Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive113

Aiman abmajid (talk · contribs)

This user uploads many images, without specifying the sources, such as Image:E5gh.gif and Image:Plaza toll.gif. He has been ignoring Orphanbot's image source notices, clearing them all without further action [1] [2], and simply removing {{no source}} templates pasted on his images' description pages [3] [4] [5]. If his images are deleted, he will simply re-upload them again (AFAIK the 2 images I mentioned have been deleted due to "no source" previously).

He has been unresponsive to notes on his user talk so far. I've dropped another note on his user talk page, but I'm not sure what actions if any need to be taken against this type of user, so I'm bringing it up here. Kimchi.sg 09:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have given him a {{Image no source last warning}} warning. If he reupload images afterwards, I will probably give him a short warning block. Circeus 19:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

All images that were not obvious self-creation or properly sourced and licensed (although i did correct a few in the process) have been deleted. 21:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL denial of service vandals

seriously, stop giving them so much attention, half this page is covered with AOL themed warnings, there are now daily wheel wars over range blocks, templates, categories, etc.. all devoted to what is probably one or two vandals.. in the same sense that you would never give a troll this much attention, you wouldn't want to do the same for a vandal. Hell, isn't that the reason Willy On Wheels was deleted? The problem is that prolific vandals become like folk heros around here, with daily tall tails, and entire articles devoted to them. When you get an attention seeking vandal, this is just counter productive--64.12.116.65 00:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

People don't think that stopping vandalism is important enough to block and it's better to offload it to the recent changes patrol. --mboverload@ 00:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, blocking AOL users at random almost never stops vandalism, but at least all the colorful block summaries let as many random AOL users know how easy it is to use AOL for vandalism--64.12.116.65 00:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention not being able to use my account for several days at a time does cut down on the amount of time that I can run VandalProof, but hey, it's only AOL--64.12.116.65 00:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't block random AOL users.There has been a massive attack by a skilled user exploiting how AOL works.Your block should expire soon.If you have WiFi you can leech off one of your neighbors...not sure how much they'd like that, though =D --mboverload@ 00:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with the opinions of both anonymous up there and mboverload. The reason we get so many AOL DoS attacks is that all AOL users are frequent victims of collateral damage and thus recognize how easy it is to get all of AOL blocked. Then the DoS vandals read our posts here and go "Wow, that's easy!" It's much like how posting Charles Manson's face on the cover of Rolling Stone and making celebrities out of every serial killer and villain makes little kids wanna grow up to be murderers. Everyone wants their fame, and it's pretty damn easy to become infamous as a vandal. Thus, I see your point that we do seem to glorify vandals, but at the same time I see mboverload's point that we can't just do nothing. Unfortunately at the moment not much can be done--until the devs come up with some clever workarounds or AOL finally does something about this, our only real solution is blocking. It's an unfortunate truth that I hope will soon change, but I'm doing my best to just not let it get to me--truth is, it's not that big of a deal, and we will find a way to deal with it. (Btw, Willy on Wheels was deleted because it was a cross-namespace redirect.) AmiDaniel (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:Beans amidaniel, nice idea, but i seriosly doubt an :05 block would stop a bot like this (pm on irc if you want to know why]]Benon 00:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This particular vandal edits from IP's.Most of the collateral damage comes from vandals with accounts who are at AOL.The fact that this vandal remains only an IP is a good sign that he is intending the collateral damage.Now, our folks need to stop the vandal, but a range block of the ISP won't do much good.When you block an AOL IP, you're behind the vandal and therefore on top of an innocent.Blocking the whole range would be the solution, except that, if this is a -bot, and it seems to be, from its speed, the block of the whole range would only need to be a very short time -- probably :10 or even :05 would stop the bot, unless it has been programmed to not be bothered by the block page coming up.I'm glad to see AmiDaniel backing off from some of the more severe positions, above.If we can't stop the vandal with :10 or :15 blocks, then we sort of have to lay it off on RC Patrol, as bad as that is.Ironically, if the vandal succeeded, if he managed to make Wikipedia a place with "F4RT" scribbled on each page, it would be boring to him.He only wants to pee on a clean wall.Geogre 13:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

if I was to write a vandalbot, I would make it reconnect everytime it encountered the block page, thus walking through my ISP's IP range as quickly as people can block it. This is pointless. The only solution to this is allowing logged-in users edit even from blocked IPs (but disallowing creation of new accounts from blocked IPs). dab (ᛏ) 18:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be an answer, but the down side is that it would stop our sock puppet spotting and the times when the autoblocker catches a blocked user who simply creates a new account -- not that that was ever particularly robust.Geogre 15:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

<smacks forehead> that's the answer!!! To make the AOL vandal stop, Wikipedia just needs to put vandalism like 'F4RT' on every page! Someone, get a developer! KWH 00:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean it isn't already on every page?(My point was that vandals always attack resisting targets.It gives the scriptkiddies their warm fuzzies to "win."I think those who regard us as a challenge are particularly lame.)(If we could get them to go to harder targets, it would be nice.)Geogre 15:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian G. Crawford

Can someone please block this user for a while so that he can cool off a bit? Just take a look at this grossly inappropriate unprovoked personal attack. AvB ÷ talk 11:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours, personal attacks (and responses to same) removed.Provoked or not, that rant was really beyond the pale. Nandesuka 11:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It certainly was. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 11:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I don't know what I was expecting when I clicked the link, but whatever it was, that was a lot worse. Good job on the block. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Just 72 hours for that garbage? He should have been keelhauled for 3 months. - Merzbow 21:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.Looks like Brian might have been provoked here.But even so, that's one hell of an outburst.Remember, though, that Brian is generally a decent editor and Rdos seems intent on pursuing an agenda.I can see how assertions of this nature from a self-diagnosed autioe might be seen as groossly insulting by one who has been medically diagnosed.Just zis Guy you know? 21:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, no matter how spectacularly, I don't think a single case of exploding is punishable by 3 months' block!NPA is, one more time (with feeling), not policy in its sanctions.If the user is doing anything constructive as well, then being nasty should result in mediation and arbitration, not trampling by elephants.Send him to the time-out corner for a day, maybe, but anything more than two days for a single outburst is pushing it, if the user does constructive things as well, and this one does.Geogre 03:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I had an email from Brian today.Sounds like he has some heavy shit in RL and could do with being cut a little slack, especially since his judgment on Rdos was, if rather more forthright than we'd like and couched in unacceptable language, not indefensible. Just zis Guy you know? 23:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I really must apologize for my unkind comments.I meant every word of it, but I really should have kept it to myself.Like Dr. Hannibal Lecter, I believe in the value of politeness and courtesy.Several factors came together to induce me to go off as I did:some wiki-stalking, nasty comments from certain users, an RfC initiated on me by a user who was deeply offended that I told him to "go away," frustration with POV pushers, and some serious side effects from some prescription medication.I actually had to go to the emergency room a couple of nights ago for treatment for side effects from the medication.The 72 hour block, unlike three months of keelhauling (Ha, ha, very droll) was quite appropriate.Guy Chapman is an absolute saint for checking on me and helping me out.That kind of behavior is all too rare around here.Did I ever mention that I was one of the most prolific and nasty flame artists on USENET about ten to twelve years ago?I guess I still have it in me.I still have some lingering problems and concerns with some users, and I wish I could get some help resolving those so that I'm not tempted to resort to verbal abuse.Have a great day, everyone! Brian G. Crawford 00:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL [[Image:Ceiling cat 00.jpg]] vandal

This vandal is back on User:207.200.116.0/24 range. As reported in WP:AIV --WinHunter ^(talk) 13:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone with appropriate rights just add Image:Ceiling cat 00.jpg to MediaWiki:Bad image list? 68.17.14.126 13:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Added.I don't know if that'll stop the vandalism, but I'm willing to give it a try.—Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea. He'll just use another image, and we won't be able to track it. --Rory096 14:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Will stop. Cleaning up vandalism isn't easy, but that hsouldn't stop us from doing what is needed.Andthe image will be gone in 2 days anyway, so the point is moot.-- Drini 14:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just caught an edit by 207.200.116.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), now inserting Image:Sarahvulva.jpg. Keep an eye out for more vandalism. -Loren 03:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-star

Editor has had a long history of revert warring, conflicts and attacks on other users, mostly centered around the edit summaries and talk pages of Majin Buu and re-direct Buu. Seems to be campaigning to be banned now, with baiting and calling to be suspended from the site (though this is not the first time he's done so). Voice of Treason 18:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMajin_Buu&diff=59940184&oldid=59939830
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Majin_Buu&diff=prev&oldid=59940646
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMajin_Buu&diff=60007491&oldid=60003026
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMajin_Buu&diff=60018837&oldid=60016720

Wiki-star seems to have claimed ownership of the article as he reverts to his previous versions ignoring the comments left by other users and the consensus already formed, claiming that he cares "greatly about this article, and will be damned if i let another voilator ruin such a wonderful article". Voice of Treason, Isopropyl, Daishokaioshin, Onikage725, Zarbon, Darkwarriorblake, Papacha, Orion Minor, and I have all once again made attempts to discuss this issue with him but to no avail.-3bulletproof16 19:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added the page to my watchlist and I will monitor it for his changes. --mboverload@ 21:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-star has been larger than life, in a bad way, since his first edits on Wikipedia--take a look at his early edits to the help desk, where he made pretentious speeches about how much he was going to bring to Wikipedia and bridled at any suggestion he might moderate his, um, idiosyncratic posting style. Nothing wrong with confidence, but he crossed the line into brashness and all his edits since then have been of a pattern--he has an idea and our job is to help him implement it. He is impervious to suggestions on any subject and seems to never give up, as far as I can see. A frustrating user whose style makes the Wikipedia experience worse for anyone who encounters him. Thank god he's fixated on Buu, but too bad for the folks there who have had to deal with him. · rodii · 21:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

