that. SA should probably avoid pursuing this issue himself any further except to file the case if he chooses. Thatcher131 22:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Unauthorized bot, again

Hoping someone has experience with this - not sure how to handle it. A school IP, 141.84.69.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), has been the source of what I'm pretty sure is an unauthorized bot. Many of its edits are rapid, repetitive, with no edit summary. Some of them are helpful but some of them are randomly adding tags to or removing tags from articles. They are also removing messages about the tagging activity: [112], [113], [114]. I asked for an explanation, got no response, so blocked for a week. During that time, someone asked for the IP to be unblocked and we told them they could create an account. After the block expired, the bot started operating again once in a while. Is a longer block warranted on an IP address in this case? --Aguerriero (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree it looks like a bot and it looks like it's operating again. I blocked for another week, but should we contact the school district? I don't like the idea of a long-term block on an IP for this. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 20:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I will try to contact them via e-mail. It is not a school district really, it is an immense academic computing center that appears to serve large portions of the city of Munich, Germany. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimenez again

As earlier reported, there has been miscellaneous weirdness around User:Jose(Cha-Cha)Jimenez. He (at least I presume it is he, editing anonymously) has now deleted all indications of these difficulties from his user talk page. He's also "answered" my (I think) reasonable requests at Talk:Young Lords with another self-serving statement.

I still think his user page has much of the makings of a good article about him, but not if it is going to be nothing but his ego trip, and he won't agree to let others work on it.

Again, I'm at a loss for how to deal with this. He is a figure of at least some importance, though I strongly suspect not as much importance as he claims. I'd love to get accurate articles about him, and about the Young Lords, and I'm sure that if he wanted to he could be very helpful, but he seems mainly focused on using Wikipedia to stake out a claim to his own vast importance. - Jmabel | Talk 19:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you block DMighton?

He clearly shows bias when reporting information on Wikipedia. He Doens't show any sense of impartialiy. Although he makes meaningful contributions he is in this case (the GMHL Article) not acting impartially. If you could block him from this page only that would be great!"Chnb 21:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)"

• This appears to be a content dispute, which does not belong on this noticeboard. Please follow the dispute resolution procedure instead. You can start off by discussing the dispute on the talk page of the article in question. Demiurge 21:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

VaughanWatch Back Again

64.231.173.194 (talk · contribs) is clearly a sockpuppet of VaughanWatch. He's still inserting his nonsense PoV, and now threatening me (again) [115], I think he's at 55 socks now. An indef block and revert of his latest edit would be appreciated. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 19:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked by Naconkantari (we don't generally indefinitely block IPs, unless they're open proxies). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Tendentious edits by User:Thiru kk

This guy has been making large edits to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh that are POV forks of other sections of the article (already under Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh#Criticism), violating WP:BLP in his edits and refuses to discuss them.His edits are a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RS (no sources at all). His diffs are below:

[116] His edit summary clearly shows that he is not neutral. I have raised discussion on his talk page and article talk page but he refuses to respond[117][118]. He has even vandalized existing edits [119] to push his POV.Hkelkar 21:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

He just attacked me in a very incivil manner [120].Hkelkar 21:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

{{agf}} for the latest tirade by Thiru kk (talk · contribs). No comment on the bigger picture. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 21:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

(Sixty Six (talk · contribs)/66.90.151.114 (talk · contribs)) - enough is enough.

Hello. Since the 11th of October 2006 a user generally just referred to as "66", or "Sixty Six" has been generally stalking me, insulting me, trolling me, being disruptive, being rude, etcetera, primarily I had put up with this as it was just directed towards me and it generally did not bother me because I believed he might eventually "convert" to a good Wikipedian.

Generally he has been disruptive blanking warnings people have given him to him on his talk page and leaving rude remarks.[121][122][123][124][125][126] (and lots more.. on his IP) and on his account (tentatively named: User:Sixty Six): [127][128][129][130][131] he then proceeded to move his talk page out of the User talk: name space to : Archived Crapola[132]

He has generally been rude to me and generally harassing me (and recently (increasingly) rude to others) [133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143]

He has the notion that I am a "Nazi" [144][145][146]

66 has even devoted lots of room on his user page stating that I'm a Nazi, a "g00ber"[147]

I could present lots more diffs and more rudeness etcetera but frankly I am to tired. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats and incivility on this user's talk page, including threats to take legal action and/or seek newspaper publicity based on the fact that some of our administrators (or editors the user believes are administrators) are minors, require immediate attention. Newyorkbrad 01:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In defense of "66", I fail to see where he has "threatened to take legal action". He has mentioned that such a possibility exists, but mentioning said does not imply threat anymore than telling someone they have cancer implies that the cancer exists because they created the affliction. Also, I've noted that he's attempted to settled the differences via an e-mail dialog, as he notes on his Talk Page, but so far "Matthew" has refused to participate.

Note also that while I'm not really wanting to get myself into a war with "Matthew", I will however submit that he does possess an excessive number of complaints about the severity of his editing on his own Talk Page. This should be taken into consideration regardless of whether or not the complaints against "66" are valid. I submit that it's highly arguable that "Matthew" has brought this derision upon himself, although I'm also willing to accept that he may have done so unwittingly. His contributions to the Lost pages are considerable and commendable, but do the ends truly justify the means here? Geoffrey Mitchell 01:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The email I recieved told me to "admit I was wrong" — Doesn't state what I am wrong about. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 08:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. What was -asked- was that you be open to the possibility that you are wrong. If you'd like, I can post the e-mail contents verbatim, but that still doesn't explain your lack of response. An honest effort was made to open a dialog in hopes of resolving this in a mature, professional manner *without* unwanted interference from detractors/supporters of either side. If you're still willing to discuss and work out the issues we have with one another, the door's still open. I'm sure everyone here who's sick of the dispute would appreciate your participation. Sixty Six 07:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This thread you are responding to is from yesterday, and I believe the situation has calmed somewhat since then. On reading over the page in question again, I still believe statements were made that, at least, could reasonably be construed as legal or other threats and were therefore inappropriate. It is also submitted that your comments in the second paragraph of this edit are also unhelpful. That is irrespective of the merits of anyone's edits or editing patterns. Newyorkbrad 01:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, no legal threat was made, period. Pointing out the possibility, or warning that someone else could take a particular course of action is *not* a threat of said. Claiming so is simply a case of "shooting the messenger", and if you want to play that game you'd better bring a pretty damn big gun :-) :-) Sixty Six 07:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Mujeerkhan's sockpuppetry

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mujeerkhan for background. This user, Mujeerkhan, obsessively edits Tipu Sultan, and has created several sockpuppets. Further sockpuppets have just been discovered after a new checkuser request to me. These include:

• Shezaad786 (talk · contribs)
• Gurpal z (talk · contribs)
• Geniusguy123 (talk · contribs)
• Mysorebhai (talk · contribs)
• Littlegem (talk · contribs)
• Aussiemite (talk · contribs)
• Indianpathan (talk · contribs)

I would appreciate if another administrator could look into this matter and take the appropriate steps. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 01:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

All tagged and blocked. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 00:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Smyslov

I don't know where exactly this belongs, but User:Smyslov made an extremely rude comment about recently deceased person. [148] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.4.28 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Even as it is ostensibly essayed jocularly, the comment is untoward, I suppose (and I say that not just because I had a man crush on Milton Friedman), but it doesn't seem particularly to disrupt the project, such that the best method by which to deal with it (and other similarly-styled user comments) is probably to refactor (in this case, to remove rather than to strike out) and to suggest that the user refrain in the future from offering about articles commentary irrelevant to the pursuits of the project, especially where such commentary will serve a disruptive or inflammatory purpose. In this instance, Intangible quite properly removed the entire section that focused on the sentiments of users surrounding the death of the subject rather than of the article itself; as Help:Talk page and {{talkheader}}, which serves atop talk pages to recapitulate the former, make plain, talk pages are not for[a] for general discussion about...article[s'] subject[s]. Joe 03:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Help

Hi, i've question. If i'm thinking that an admin is unilateral and not neutral, what should i do? Where should I complain about this?..--Karcha 23:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Open, informal complaints about admins can go here. Trebor 23:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing this thread is the issue in question. It's no longer "unilateral" as I agree with InShaneee. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 23:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Who is inshanee, how do you know that i'll complain inshanee? i didn't say a name about this? Who are you?--Karcha 23:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

All communications on Wikipedia can be seen by anyone. There are notes on your Talk page from InShaneee, and notes on InShaneee's Talk page from you. Fan-1967 23:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I know, it can be seen. However i didn't give a name here. I could give a different name. Who is Ginkgo100? --Karcha 23:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you click on my name at the end of this sentence, you'll see my user page, which will tell you a bit about who I am. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 01:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you could... But please do not waste our time! /wangi 23:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i have a complaint about user InShaneee he/she always acts unilateral about me and turkic related articles. Turkic related articles are sabotaging by iranians. InShaneee don't see iranian's personal attacks, he only sees me. Please look his actions in the last 4 hour. When i posted my complaints about them he warns me urgently. Please have a look; Aren't these personal attacks? Why doesn't he ban him?

This was deleted, i wonder why?