His posting style as a new editor isn't that weird. It seems that he was writing as if he was under the impression that wikipedia was a small, workaholic community that expected him to get a move on. Many new users act that way. I gather that you are under the impression that he thought he could bug everyone about his problems and be proud about it, but in reality most people are scared about being expelled from the community and they make these promises so as not to lose others' hopes in them. It isn't fair to bite a latebloomer who needs help getting started. If this user has trouble navigating Wikipedia, perhaps you should help him instead of trying to ignore him.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Noone has attacked him for being new. Heck, I'm relatively new myself. People who have tried to offer him help are ignored or insulted. When people tried to help him with his format on talk pages, he responded that he could do whatever he wants. When people engage him in discussion about proposed edits he has stated that he "gives everyone two chances" to basically see his point of view. Failure to comply with his issues earns you his disrespect and he either ignores or berates you. When everyone disagrees with him, he begins his "endless reverting" as he puts it while declaring that the only way to stop him is to ban him. This isn't simple newcomer ignorance. This is flat out arrogance, and quite possibly some form of psychosis. Onikage725 13:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

His posting style as a new editor was extremely assertive, including edit warring, asking for help but rejecting the answers, talk page blanking ([6]) and this touchy exchange, all in his first couple weeks on the site. But OK, newbies often take a while to settle in and adapt to a community-based style; however, Wiki-Star never did, he just grew more aggressive. I agree with Onikage725 100%.· rodii · 15:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a prime example in his talk page. Someone politely advises him that it's a good practice to always sign with four tildes, and he says "Well i hate to break it to you sweet heart but thats just life." He further adds "I'm not trying to seek any kind of recognition. I'm here to be the best wikipedian i can be. And i'm doing so in my original way. If thats a problem, then i guess i don't belong here!" Onikage725 18:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Then I apologize. I obviously didn't know enough about him to make an accurate judgement.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have had enough history with Wiki-Star to know that he's trouble. He takes command of the articles and adds an enormous amount of images (approximately 50) to each page. I previously cleaned up the Buu, Piccolo, Gotenks, Vegito, and Vegeta pages on a continuous basis, only to see him come back and revert, and promise to continue doing it with no other basis or consensus in mind except for the fact that he likes the characters. Considering the fact that even more important characters aren't even getting 7 or 8 pictures, it's only obvious that neither of the mentioned deserve 40 odd images on the page to illustrate their history. I am going to agree with everyone else who is on the lookout to find a way of stopping this Wiki-Star fellow. - Zarbon

Wiki has taken to vandalizing other users edits, as consensus is being discussed (for the umpteenth time with him) on the Majin Buu article. Papacha 01:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, he's editing my comments. I'm trying to help him get his opinion out there, but he is doing his best to throw it back at me.--Orion Minor 01:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Does this count as a legal threat or just a threat?

In an extension of drama over questionable edits to physics articles by another user, Tim Shuba (talk • contribs) appears to be threatening to indirectly reveal personal information, and appears to threaten a libel suit against another user. I'm not well-versed enough in the finer points of Wikipedia policy to tell whether this violates WP:NPA and WP:NLT or not.

Threat issued: diff

Threatened addition is the last paragraph of the following: link

--Christopher Thomas 05:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Accusing other users of crimes such as libel, and making insinuations about their personal information, is certainly a threat. It combines elements of a legal threat and a threat to disclose personal information or to harass. We can't afford to tolerate this kind of screwing around; it's already lost us too many good editors.

For the safety of Wikipedia editors, we need to establish a consensus that posting other users' personal information is always and forever equivalent to throwing your Wikipedia access away. Harassing other users by threatening to do so is simply a milder form of the same. --FOo 07:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Making such strict rules is a rather bad idea in my opinion. Editors can unintentionally post or disclose personal information of others who don't want it disclosed. In many cases, it is not necessarily clear as to how much personal information someone wants on the encyclopedia. Some users have enough personal information on their user pages for anyone to find out exactly where they are in real life, others, like me, would be highly concerned if even my first name or IP address were posted. It is difficult for users to know what the wishes of other users are, and slips can certainly happen, especially with names. Threatening to do so is quite often done by people who should not be tolerated, but is also occasionally done by people who don't understand that it isn't acceptable. --Philosophus ^T 07:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, there should be a zero tolerance policy on the posting of personal information by other parties.Certainly one event should not lead to a permanent ban, but one 'accident' should have sufficient consequences to make it absolutely clear that a second 'accident' will not be tolerated and will have lasting consequences for the editor. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't take two "accidents" to drive a valuable editor away. It takes one deliberate act of harassment ... which may be falsely portrayed in retrospect as an "accident".

I don't like the use of the expression "zero tolerance" for this idea. That term is associated with fascist elements in my country. What I'm interested in here is a commitment to protect editors from harassment of a particularly vicious type: harassment by those who have developed an expertise in tracking down ordinary people to harass them and "expose" them. Harassment by those who use usernames, fields of interest, and passing comments to track down a person's location, employer, family, and other associates ... and then create personal, economic, and social crises for them. --FOo 06:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sure, slips can be made, but if you consciously use it as a threat, it's no longer a mistake. Of course, you're free to use material shared on userpages, but if any piece of information requires you to search, you should leave it buried. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

See diff and diff.--Tim Shuba 01:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Watercool

Is persisting with a fork at Maria Vladimirovna of Russia. Watercool created that fork by cut-and-paste today, being unhappy with a move done by Cfvh. I have warned Watercool, but Watercool reverted yet, returning the fork. Seems to me that the user is not exactly new (that's my impression, not a verified fact), but the account is new. Anyway, Watercool displays certain persistent, obstinate character, in other articles too. Seems to me Watercool is pushing some POV in several places. Isn't a block of some week that recommendable response to cool down obstinacy in an editor's missionary attitude? Anyway, I think admins should chack now and then what Watercool is doing. ObRoy 10:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

ObRoy, I believe you don't understand english. You asked me not to make any changes unless I participate in the debate in the talk page. I did - and EVERYBODY on the talk page disagrees with you and believes that the article should be known as Maria Vladimirnovna of Russia. Get over it. Watercool

I just warned Watercool about being civil, and he got himself blocked for 3RR on Sealand shortly after that. --InShaneee 22:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, the worst after a fire is the water damage. -- Omniplex 10:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Watercool, Wikipedia states that the name an individual uses for themself that is most commonly used should be used. That includes the title of grand duchess for Maria. Charles 22:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Here, it actually is not the question of the name of that article, but of Watercool's making and perpetuing a fork, a cut-and-paste. That alone should earn Watercool some time as blocked. However, Iobserve that other breachs have lead Watercool to be blocked. Afterwards, Watercool's account would need checking, is he continuing dispuptive behavior after these blocks. ObRoy 12:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

User:JzG "flys storms in" to enforce update user page policy

User:JzG made changes to my userpage, and´deleted much of its content for no good reason. When I reverted his edits, he responded by deleting the page and reinstalling his version and then protecting it from edits. --Rdos 10:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the user page history, I support User:JzG's actions.I've deleted the same content from Rdos's user talk page, and protected it.I've asked the user to indicate that he will cease posting deleted material on his user talk page for the purpose of soapboxing, at which point I will unprotect it. Nandesuka 11:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Fascism. I will *never* let ignorant admins judge what is appropriate for *my* user page. In that case I will delete it altogther instead. --Rdos 11:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I asked nicely, then I asked firmly, then I removed the content, and only after all the above failed (the content was reposted almost immediately) did I take more drastic action.Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 21#Neanderthal_theory_of_autism is also relevant. Just zis Guy you know? 11:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This situation is really a lesson of power abuse. First Nandesuka protects my *talk* page, and then User:JzG places more insulting conmments on it. It doesn't matter how you ask, the point is that this is a violation of the userpage policies. --Rdos 11:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

For values of insulting which may include pointing out, in pretty much so many words, that you are standing in a deep hole and still digging. Just zis Guy you know? 11:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

These are not the only insults by User:JzG. Take a look at the correspnodance on his talk page. --Rdos 11:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Nandesuka removes contents from my user talk page, and then protects it from edits. The policies for user talk pages clearly doesn't allow such actions. Besides, how could possibly anybody comment on the conflict (apart from admins), when they have no idea about the contents removed (no history) and cannot place comments on the talk page? --Rdos 11:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The violation of the userpage policies — which, by the way, cover your user talk page — was your posting inappropriate material on it. I suggest you take a deep breath, calm down, and move on. This material will not be posted on Wikipedia, and you are going to need to accept that. If you are unhappy with JzG's or my actions, I encourage you to open an RFC or, if that doesn't satisfy you, an arbitration case. However, continuing to heap abuse on other editors is likely to get you blocked for disruption. So instead of calling us fascists, I suggest you use more measured language, such as "I'm unhappy about your decision." Nandesuka 11:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted articles are sometimes preserved in userspace because, with work, they may be able to go back into articlespace. However, if no amount of work can make them suitable, as is the case with Rdos' theory promoting a link between autism and subhumans, proven by multiple AfDs and the current DRV, then they have no place in userspace, per Wikipedia is not a free webhost. JzG and Nandesuka's actions were entirely correct. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Fourthed.Proto///type 14:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sam Blanning, your assertion that the Neanderthal theory will never be appropriate for article space is only based on your personal feelings about it. Remember, it has only been up for AfC twice. The first time it was voted "keep" and the second time "delete". The reincarnations are random actions of independent users, and if anything, only shows that some people wants it to be here. Also, Neanderthals are not "subhuman". They were perfectly human and in some respects superior to us. If you really read the theory you would know that it doesn't view autistics or Neanderthals as subhuman or inferior. It views autistics and Neanderthals as basically quite different from modern humans, and thus inforces the view of many people in the autistic community. --Rdos 17:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

All of this just screams "original research".Do you have any citations from the literature to back up any of this?--Cyde↔Weys 17:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The theory contains lots of citations to published research. If just User Talk:JzG can for once refrain from alterning my comments the link should follow:[rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm]. If you mean if my view of autism is "original research", I can assure you it is not. It is described [7], [8], [9] and here on Autistic community and Autistic culture. --Rdos 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

First, it doesn't take admin tools to remove the content from the user page, so he didn't abuse any admin privileges at all. Second, there is precedent for removing deleted content that's merely being housed in userspace. Wikipedia is usually pretty lenient with what gets placed in userpages, but there are limits. Third, I heartily endorse this event or product. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Clear soapboxing.Inappropriate article on userpage.Not a single PMID citation [10].Provide just one and your argument stands; otherwise JzG was in the right to remove it. -- Samir धर्म 20:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree.The important thing is not how many citations to published research a paper contains, it's how many times it's cited in other papers (and being mentioned on bulletin boards doesn't count as a citation).The neanderthal stuff is so off the wall that even calling it "research" is stretching the meaning of the word.It's the sort of just-so story that cartoon sociobiologists are accused of inventing.--ajn (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Just a comment here, if Rdos gives an unequivocal undertaking not to reinsert the content then I have no problem with any admin unlocking his User and Talk pages.Rdos' site is currently blacklisted after being removed from inappropriate articles and three separate Wikiprojects.This will only prevent linking, not adding www.rdos.net as plain text.I don't believe it is a reliable source for any current articles. Just zis Guy you know? 20:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I won't give any such undertaking, and I wish it to stay protected. Also, blocking my site is yet another assault (from your part, I'm sure?). At least you could have some civility to notify me of this, and how to oppose this action? --Rdos 20:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd do it, given that undertaking.--ajn (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected Rdos's user talk page, and indicated to him that if he posts the material again, I will block him for disruption. Nandesuka 20:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You were asked to provide the header that it was protected, and not to unloxck it! --Rdos 20:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• I support JZG's actions. He even asked nicely before doing it himself. Obviously there's a lot of leeway in what can go in user space, but that doesn't mean that anything goes. Wikipedia is not a place for original research, period. There are hundreds if not thousands of free web page providers out there, and I'm sure there's probably wiki's out there that do welcome original research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly support Guy's actions, and suggest the "injured" parties post their personal stuff on a personal page. "My" user page is not "mine" at all. Neither is yours. This isn't MySpace, as has been stated repeatedly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• JZG is obviously a prick. Watercool 21:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or wouldn't such a blatant violation of WP:NPA not merit some sort of a block (say 24hours)? Netscott 21:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• User:Inshanee already nabbed him for 3RR... so an additional block'd be redundant at this point. Netscott 21:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In the future, if Rdos or any other user gets their user talk page fully protected, they must be blocked for the duration of the protection. Editors should not edit as long as they cannot be directly contacted by non-admins. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This sounds fair.I was trying to avoid blocking Rdos; perhaps it would have been easier if I had.Ah well.Just zis Guy you know? 08:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A bit late, but add me to the list of people who think JzG did the right thing. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Late, but working anyway :). Anyway - I've fought this user for about a year - for months I had to fight to keep the ORneanderthal article off of WP (see the AFDs and DRV). The user also bases a lot of his edits off of his own "aspie-quiz" from the same site which is very frustrating :\. It didn't stop at the neandethal article either - there was a long battle to keep an unencyclopedic "self-identification" article off WP which - coincidentally I'm sure - promoted the "aspie-quiz" quite heavily - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asperger's_self-identification. The user has a few good edits but there are so many ones involving spamming and dubious combative things. I'm sure this doesn't mean much to people but I just wanted to note the long war I was involved in and the amount of time it has taken reverting the spam, explaining WP policies over and over again (which he still doesn't seem to understand...) and various other things... that is all :). EXTREME THANKS to JzG for doing this, Curps for nominating the article for deletion (AGAIN) and the others involved - and (as a former admin myself) I would suggest blocking the user until he is willing to contribute and not promote original theories. RN 20:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, there is just one problem with your reasoning. You are the only one that that removed my links at Asperger's syndrome AFAIK. Before you started this, they had been there over a year. So, who is pushing an agenda when to authors disagree on which links should be present? The one that inserts them or the one that deletes them? Also, from the history, I'm pretty sure we can easily find out that you have been the most persistent one. --Rdos 06:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"So, who is pushing an agenda when to authors disagree on which links should be present? The one that inserts them or the one that deletes them?" - I'm going to venture out on a limb and say the one that inserts them if the one who keeps on inserting them is the owner of the site and the links themselves are intended for promotion and/or original research. Of course, we've talked about this numerous times already. RN 07:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to explain why only *you* have done this. If two links are on a page for more than a year, and thereafter are deleted by *one* author continously, doesn't that mean the consensus should be to keep them? A similar situation existed on the Neanderthal article as well. It was always the same user that removed them, but multiple users inserted them --Rdos 07:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Page moves against consensus

Would a sysop please look at Boleslav I of Poland? This is where the page was moved following a no consensus vote to move. Also, that page wasn't even the one that was voted on. I can't restore the article because the redirects are bungled.The same editor also moved Boleslav II of Poland and John II Casimir of Poland. Appleseed (Talk) 14:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Please see the discussion above, where I noted the sockpuppetry inherent in these moves. Mackensen (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The user who did the moves has left messages on my talk page where he says that the actions of the "Polish cabal" have put him in a position where he needs to make "brave" and "unilateral" moves. I'm all for being bold but intentionally creating history for redirect pages to prevent moves from your preferred location - that's just not cricket. I'll delete those extraneous edit histories but I won't make any moves since I have no position on the best location for those articles.

So far we've seen the following tainted tactics in this debate:

• Vote-stacking by sockpuppetry
• Selective canvassing for votes
• Creation of redirect histories

This is getting really stupid. Please try to have an honest discussion on the issue and settle for some sort of compromise. Haukur 14:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting.Regardless, the page was moved to a title that wasn't part of the move proposal.I would appreciate it if a sysop restored those pages. Appleseed (Talk) 17:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The move was towards a name that wasn't proposed, the user also made several other moves that reached the point of very "weirdness": [11] where he changed a of the main administrative regions of Poland to a name that gives exactly 197 hit from a name used in CIA World Factbook. Of course no proposal for change was made by the user. --Molobo 18:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I too would appreciate some guidance in this matter.A complex article renaming vote for the Bolesław I the Brave article was concluded as "No consensus".After the vote was concluded (and the sockpuppets revealed), User:Shilkanni unilaterally moved the page to Boleslav I of Poland (which wasn't even one of the names being voted on).A move war then resulted [12], though at the moment the page is still at Boleslav I of Poland.So, do we ask for an admin to move the page back to where it was at the end of the "No consensus" vote, or should we leave the page at the name that nobody except Shilkanni seems to like, and wade through yet another vote? --Elonka 19:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I do not particularly like that location, as I prefer Boleslaus over Boleslav. However I feel it is no longer possible to leave it to the untenable polonized name, where it just is a victim of all sorts of disruption (and prolonged wars) to keep it there againt any sort of majority. I felt that putting it to a place supported by some English works of reference, but not my personal preference, I am not advancing my own preference. I gladly welcome a new poll to actually determine where it should be, provided it does not start in the polonized name, which just leads us all as victims of yet another situation where community rough consensus is undermined by determined minority. Perhaps, if almost everyone has a reason to have a better name, the poll would be fairer than it has this far been. Shilkanni 23:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ibrahimfaisal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) making death threats

At Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 17#Category:Modern victims of Islamic decapitation, User:Ibrahimfaisal made a death threat against me withthis edit. His edit was timed stamped 15:39, 23 June 2006. Because of this death threat, I feel that my personal safety is in jeopardy. Please take appropriate action. Scented Guano 16:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps his rhetoric was a strawman argument in poor taste, but I doubt it was intended as a serious death threat. Interpreting it as such may open the door for accusations of religious phobias, etc. At the very most I'd suggest advising him not to jest about such "touchy" subjects. — Jun. 23, '06 [16:24] <freak|talk>

Obviously a bad faith report. Faisal even used a smiley, and his "conditional threat" was intended to point out the absurdity (and intentional provocation, I might add) of the title "Islamic decapitation". Faisal has still the potential of a problem user, and a polite warning may be in order. dab (ᛏ) 16:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not accept any warning for the thing I have not done. --- Faisal 18:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

100% concur with dab here. Netscott 16:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I hereby politely warn Scented Guano against trolling WP:ANI with such stuff. Bishonen | talk 17:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC).

Can you recognize Simily sign. ":)" . I was making an important point that if acts of terrorist are according to Islam then each religious Muslim should be a killer. However, they are not. I said it is "anit-Islamic" and I am "Muslim". Is really your understanding so poor? Its simply amazing..... --- Faisal 18:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps your (Faisal's) response was misindented, so you're not actually responding to Bishonen, but Bishonen was politely warning the other person, not you. FWIW, I don't think Faisal was making a death threat either, it was in jest and with the smiley face. Maybe not the best way to say it, but far, far, far from being a death threat, or any sort of threat for that matter. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Deathphoenix. However my response was forDbachmann and not for Bishonen.--- Faisal 18:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

for f*ck's sake, Faisal, I even pointed out the smiley myself, stop picking on me. dab (ᛏ) 20:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You yourself said Faisal has still the potential of a problem user, and a polite warning may be in order. Then why should not I pick on you? --- Faisal 20:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The kernel of this report--a perception of a serious threat--is apparently mainly due to Ibrahimfaisal's limited knowledge of English idiom.This is the second time I've noticed that he has presented a reductio ad absurdum argument in the form of a conditional statement that may appear, to a native English speaker, to be a threat to perform the absurd act.It's an unfortunate but understandable misapprehension. --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony sideway: See Scented Guano responce to my post at here. After reading his reply do you really think he would have misunderstand me? From his reply I feel he understand me very well. But still he reported me. ---Faisal 20:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

well, even with an intimate knowledge of both English grammar and internet idiom, I did not for one second interpret Faisal's edit as a "threat to perform the absurd act", and I am rather certain that neither did Scented Guano. dab (ᛏ) 20:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

His personal safety is in jeopardy shmepardy. Bishonen | talk 20:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC).

Regarding the mocking dismissals (see above) of my report regarding this threat against me (see above): It's nice that some of you find this so humorous. I myself though, do not. As for my feelings on this: I do believe that Faisal did indeed threaten me and I ask that he apologize, for (as suggested above) careless use of language. As a non-Muslim, I feel very threatened when a self-professing Muslim (in this case Faisal) "jokes" about chopping off my head - especially while discussing [[Category:Modern victims of Islamic decapitation]]. Personally, I feel that this "joke" was at minimum, in extremely bad taste and very hostile. What's next? Should I have to listen to "jokes" about gay-bashing because I am gay? Most of all, the snide suggestion that my report was "trolling" is extremely offensive to me. Those who mocked me here were all very rude. You have mistreated me and I think that I am owed an apology - especially from Faisal for his so-called "joke" which I do not find in the least bit funny. Scented Guano 00:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Please move on now User:Scented Guano. Thanks. Netscott 14:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Lennon and Martin Blair

I wanted to bring to the attention of an administrator the fact that an anonymous user (81.174.142.153---whom I suspect is a sockpuppet for Mb29uk) has edited the AfD talk page, completely altering the argument I made for deletion, as well as altering comments made by other editors in the delete discussion.Thank you for your time and attention. ---Charles 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Repaired and noted in the discussion. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, GraemeL.Now, what is to be done about the one responsible for these edits? ---Charles 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I tagged both of their talk pages with warning messages saying further changes to other users comments would result in them being blocked. Neither of then has edited apart from those changes and they do not appear to be open proxies. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to make too big a show of my ignorance, but what are "open proxies"?And, how is that relevant?I'm not being a smart aleck, either, I really do not know. ---Charles 03:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There is an encyclopedia just around the corner from here that can answer all your questions. See Open proxy and Wikipedia:No open proxies. -- Eugène van der Pijll 10:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Image on Daniella_Sarahyba

The user Levanocu insists in using this image on the Daniella_Sarahyba article (article history here). This image is used under a fair use claim, but there is a wonderful (imho) free alternative available. I feel unconfortable in talking to this user due to his username (portuguese for "take in the *ss"), but I'm trying anyway.