As soon as Korshid joined Wikipedia in May 2006, s/he launched into edit wars accusing anyone who disagreed with him/her - even mildly - of racism, while making claims regarding others' ethnicity: [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157], etc. Yet, this user has not once received a warning or a block over his/her behaviour. Is this constructive to Wikipedia? Isn't it time to deal with this kind of disruptive activity?--Karcha 23:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Tu quoque isn't a defence on Wikipedia for making personal attacks. "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them" (emphasis in original, WP:NPA). Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing something? This whole story seems to have been triggered when Karcha misspelled Khorshid's name as "Khorshit", and InShaneee obviously saw that as alluding to the English 4-letter word. From Karcha's incredulous response, I find it possible that this had not been intended or even thought of, and was an honest misspelling. Karcha is Turkish, and in Turkish there is some frequent variation between name spellings in "-d" and in "-t" (like Mehmed/Mehmet etc.), and "Khorshit" seems to be a possible, legitimate name form ([158]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

See the long list of diffs - this was far from isolated. Whoops, wrong section (page, even!) Now that I'm here, I might as well comment - that is a fair point, but if Karcha had have come out and said this was whathappened, I'm sure it would have been a much better. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, but what with Karcha's poor English, and the rapidly escalating confrontational tone of that whole encounter with InShaneee, I can imagine he never even understood what he was being accused of, so he had no way of defending himself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting since Karcha had attacked me before and I had given him warning and then he calls me "Khorshit". You are saying this is mistake made by him? What is this, playing devils advocate or what because from what I have seen is that this user (now admin) always points fingers at Iranian users while indulging Arab/Turkish users. What is this??? Khorshid 11:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

And I think you should leave InShanee alone. He has been harassed and singled out enough! Khorshid 11:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Devout Christian

Same MO as indef-blocked Devout Christian (talk · contribs) posting from 83.14.195.250 (talk · contribs) and 212.51.199.173 (talk · contribs). Apparently he has moved to Poland. Please block STAT. --Ideogram 00:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked them for 24 hours, but on second look the IPs seem pretty static. If they continue after the blocks expire we can consider a longer block - or we can consider it now, in fact, I don't really mind if someone else decides to lengthen my blocks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is very strange. If you look at the talk pages for these two IPs, you will see that Devout Christian is apparently being stalked by someone at IPs 70.52.75.25, 70.52.64.186, 70.52.64.194, 70.52.73.244, 70.52.73.108, and 70.52.75.213. Is there anything we should do about this? Is there anything we can do about this? --Ideogram 01:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:72.199.253.207

Harsh Response by User talk:72.199.253.207 after i've warned him for POV vandalism --JForget 02:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This kind of vandalism would go to WP:AIV. I've given him another warning; this IP appears to only be trouble though; report to aiv if any more problems. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at AfD

The following users are confirmed by CheckUser to be sockpuppets used by Ivygohnair (talk · contribs) for multiple votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivy Goh Nair and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous Nairs (3rd nomination):

• Chandrannair (talk · contribs)
• Justice4us (talk · contribs)
• 81.249.80.83 (talk · contribs)
• 83.204.202.150 (talk · contribs)

I would appreciate if some admins could look at this. The AfD should probably be re-run. See also other sockpuppetry involving users at this and other related AfDs at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive147#Sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FList of famous Jats. Dmcdevit·t 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've indef. blocked Chandrannair and Justice4us, and blocked Ivygohnair for 3 days. Khoikhoi 04:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism-only accounts

• Resident1fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Continuous vandalism to Resident Evil 5. Has been given final warning. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 04:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Prof Bukksksdf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalism-only account. John254 04:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: These reports were removed from WP:AIV by Tariqabjotu. Though it is a common practice to block vandalism-only accounts even if they haven't received final warnings or haven't edited quite recently, I am making a report here to avoid an edit war on WP:AIV. John254 05:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked both indefinetly. Still think this a WP:AIV matter Alex Bakharev 08:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like an AIV matter to me also, if you think the admin who removed them missed the point somewhere you can always ask them on the talk page. Similarly you can always issue a final warning/blatant vandal warning, if they are vandlism only, then it won't be long before you'll be able to re-report, for the amount of vandalism we get, delaying slightly (albeit just to jump through hoops) shouldn't be a big deal. You can always then discuss it further later in order to avoid similar misunderstandings later. No matter how much I agree with your assesment of the situation the last thing we need is people getting turned down in one forum and just moving it to another... --pgk 09:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

E104421 blocked for 24 hours for edit warring of Ak Koyunlu

19:22, 17 November 2006 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked E104421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with an expiry time of 24 hours (edit warring on Ak Koyunlu) 02:12, 18 November 2006 Steel359 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked "E104421 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)" with an expiry time of 6 days (Edit warring and sockpuppetry) Could anyone review this please? Myrtone (☏) 07:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppetry by E104421. I'm guessing you got the email, too. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)