I'm still not sure if asking for help here is the right thing to do in this case. I'm sorry if I am misusing/abusing this spece. Thanks in advance, --Abu Badali 22:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted back and left a note.Replacing freely-licensed images with unfree content is not okay.Jkelly 22:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's true that "Levanocu" means "take in the ass", he needs to be blocked for his username. I don't speak Portugese, however, and I'm not comfortable doing it on one editor's word - any other Portugese speakers here? (Already tried Babelfish, it didn't understand the word, but that means little.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

He's reverted it back. Mo-Al 23:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Image deleted, user warned. Just zis Guy you know? 08:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A Man In Black and Pokemon anime page

Keeps removing cultural references section, someone needs to stop him. CoolKatt number 99999 02:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

CK#9999 is inserting the deleted content from Cultural references in Pokémon into Pokémon (anime), after the former article was overwhelmingly deleted as unsourced, subtrivial, crufty rubbish. I believe he's doing this to justify recreating Cultural references in Pokémon, as he's acknowledged in the past that the material doesn't fit into Pokémon (anime). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The content needs to stay. There are curious users everywhere that want to know. Please leave the section AS IT IS. I've had problems with unconstructive edits made by one user, and I don't need this problem with another. CoolKatt number 99999 02:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked CK#9999 for repeatedly reinserting this deleted material. This isn't the first time CK has had this problem; in November, when Grudges in the Pokemon anime was similarly deleted, CK revert warred over inserting the content of that equally crufty, unsourced, trivial article into Pokémon (anime). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Full support for AMIB, of course. Just zis Guy you know? 08:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• The only reasons I got blocked were:

1. AMIB is afraid of me and hates me.

2. For AMIB to avoid getting blamed and blocked for his own vandalism.

Also, AMIB, you are abusing the word "cruft" -- Just because you hate cruft doesn't mean you can delete it all. And also, do not allow the use of sockpuppets to ensure an article gets deleted, or even do it yourself. Sockpuppets are the reason the article was deleted in the first place. CoolKatt number 99999 19:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Block

Could someone please block me for a week? I would like to take an enforced Wikibreak. --Philosophus ^T 03:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is allowed.... — Arthur Rubin |(talk) 04:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

We aren't supposed to block ourselves, despite the frequent temptation...Mackensen (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No. There's something for your monobook.js that enforces a break, though. WP:JS has it, and it's in old versions of my monobook.js too. Kimchi.sg 05:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Have a friend change your password for you and promise not to tell it to you for a week.--Cyde↔Weys 03:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a good dear friend like your old pal Avillia. You remember me, right? --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 03:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Requests for administrative self-punishment should be submitted at at WP:AN/S&M... KWH 01:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

...but please keep reports of self-abuse to yourself. KWH 01:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Proffitt's House

Recreation of article deleted after AfD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Proffitt%27s_House).This user may need a severe talking to about removal of AfD tags, recreation of deleted articles, and generally not using Wikipedia as a vehicle of and for self-promotion and vanity. ---Charles 03:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

can you give us a link to the recreation?The article which was deleted as a result of the AfD is still deleted and has only been deleted once.User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I cannot, it's gone.Is there anyway to search for it? ---Charles 03:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:The Mekon and User:WMarsh

This is very confusing.

WMarsh (talk · contribs) has a long history of vandalism fighting. He stopped editing in January. A week after, The Mekon (talk · contribs) appeared. His edits mostly consist of vandalism fighting, until May 20. At this point ([13]) he began to commit vandalism: [14], [15]. From the talk page, one might asert there is some relationshoip between the two, but the statement is, frankly, confusing:

I'm the room-mate of The Mekon vandal (yep, my name is inspired by him). Also, you mistakenly tagged WMarsh as the same vandal. He's not! We are all behind the same IP address as we access the Internet through the same router. The anonymous "The Mekon" vandal sneakily used WMarsh's computer/logged-in account in an attempt to masquerade one of his edits.

Since whoever was editing on June 10 also made a straight out personal attack, I have blocked the user for a week, hoping this can be sorted in the meantime. Circeus 04:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Twice-banned editor/vandal is back

Just want to alert your attention to User:Fredgreg, who appears to be the former User:Niggershvar and User:Marytrott, the previous having been banned for the inappropriate username, and the latter for repeated vandalism. In Fredgreg's talk page he admits to being Niggershvar; the actions and language style (and the fact that the userpage says many of the same things) point to him also being Marytrott. So far, it doesn't appear as though any major vandalism has been done by this newest reincarnation, except for the inappropriate use of his userpage, but I hope that some admins are keeping their eye on him just in case. Thanks, romarin [talk ] 04:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I already got him per his now-deleted user page, in which he straight-up said his name is "DELETED." Thanks to User:Romarin for the heads-up, User:Fredgreg was already on my watchlist. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin User:Banno

Please review Admin User:Banno's conduct at Talk:Truth.For my part I regard it as sheer harassment.I have already asked that he/she review his/her own conduct, but to no avail.Thanks, Jon Awbrey 04:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Please provide difflinks for the behaviour in question. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord ofYOUR OPINIONS} 09:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless you have something really damning Jon, to me it looks like an admin just trying to get some answers from you that he doesn't feel is forthcoming. I'd take this through dispute resolution. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I read through the last several weeks of discussion, but did not see anything which seemed improper. Has he even taken any 'admin' actions in relation to the page? It looks as if he has just been politely discussing / disagreeing with you. --CBD 13:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I would like to note this [16] from User:A Transportation Enthusiast.This is part of a content dispute (I have been working for some time to ensure WP:NPOV in a series of articles on a largely theoretical transport technology called personal rapid transit, now User:Stephen B Streater is helping as well, which is greatly appreciated).I don't want ATE to be blocked, but I have warned him that this is not on.I am getting a bit frustrated that I am being characterised as an anti-PRT zealot for insisting that we remember at all times the perspective that no PRT system currently exists, but I will try to keep my temper (despite the stress of moving house)... Just zis Guy you know? 11:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have warned the user again, but this time for incivilty. Disputes happen, yes, but there is no need to actually go into personally attacking people. Iolakana|^(talk) 12:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

JzG has repeatedly mass-reverted good edits by at least three separate editors on these pages, in some cases leaving little or no comment, in other cases, actually accusing us of disingenuousness or POV-pushing. He's also threatened to lock the page (twice) based on a single word he misread, and this threat occurred just minutes after he was requested to do so by a vandal (Avidor) who has publicly ridiculed Wikipedia. If you would like more evidence of JzG's transgressions here, I'd be more than willing to provide them. A Transportation Enthusiast 16:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

We can talk about JzG's transgressions in a minute.Right now we're talking about your transgressions.Whatever JzG does, it doesn't excuse personal attacks. -lethe ^{talk +} 17:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's very easy for personal attacks to escalate, so it's better to stick to the discussion of article content on the article talk page where possible. Stephen B Streater 17:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, looking a the ULTra (PRT) talk page, I would recommend against an edit war as this will escalate the situation in a way which will make it harder to resolve amicably. Stephen B Streater 17:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

JzG is defending an editor (Avidor) who regularly called several of us wackos and cultists. Never once did JzG threaten to block him. Why is that?

For my part, what would you like me to do? Withdraw it? Delete it? I'd like to play by the rules here, although I'd be hard pressed to find evidence that JzG has been held to the same standard (multiple, irrefutable cases of edit warring and assuming bad faith, and from an admin).Am I really to be banned for such a small transgression when this admin has flaunted the rules repeatedly on these pages? A Transportation Enthusiast 17:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Being banned reduces an editor's ability to carry weight in arguments. Conversely, strong arguments will attract plenty of new editors (including Admins). Admins are not accountable to each other, and generally look at things from independent points of view, within the standard published rules. And I'd be surprised if Admins wanted Yes men as Admins. That wouldn't get the encyclopaedia anywhere. Much better is to bring new people into the discussion who may find new ways to move things forward. There are many strong editors who are keeping an eye on this article - lethe, for example. Stephen B Streater 18:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not plan on being banned. I wrote what I wrote and that's that. JzG has established an air of hostility on these pages, and I wrote something that in retrospect I probably shouldn't have (though, come on, given the way JzG has treated us, calling us POV pushers and edit warring on every change we make, is this such a crime?)

But now that we're here, the two things I'd like to know is: (1) how do I make amends for my transgression, and (2) how do I see to it that JzG's numerous transgressions are similarly addressed. A Transportation Enthusiast 23:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Another point while I remember it. The level of hostility on this issue is relatively low compared to others I have seen, but has lingered a long time. It would be good to sort it out to make editing more enjoyable and constructive going forward. Stephen B Streater 19:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir, Stephen. I've repeatedly tried to work with JzG, but he keeps accusing me of bad faith. Just a few hours ago, he accused me of disrupting to make a point, just because I asked for sources for several article contentions. Maybe I should have done what he's done repeatedly: remove the contentions without comment and edit-war when someone tries to re-insert. Then maybe I wouldn't be accused of disruption for (gasp!) asking for sources! A Transportation Enthusiast 23:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand - the quote doesn't look that bad to me, in these discussions we've had far far worse. The problem is, we've had discussions that focus on subjective things like POV. Every article has a point of view, and its not an easy task to quantify its neutrality. JzG has insisted on a POV that many of us thinks is not neutral, and the "personal attacks" have been taken from both sides, with JzG implying that me an a couple other users are pushing advertisement, while we have accused JzG of pushing the idea that PRT is a wishy-washy conglomeration of badly thought out plans.

This isn't to make our discussions out to be name calling - but the accusations have been taken from both sides, and I don't think any of our recent discussions have warrented any formal action.

My opinion is that ATE is a little to vehement about bringing up JzGs faults up for debate. JzG is not a vandal, but does produce very questionable edits sometimes, and his agreement with Avidor (personal attack removed - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops)) is a little disconcerting. However, we need to figure out a way to agree on ways that we can edit, and come to a consensus more quickly - without annoying the shit out of eachother. Fresheneesz 02:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If you have to apologize for it, don't say it in the first place. Especially when we're talking about personal attacks. >:( - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that JzG has been blatantly and egregiously flame-baiting these particular topics for many months.I am currently in the process of compiling evidence against him to take to the arbitration committee; I feel that his behaviour has been more than enough to warrant the revocation of his administrative rights.None of this means that it is right to take the bait and flame him, but it is certainly very, very understandable; I have done so myself on occasion.If ATE and Fresheneesz do not seem terribly contrite, then this is why: under the trying circumstances of dealing with JzG's mass reverts, accusations and innuendos, straw men and sophistry, capricious threats to lock the page and ban people, and clear violations of WP:NPOV, WP:FAITH, and WP:BITE, they have been civil beyond belief.They are right to bristle at any degree of chastisement.Just so that this note isn't entirely sour, however, I would like to single out Stephen B Streater for commendation as a "skeptic" who has made a positive contribution to the articles, and is always a welcome presence in the debate. Skybum 03:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A.T.E has gotten himself banned from the Seattle P.I discussion board for his annoying and insulting behavior[[17]][[18]]...and now he's continued his relentless insults and trolling on Wikipedia{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sdedeo&diff=37815871&oldid=37812315]... since my name no longer appears in the Wikipedia PRT article and since I will no longer waste my time editing the article , I ask Wikipedia administrators to stop allowing anonymous contributors like A.T.E. to continue to insult me (and others) on the Wikipedia.... How many chances will you give A.T.E. to insult me? Is that the purpose of an encyclopedia? Avidor 18:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'll add my $0.02.First, I think this is a pretty weak example of a personal attack that would make another user a candidate for banning or even a stern talking to.I only have a few weeks of experience contributing to the PRT and UniModal articles, but so far it seems to me that JzG has strong opinions regarding PRT and it prevents him from being impartial.He seems to administer the pages in a dictatorial fashion as opposed to mediator.He seems to revert and delete with little or no explanation.I don't know why, but he seems to have POV goals with regards to PRT.Maybe he's really impartial and constructive in other areas, but in all things PRT, JzG will only accept verbiage that shrouds the articles in sceptism (ie: "unproven technology") and accepts certain unsupported assertions (ie: "100MPH") but not others (ie: "$1M/mile").In the discussions, he makes unsubstantiated assertions (ie: "majority view") to support his reverts and deletions.If the story deserves to be told, then admins should help find a way to clearly tell the story instead of trimming the story to the point of insignifigance.In short, JzG seems to reign over PRT and his opinionated administation technique creates an adversarial tone that is reflected in the sometimes taunting retorts by others.Stephen B Streater seems to be more neutral but I get the impression that even he doesn't want to cross JzG by contradicting or not supporting him.--JJLatWiki 18:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

JzG has bent over backward to let the PRT promoters have their say. He is absolutely correct in saying PRT does not exist except as a concept. Professor of Transportation at Penn State Vucan Vuchic gave PRT only a few paragraphs in his book "Transportation for Livable Cities" (Rutgers 1999) [[19]] Professor Vuchic calls PRT an "imaginary system". The Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't even have an article on PRT.Perhaps the real reason the PRT promoters are so eager to get rid of JzG hasmore to do with several upcoming elections of PRT-promoting politicians in Minnesota and a trial of a prominent PRT promoter in Minnesota Federal District Court at the end of July for extorting bribes.Avidor 19:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is much of an argument even from PRT promoters that PRT is more than a concept that has only rarely seen prototype development, but JzG has NOT gone to great lengths to let PRT promoters indulge themselves.I'm not calling JzG an outspoken critic of PRT.I'm saying that he's taking the position that in the absence of a fully functional PRT system, there mustn't be even a hint that any of the information contained in the article is more than the utopian fantasy of the designer.Whether or not PRT exists, is feasable, or how many words Britannica devotes to PRT has nothing to do with how the article is administered.Maybe if Britannica had millions of editors and unlimited space for every subject, they too would beef up their information on PRT.--JJLatWiki 20:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So it's okay for A.T.E. to insult JzG, Sdedeo and myself?Avidor 21:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I say, no, it's not OK.But the particular transgression JzG originally referenced I don't think is grounds for a potential bannishment.And I think JzG's administration fosters bickering and so certain transgressions need to be weighed against that.--JJLatWiki 00:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The bickering over PRT has been going on for thirty years... mostly it's the small group of PRT proponents who do the bickering. JzG has a lot of patience. All these PRTistas do is argue about something that doesn't exist.... endlessly.....Avidor 01:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting:[20][21][22][23]Avidor 01:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Pravi Gusinjez

CrnaGora (talk · contribs) has requested that I unblock Pravi Gusinjez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because [CrnaGora] stated that his account [Pravi Gusinjez] has been hacked and that someone took over his account and started vandalising. I appear to half believe him becuase of these tw edits, [24] (insulting "himself") and [25] (insulting "himself" again). But other edits (here) seem to make me think otherwise. What do you think? Iolakana|^(talk) 12:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Has he reset the password and has control again?The same thing happened a while ago to another user (who forgot to log out on a school library PC) and he has been fine once he reset the password.I would AGF (at least the first time) if he has regained control. Thatcher131 13:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, forget it.The sitatuation referred to above was of an established editor who temporarily lost control of his account.Pravi's very first edit was vandalism, making his explanation somewhat unlikely.If he wants to be productive he can use his new CrnaGora account, although I would keep a close eye. Thatcher131 15:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Too late! Already unblocked him, but I will keep an eye on him. ;-) Iolakana|^(talk) 19:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeago

Yeago (talk · contribs) has been poisoning the work environment on Talk:Norm Coleman for weeks, and has just left me yet another nasty note on the talk page minutes ago. Multiple users have admonished him to stop personal attacks on the Coleman talk page and his own talk page [26], but he has been ignoring them. I think an administrator should take a look at the talk page and block him a day for incivility, giving him a warning to clean up his act before he is subject to a RfC or RfAr. 172 | Talk 16:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

While I agree I could approach people with more tact, you continue to hide behind the incivility argument to strongarm your position at Talk:Norm Coleman. For instance, you suggest User:DanielM is uncivil simply because he suggests that your solicitation of others into the debate led to a skewed result. So, while I may occasionally be colorful or brash in my points, at least there is an honesty to it. Sorry you don't like the fact that I have a bad habit of letting the air out of your consensus-seeking facade (of which this notice is one example).Yeago 17:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've placed a warning on the talk page. Let me know if there are any more offences.--FileÉireann 16:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A balanced response.Yeago 17:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Satisfactioncom

Repeatedly removes prod tag from Satisfaction.com_Free_Online_Auctions. Someone kill it. ackoz 16:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

He has every right to remove the PROD tag! And once it has been removed, by anyone, for any reason, it should not be put back. Please familiarize yourself with how WP:PROD works. PROD is over for that page. If you want it deleted, take it to AfD. · rodii · 16:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't put the prod there.
• Sorry I didn't read the PROD policy thoroughly.

ackoz 16:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

When you were there you could have added the afd tags yourself, but that's three steps and thats too much right? The time you saved can be used for instance for telling me repeatedly and in a nice voice that I violated the WP:PROD. I just wanted to stop a blatant spam, per WP:IAR, I used my common sense and restored the prod which would serve wikipedia better. The article has a snowball's chance in hell that it will survive the AfD. I wanted to restore the prod, with same tone answer as you gave me and WP:SNOW link, but I am using db now, even if it doesn't meet the criteria. ackoz 16:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Spam is a valid candidate for speedy deletion.In case like this one, you could probably have gone from Prod to CSD.It all depends on how much text was there.However, when the creator of an article removes the prod tag....Well, it's why I'm not fond of the system.Geogre 17:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

CSD? I used db|spam that's all. The creator of the article should be able to change the tag to AfD, but not completely delete. ackoz 17:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across as rude, ackoz. (I didn't send it to AfD because, frankly, I don't think that's the right thing to do here, but I respect your feeling that it is.) · rodii · 21:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

81.178.246.137

Check. ackoz 17:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing since your warning. In the future, please make sure the user is properly warned and is continuing to vandalize, then take to WP:AIV. Thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Leonard23

Leonard23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been calling my edits vandalism, and he's also using sockpuppets on TV station pages WSVN and WHDH-TV. (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Leonard23) --CFIF (talk to me) 17:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The only issue here is a dispute between which version of a logo to use in the article, with each user terming the other's edits "vandalism". Figure out how to talk to each other and resiolve the dispute or take it to WP:DR or you'll both end up blocked for WP:3RR. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

HEY! I didn't call his edits vandalism! --CFIF (talk to me) 18:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You reported him here as {{vandal|Leonard23}} rather than as {{user|Leonard23}}; meantime, you also spouted off about WP:CIVIL while saying, "I bet you can get one of your sockpuppets to confirm it for you." (it's suspected sockpuppetry until confirmed, and I see no requests at WP:SSP). Meantime, the remainder stands; work together or take it to WP:DR or everyone guilty of WP:3RR will be blocked for it. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, using the {{vandal}} template here versus the {{user}} template doesn't mean that someone is actually calling another editor a vandal—it's just used when one wants to display a different set of links regarding an editor's history.The former template adds the user's page moves, block history, and a block link.I've not investigated this dispute at all, but I think it's important to understand that the use of that template doesn't imply that the user is a vandal. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and excuse me for not knowing what to do to report sockpuppets. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That's over hynh. This dispute really isn't as big of a deal that you are making it. Just work it out instead of edit warring. —Whomp [T] [C] 19:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay; I've always found that the use of the {{vandal}} template was considered a vandal report; I'll rethink the position. Meantime, CFIF, it's not that you reported or didn't report sockpuppetry so much as you said the other person had them rather than that you suspected so. Still, you're using this as a straw man; you're both edit-warring to your preferred version, your only communications are you saying the other's version "blows" while his response is "I'll report CFIF to an administrator for vandalism", leading you to beat him to it. The fact remains that neither of you is taking any steps, besides coming here to "report" someone, to resolve the dispute. At the very top of this page, it notes that this is not "the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow." Apologies if I'm snippish today, but when a report here comes across as a case of "wah, I'm telling!", the response is often "go work it out." RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Leonard23. Leonard seems way more than impossible to deal with, so I think dispute resolution works. I really don't see how you can take Leonard's side, he's the one who's causing problems with his "suspected" sockpuppets. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This user is continuing to make personal attacks and acting belligerently. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking sides? Are you serious? You've been here for a year, Chris, you should know better than to get into an edit war, especially with someone who you accuse of using sockpuppetry to get his way. Use the process, use WP:RFCU if appropriate, and stay out of the war; otherwise you give the appearance of being as much to blame as he is, even if you're not. Meantime, I've left him a note regarding WP:CIVIL and WP:DR. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

And I've left him a note about vandalism, too, since CFIF's last link there actually is to vandalism by Leonard23—he's seen blanking a suspected sockpuppet report about himself on the page Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC).

more belligerent behavior --CFIF (talk to me) 03:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha, you think that's belligerent? You've been RFAR'd! (You and me both.) Bishonen | talk 14:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC).

Ha! It even got erased due to being invalid. --CFIF (talk to me) 18:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Morwen

The two users who filed this have just been revealed to be socks of one another by CheckUser (Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Cuthbert11). As such, could somebody please close the RFC for lacking certification and perma-block one or the other (both are pretty new, so neither is obviously the puppet master for the other one)? Thanks! -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Aish Warya sockpupped of blocked user Nacho Librarian

User:Aish Warya has engaged in mass vandalism, reverts, and POV pushing and is a likely sockpuppet of blocked User:Nacho Librarian, see here.He is currently logged in and continuing to edit.Ideogram 22:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

While there is something to be said for the excessive use of reversions, I don't see any vandalism in the last 100 contributions. There are likenesses to Nacho in quite a few aspects, from my limited understanding of the case... However, until there starts being true vandalism, or continued issues after DR, this should be handled by the dispute resolution process and not blocking. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 22:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Aish Warya (talk · contribs) has been engaged in personal attacks, adding nonsense into articles, unexplained deletion of content,vandalism of usertalk page, using personal attacks when warned about 3RR, and blanking of an entire article. I think that many of User:Aish Warya's edits could be considered as vandalism and Aish Warya seems to be editing in bad faith. This seems like a bad case of WP:POINT.--RevolverOcelotX 23:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There is definite POV pushing there that has a definite chance of being solved simply by following WP:DR. There is also quite a bit of incivility; Which could be solved just by following the dispute resolution process. (Although I fail to see how the virgin comment qualifies as a personal attack.) As for the "vandalism", there is a fairly well-documented bug which occures as to the chunks of article being dropped; I think it's in relation to Firefox and Google Toolbar. It needs to be reverted, but it doesn't qualify as vandalism. WP:AGF, please. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 02:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Avillia, I think the new user, A rat tat tat yo bass (talk · contribs) might be another sockpuppet of Nacho Librarian and Aish Warya. His contributions shows mass vandalism, reverts, and POV pushing on the same pages. Look at this edit where he blanked the whole articles without any explanation. Notice how he blanked the articles 3 times, [27], [28], [29]. That seems like intentional vandalism to me. Notice this edit where User:Aish Warya blanked the article in tandem to avoid the 3RR. --RevolverOcelotX 02:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:CH-inkbot is another sock with the same edit pattern. After I blocked him, he was repeatedly incivil towards Ran and Jiang on his talk page, which I then protected. Kusma (討論) 04:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Molobo

I have protected User talk:Molobo, since Molobo is repeatedly inserting an attack on the motives of other editors there.User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Lesage Gravity and CambridgeBayWeather Intervention

As most of us know, Wikipedia is becoming a favorite venue for various physics cranks to propound and promote their pseudo-scientific theories. For example, a well-known crackpot named Mark McCutcheon recently published a book called "The Final Theory" in which he claims that all of modern science is a fraud, and that gravity is actually due to the continual expansion of the Earth and all other matter. He then came to Wikipedia and created an article on his "Expansion Theory", heavily quoting his own book on the subject. After a protracted edit war, this individual's self-promotional original research was finally removed from Wikipedia. This is an illustration of how the Wikipedia policies are actually effective in the long run at weeding out self-promoting pseudo-science crackpots. There are many other examples of similar crank pseudo-science articles that have been weeded out. But the process is not pretty. It typically requires one or more individual(s) who are at least somewhat knowledgeable in the actual scientific field, and who are also familiar with the ways of science cranks, and who will persistently correct, challenge, and revert the seemingly endless pseudo-scientific drivel that a dedicated crackpot can generate.

Recently a particularly virulant case came up, involving what is called "Lesage Gravity". A group of well-known physics crackpots (including the likes of Tom "faces on Mars" van Flandern, Paul Stowe, Barry Mingst, and Matt Edwards, names familiar to readers of the sci.* newsgroups), put together a book called "Pushing Gravity", propounding the old and long-since-discredited idea that gravity is caused by an aetheral flux of invisible particles pushing in all directions. They then (like Mark McCutcheon before them) came to Wikipedia to promote their pseudo-science book, heavily quoting themselves, in an article that reads like a publicity release for their book. None of the collaborators on the book have ever been able to get their ideas published in reputable journals, so they had to resort to putting together their own book, and then promoting it on Wikipedia. Stowe, Mingst, and Edwards were soon joined by another well-known Usenet physics crank named Ed Schaefer, and the four of them have produced an article that is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. As in other such cases, this situation could have been dealt with by the usual Wikipedia processes...HOWEVER....

An unusual and somewhat unexpected thing has happenned. These four individuals have somehow gained the cooperative support of a Wikipedia administrator named CambridgeBayWeather. This administrator, for whatever reason, seems to do whatever Ed Schaefer and/or Paul Stowe tells him to do. If Ed or Paul say to lock the article, CBW locks the article. If Ed or Paul tell him to unlock the article, he unlocks the article. If they tell him to block a user, he blocks the user. As a result, the only individual who has been trying to restrain this cadre of physics crackpots (namely myself) has now been blocked (on the flimseyist pretext of a 3RR complaint that I've ever seen... check the record for yourself to see what I mean), so the article is now completely "owned and operated" by these self-promoting original researchers.

My reason for posting this message here is not to complain about the physics cranks. They will always be with us, and they simply do what is in their nature to do. I'm posting this message simply to point out the odd behavior of CambridgeBayWeather, the Wiki administrator who seems to be operating at the beck and call of these crackpots. I have no personal stake in whether Wikipedia succeeds or fails, so I'm just as happy to walk away, but if there's anyone out there who cares about the quality and integrity (and reputation) of Wikipedia science articles, I suggest you look into the behavior of CambridgeBayWeather, and find out what he thinks he's accomplishing by blocking individuals who are simply trying to uphold the Wikipedia policies and standards, and who are making a good faith effort to adhere to the rules while doing so.Fixwiki 00:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a pretty typical WP:3RR conflict.See User talk:Fixwiki.Except to confirm that CBW has been correctly upholding the policies (it's pretty clear he has), this is a content issue and doesn't really need admin attention. JDoorjam Talk 00:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see it characterized as a typical 3RR conflict. The administrator blocked me after the SECOND revert for a calender day, because this revert was only 22 hours (rather than 24 hours) after the first of two reverts on the previous calender day, making a total of four reverts with a single 24 hour period... even though I explicitly explained my intention to stay within the 3RR limit. I've personally witnessed "revert wars" where people have reverted articles dozens of times in as many minutes, but the administrators in those situations just counsuled patience, and indeed the situations resolved themselves before long. There was a time when blocking an editor was regarded as a serious an undesirable step, given the whole philosophy of Wikipedia, and it was reserved for egregious intentional violations of policy. In this case, ferreting out the fact that an inadvertent violation had even occurred took some careful scrutiny.

I'd also like to point out that I've been continually and repeatedly threatened by other editors, mainly Ed Schaefer, posting private messages to me, telling me things like "I hereby advise you to change your name, "Fixwiki", because I find it offensive, as if you are claiming that you are going to "fix" Wikipedia"; If you go on being offensive in this manner, I will have you banned from Wikipedia". I simply ignore his messages, which seems to enrage him to send me even more outrageous messages, but I frankly didn't think anything of it... UNTIL... he actually campaigned to get the administrator CambridgeBayWeather to have me blocked, by alerting him to the horrifying "infraction" I described previously (reverting at 22 instead of 24 hours). At that time I asked CBW where I could complain about this, and he directed me here, so I posted the message above. Then when I just logged back on, I have another private message from Mr. Schaefer, informing me that he has noted my message here, and if I keep up this unacceptable behavior, he will have me banned permanently. And he seems to have the endorsement or at least the support of CambridgeBayWeather in his campaign against me.

Is this really just a "content issue"?It really seems to me there is a serious problem here, one that has little or nothing to do with content. I think the crux of the problem is the Wikipedia policy, formulated by Jim Wales, against "physics cranks" and "original research". I have invoked this policy in the explanations of my edits, and this has made me the target of personal attacks from physics cranks, perhaps not surprisingly. My message here is not that I need or seek any kind of protection against the attacks of physics cranks; those attacks go with the territory. My message is that I don't think Wikipedia administrators should let themselves be manipulated into carrying out the threats of physics cranks. Is this too much to ask? By the way, any one of my messages may be the last, because I'm sure when Mr Schaefer sees this, he will launch some charge at me before CambridgeBayWeather, who will probably block me permanently. Fixwiki 06:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to explain to Fixwiki that 3RR is not a calendar day but a 24 hour period. The thing that bothered me most was this edit where he seems to me to bee implying that he is just going to continually edit war. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As our policy says, the 3RR is an electric fence and not an entitlement.Even if one strives to stay within the letter of the 3RR – which I hasten to say, Fixwiki apparently failed to do – an editor who perpetually stays just within the border of the 3RR is still engaged in edit warring, and is still likely to find himself blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand completely that the 3RR rule applies to any consecutive 24 hour period, not to calender days. I also fully acknowledge that I reverted the disputed article four times within one 24 hour period. I explained this in the previous messages above. My point is that blocking someone on the second day of reverting a disputed article, when he reverted the article only 3 times on one calender day and only twice on the next, for a total of FIVE reverts in TWO days, is a rather zealous application of the 3RR rule. Also, I think a review of your talk page shows that this action of yours, as with your previous actions related to this disputed article, were taken in direct response to instructions that you received from Ed Schaefer. It's as if you have appointed Ed as a deputy administrator, and frankly I think this is highly unwise and inappropriate, because he is one of the "physics cranks" (to use the term from the Wikipedia policy statement) who is promoting the violation of Wikipedia policies against (1) self-promotion, and (2) original research in science articles.

Ed has stated explicitly that he does not feel bound by those policies and does not intend to adhere to them, and of course the same applies to his accomplices Paul Stowe, Matt Edwards, and Barry Mingst. If you are so vigilant to take pre-emptive action against ME based on a message in which I indicated that I would ADHERE to the 3RR policy (albeit with a mis-interpretation of the 24 hour versus calender day), why do these blatent statements of Ed Schaefer voicing his intention to VIOLATE two of the most important Wiki policies not prompt you to take action against HIM? (By the way, that's a rhetorical question... I have never sought to have anyone blocked, silenced, or censored, and I will not start now.)

As an adminnistrator, I would think you would also take into account the fact that each of my five reverts over two days, separated by about 8 hours, was answered by an anti-revert, usually within MINUTES, and with no justification, from either Ed Schaefer or his accomplice Paul Stowe. This is another reason that, in the past, Wikipedia administrators have tended to take a more circumspect view, and not just decide to BLOCK one particular editor, and certainly not after five reverts in two days. Wikipedia contains the ability to revert articles for a reason, and it is quite understandable that, especially in the case of disputed articles written by a group of self-promoting "original researchers", that there will be multiple reverts at some stage of the process. As I said, dealing with physics cranks is not a pretty process. I really think Wikipedia has the resources to do it successfully, BUT ONLY if the administrators refrain from actively supporting the cranks by blocking and banning individuals who try to uphold the Wiki anti-physics-crank policies. Fixwiki 16:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, 3RR and everything. But regarding the factual issues Fixwiki is complete correct. It's tedious and unrewarding (except sometimes by legal and other threats) to keep the self-promoting cranks within control. I can help out FixWiki by doing some of the reverts, but what is achieved by this? It looks at best ironic when these conflicts are met with the standard formal answerslike "discuss on talk page". Heck, there's nothing to discuss with Tom van Flandern, you either are an encylcopedia or you let TvF contribute. Sorry for this rant, by these problems always leave me severely depressed. --Pjacobi 22:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi - I have put a fair amount of work into trying to obtain an article that is fair to the subject of Le Sage's theory of gravitation and is NPOV towards it.I have gotten in the way of the pro Le Sage gravitation editors just as much as I hae gotten in the way of Fixwiki.In fact, if you look at the discussion for the article in question, you will find that I have reached out to Fixwiki over and over again, and been rebuffed because I am a known "crackpot".Also, you will find that in general the other editors have been quite polite in their dealings with each other, while Fixwiki and his various aliases (yes, aliases and not sock puppets) have regularly been hostile towards the rest of us.

Fixwiki claims that we reverted his revents without justification.I admit that none was given at the time, but also refer you to Talk:Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation#Removing_the_protection.At this point, the editors of that page put together a consensus view of what to do with the page in the wake of an edit war that got in protected.Fixwiki had plenty of time in which to weigh in on that discussion, and chose not to do so.Instead, he waited until he was sure that the protection was off, and then reverted to his version from the previous edit war.If you look at the article's edit history, you will see that Fixwiki was asked to discuss changes first.His respose in his next revert was to say that he had previously pointed out the "errors" and implied that they needed no further discussion.And so it went.

IMO, Fixwiki is acting like a crank, and is no more deserving of resepct than User:Le Sagian who is Fiwiki's pro-Le Sage alter ego on that page.BTW - Le Sagian is now working primarily through the talk page these days as I have requested that he do, and so he is not an issue at this time. So let's just say that people should be very careful about what they are doing before they side with Fixwiki here.I do not mind a mainstream sanity check on that article (and given the current pool of editors for that page such a check really is needed), but IMO Fixwiki is and has been as POV and disrputive as many anti-mainstream editors are. --EMS | Talk 06:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I defer this to your judgement EMS, you've invested a hefty dose of time into the article, and you aren't a crackpot for sure, I only hope you don't suffer from the Stockholm syndrome. Perhaps FixWiki must be grouped to the Anti-Troll-Trolls (who lose sober judegement when trying to defend Wikipedia's integrety). Anyway, TvF editing Wikipedia makes me strongly nervous. --Pjacobi 06:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much.I assure you that the issue for me is Fixwiki's behavior, not his intent.He definitely is something of an anti-Troll-Troll (although "troll" is not term I would use in this case).At the least, he is highly biased against Le Sage gravitation to the point that his edits are unnecessarily dispariging of it.I thank you for saying the I am not a crackpot, but Fixwiki will contest that and with a valid reason:I have (and still am) trying to promote a theory of my own devising which modifies general relativity.However, unlike others with such ideas who come here I have chosen not try to present that work in the article space in accord with WP:NOR. --EMS | Talk 14:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User talk:RJII

Is this edit appropriate?User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Finally, this account is blocked indefinately. What good news... I think the post should stay. It demonstrates what a problem this user was, and serves as a reminder in case a credulous admin (there are many of them) is ever tempted to unblock him. Unlike most sanctioned POV-pushers, RJII outright admits in the statement his goal of undermining conventional encyclopedic and scholarly standards in order to push a POV: The RJII Project has been victorious in what it set out to accomplish on Wikipedia, but the larger goal is still to be acheived. Why was the Project undertaken? Certainly it is to shape public opinion .... No longer will the academic hierarchy decide what the student sees or does not see. 172 | Talk 01:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

While I will doubtlessly be ostracized for stating the obvious:

• It's a great way of saying goodbye after tiring of the community.
• It's a great social experiement which seems to have suceeded.

Whatever way you slice it, it's hilarious. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 02:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

ElectricRay is certainly acting inappropriately (not for the first time) in "adopting" the text of a banned user and re-posting it. I have removed it, per WP:BAN:

Because we discourage people from using Wikipedia to interact with banned users, it is likewise inappropriate to post comments and discussion on behalf of banned users. Such activity is sometimes called "proxying". As people respond to such material, this will inevitably draw in the banned user, and again may tempt them to subvert their ban. Our aim is to make it as easy as possible for banned users to leave Wikipedia with their dignity intact, whether permanently, or for the duration of their ban. Offering to proxy is likewise inappropriate.

Bishonen | talk 02:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC).

Well... Has he been 'banned'? He's been blocked for a indefinite period for admitting to a shared account today. He added the text onto his userpage himself on his account; It is more likely that he will be drawn in by the removal of this information in comparison to letting it stand as it's own topic under his userpage. Additionally, anyone can view the text in the prior revision(s). Removing it from the talk page serves no purpose. Then again, neither does reinstating it by the same path of logic. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 02:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

(Shh....! Notice me ostracizing ya, Avilla?

) Bishonen | talk 02:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC).

RJII's response to a recent block by me was All I can say is I'm glad I'm out of here at the end of the month. Good riddance to you all.I duly pointed out that under his probation he could have earned a ban from editing the article in question and, in the circumstances, a three-hour block for "Sterile edit warring with User:Alienus on Randism" was quite lenient.

Given RJII's demonstrated immaturity, I'd take the grandiose claims accompanying his departure with a bushel of salt. --Tony Sidaway 21:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:百家姓之四

Has anyone spoken to this user about coming up with a new User name?They've been here for almost a year.User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should force him/her to change it, if they've been here a year I'm sure they've behaved properly. If the user was causing problems then I would change my mind. I've already encountered this particular user and they seem quite friendly. Let them keep it. PerfectStorm 02:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If this were truely a problem the devs would just disable unicode support/other language support in usernames.I don't know how this user got the idea that using those kind of characters in their name was a GOOD idea. --mboverload@ 02:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Currently, all new Usernames that contain other than Latin characters are blocked on sight.User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Kimchi.sg's spoken to them on their talk page -- Samir धर्म 02:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User Antonio en las Ruedas has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:Antonio en las Ruedas has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot.-- Curps 04:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Spanish translation, Anthony on Wheels, WoW endorse block. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the block log, this account was originally blocked immediately when it was created, but after the vandal tagged his user talk page with {{unblock}}, another admin who did not realise the Spanish translation was fooled enough to unblock it. My point is that this should be a reminder to expect more user names like that where "on wheels" is translated to other languages. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• also there seems to be a connection to the AN/i troll, see post directly under this one for reference--205.188.116.65 05:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism in Progress at the Uma Thurman page, June 25, 2006

The Uma Thurman page, which is one of the featured articles, is currently being vandalized. When you click on it you get a blank page with "Willy's back, bitches!" written on it. Please direct your attention to it.

It's 12:11 a.m, Eastern Time here.Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcocksman (talk • contribs)

• AN/i *cough* troll--205.188.116.65 05:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Haizum ongoing personal attacks and WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF breaches

This user has had an ongoing history of making personal attacks against other users. He has exhibited a complete inability to be civil. A quick glance at his talk page, his comments on my talk page and Talk:Bear community shows WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF breaches as well as contemptuous comments aimed at the communty as a whole. I attempted to file an RfD only to discover that one was filed within the last six months. It was suggested to me by User:Circeus that I bring the issue up here. My awareness of this user came about due to his comments at Bear community on the talk page, wherein he has suggested that this very valid and historically important subcommunity of the gay community was a vanity entry. He then made attacks on any users who disagreed with him. I broached the subject on his talk page in what I felt was a very civil manner, and he proceeded to belittle the entire Bear Community movement - including their flag, the very symbol of the movement - on my talk page. When it became apparent to him that I was not going to let this behaviour pass unnoticed, he began a lengthy diatribe on my talk page. It seems overwhelmingly clear that this user has not learned any lessons from past reprimands, and continues to show a flagrant disregard for others on Wikipedia. It is time, I think, for someone to step in and set things right once and for all. Pacian 06:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That's quite a heading for this section. ;-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 06:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As of now, I have blocked him for 48h regarding Bad faith assumptions ([30], [31]) and this borderlin personal attack. Also several rather uncivil comments. Circeus 06:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It's 2 in the morning here. I'm going to bed. Feel free to review and unblock if you consider appropriate, but considering the long history of confrontational editing from haizum, i feel the block more than justified. Circeus 06:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about this user or his behavior otherwise, but those diffs you listed don't justify any block in particular. --TJive 06:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The block was quickly lifted. I would like other Administrators to review the actions taken against me for the sake of the community. Haizum 06:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked Haizum for the time being. See his talk page for more info. If you feel I have erred, don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 06:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me just clarify what this user has done, and how serious it is: he has gone into an article - Bear community - and asserted, based solely on his personal distaste for the subject matter, that it is a vanity entry and invalid. He has shown a complete lack of respect for a community of people that numbers in the hundreds of thousands, globally. And he continues to do so in his extensive uncivil comments. I may be expressing a major POV on the matter, but how are we supposed to judge someone's intent if not by his actions? What this user says is simple "sarcasm" is, to me, a gross trivialization of a group of people's existance. What he said amounts to me going to an article on Puerto Rico and saying "Oh, well I'm just going to call my living room a country and make up a flag for it, so it's just like Puerto Rico!" And he continues to belittle and attack others! I don't understand how this individual is NOT in extreme violation of WP:CIVIL, and I just don't understand how the admins have allowed it to continue! Please! HELP ME understand! I know this may come off as insincere, but I really am at a loss to comprehend. Pacian 06:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir, I made my opinion known and nothing else. I did not seek deletion of the article, and I did not pursue major revision. Please do not continue to assume my position on the gay community, I am quite tolerant. Haizum 06:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to note that this incident started on my talk page with the following comments:

a topic about which you clearly know nothing -Pacian

That is, quite literally, a statemnt of ignorance. -Pacian

to further educate yourself -Pacian

your seeming need to treat others poorly here on Wikipedia -Pacian

I peacefully left the discussion page in question weeks, if not months ago without any lasting influence effecting the article. I then received the aforementioned comments on my talk page. My response was sarcastic, but no personal attacks were launched, even after a retaliatory ANI was started against me. I would like this situation to end. I obviously have no interest in the Bear Community page, and I have no interest in talk page discussions with Pacian. Haizum 06:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Haizum, but you suggested that an encyclopedia entry about a 25-year-old sub-community of the gay community was a vanity entry, clearly without educating yourself on the matter. That is the sheer definition of ignorance. You have an extensive history of people complaining about the way you talk to them - that indicates that SOME PEOPLE clearly feel you are treating them badly. And even if these incidents you cite here WERE attacks on you - which they so clearly were not, when viewed in context of the paragraph you took them from - it doesn't justify you attacking back. Pacian 06:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have just had my talk page vandalized by User:Scewfot. I would be interested to know who this user is, and to have them blocked, as it was an obvious retaliation for this ongoing conflict. Pacian 06:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

you obviously weren't listening hard enough when i said SCREW YOU COMMIE BASTARD. obviously you piss off a LOT OF wikipedians around here with your antics--Scewfot 06:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Administrator, please remove the last two comments from this board. Pacian has no business announcing (and implying responsibility for) vandalism on his talk page under this heading. Haizum 07:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I implied is that the user Scewfot has obviously been prompted to make his vandalistic edits based on my recent edits. I do find it quite a coincidence that a brand new user registered, came to Wikipedia, and managed to stumble solely on this particular confict, and vandalize pages only relating to it and nothing else. But I am insinuating nothing. Pacian 07:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've indef blocked Scewfot...edits have consisted of personal attacks and vandalism exclusively [32]. Rx StrangeLove 07:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldn't worry too much about it, here on AN/i we have a little thing we like to call the AN/i troll, a user with one or two edits who comes here to AN/i and reports very strange, usually non-existant "incidents" then goes away, which is exactly why you don't bring content disputes to WP:AN/i, it only ever winds up feeding the odd little troll living under this particular bridge--205.188.116.65 07:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

pacian, I'd like to comment on your behavior here. I have found Haizum to dislay an history of confrontational editing and uncivil comments. I told that when coming here, you should make a clear case and present. You have come and, for lack of a a better term, rambled. This does not make our job any easier. I looked into this because I wanted to be helpful after nullifying your reactivation of and old RFC, but it is not the job of admins to examine in details the contribution history when a user accuses another. You have failed to present proofs, and this is probably the reason you have been mostly ignored. However, I think this (and probably the Hadith killings case, although you are not involved in the latter) case might benefit from mediation. Circeus 12:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

E.G.:Unfortunately, saying, "I have found Haizum to dislay an history of confrontational editing" would qualify as a lie if an individual actually glanced at my edit history. For the most part, my edits have been small corrections and tags, the rest is talk/discussion page related. Also unfortunate is the fact that I run a 50% chance of being blocked simply for pointing out how someone else is misrepresenting me/the issue/the POV/etc, which usually falls under the WP:CIV Iron Umbrella. Of course the initial confrontational act of saying "I have found Haizum to dislay an history of confrontational editing" gets a complete pass. Haizum 16:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I will retract if by "editing" we mean all types of article and talk/disc page editing; I am indeed bold with regards to discussion, but that does not directly affect the informational content and encyclopedic value of Wikipedia. Haizum 16:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Here we [might have to] go again...Harro5 07:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No such user exists. Just zis Guy you know? 08:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Kuratowski's Ghost

In Israeli apartheid, Kuratowski's Ghost has deliberately falsified a quotation by Desmond Tutu in order to remove something he didn't like and replace it with something KG can agree with. The quotation KG left in the article passes off something Desmond Tutu never said as a direct quotation.

See [33]

Kuratowski's Ghost changed (emphasis added):

"Many South Africans are beginning to recognize the parallels to what we went through. (South African Cabinet Minister) Ronnie Kasrils and (South African Member of Parliament) Max Ozinsky, two Jewish heroes of the antiapartheid struggle, recently published a letter titled "Not in My Name." Signed by several hundred other prominent Jewish South Africans, the letter drew an explicit analogy between apartheid and current Israeli policies. Mark Mathabane and Nelson Mandela have also pointed out the relevance of the South African experience."

to

""Many South Africans are beginning to recognize the parallels to what we went through. (South African Cabinet Minister) Ronnie Kasrils and (South African Member of Parliament) Max Ozinsky, two ANC members of Jewish ancestry, recently published a letter titled "Not in My Name." Signed by several hundred other prominent Jewish South Africans, the letter drew an explicit analogy between apartheid and current Israeli policies. Mark Mathabane and Nelson Mandela have also pointed out the relevance of the South African experience."

His edit note reads "Ozinsky and Kasrils do not consider themselves to be Jewish nor did they do anything particularly heroic)"[34]

Kuratowski's Ghost may not agree with Tutu's description of Ozinsky and Kasrils but that doesn't give him the right to alter Tutu's words to something Kuratoski's Ghost can agree with. Deliberately falsifying a quotation is vandalism.According to Wikipedia:Vandalism, "Sneaky vandalism" is

"Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos."

The deliberate misquotation has been reverted. I would like a neutral admin to investigate KG's action and act appropriately. Homey 14:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing the edit history, I think KG just made a mistake, and forgot he was dealing with a quotation.He only edited it once, and did not revert his error when it was corrected.Please WP:AGF.--Pharos 17:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Spamming of talk pages

RK is spamming talk pages trying to get people to stop an article that he created from being delete. Some examples are: [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look into it immediately.--FileÉireann 14:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuing mess

The dispute on Collapse of the World Trade Center and the talk page there which led to MONGO's block of Pokipsy76, ostensibly for "vandalism", has continued to degenerate into increasing incivility and personal attacks by all sides... followed by MONGO blocking SkeenaR and CB Brooklyn for those personal attacks. Both users have objected to this given MONGO's involvement in the dispute and one attempted to bring those objections here with IP edits while blocked. MONGO has reverted those edits and the situation continues to deteriorate.

I have added these issues to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO and would request that people comment there rather than continuing to revert war on this page. --CBD 16:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I fear you may dig yourself into a hole by wheel warring with people.--MONGO 16:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I call your attention to [42], [43].--MONGO 16:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA violations by User:NTK against User:RK

Would some other people care to take a look at what's going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shefa Network please?I've removed several of User:NTK's incendiary comments regarding User:RK from the AfD discussion, and left a note for him on his talk page indicating that the comments are wholly inappropriate.Ignoring my comments, he has restored his remarks, and left a note for me on the AfD talkpage telling me that my actions are inappropriate.I have no dog in this fight, which is clearly a result of some background conflict between RK and NTK, and would appreciate input from others before proceding.Tomer^talk 17:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the comment regarding personal attack parol because they have no relavence to the deletion debate and there was no personal attack. However i have left the comments about canvassing for votes in as they are relavent and the closing admin needs to see them. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the "canvassing" bit, although the ArbCom stuff was repeated, in part, in that discussion as well, which is why I removed it.Allusions to the ArbCom parole are also made in NTK's vote, which is what made me say that it's clearly a result of some background conflict between RK and NTK.The comment we've both now removed from the AfD page has been resurrected by NTK again on the AfD talkpage, further congealing my opinion that NTK is on some kind of crusade against RK, not simply critical of the article, which he barely mentions anywhere.Tomer^talk 22:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Pat8722

I have blocked Pat8722 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for edit warring and disruption. Please review, as I have some history with the user, but I believe the block to be in the best interests of the encyclopedia to stop a brewing edit war. User has a history of claiming that the 3RR "entitles" him to three reverts per day, see the first section on my user talk page. It is my opinion that the user needs to be asked, by multiple users, to stop edit warring, as I have repeatedly attempted to clarify the 3RR to him, to no avail. If this behavior continues, I fear a much longer block may be necessary. —BorgHunter(talk) 19:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I was reluctantly participating in the edit war with Pat8722 that BorgHunter references above, though I made several attempts to get Pat8722 to discuss the changes on the talk page of the relevant article before Pat8722 finally decided to respond to my posts there.This was my first interaction with Pat8722, but I believe that BorgHunter's block was justified.In the course of my interaction with Pat8722, I came across a user conduct Rfc, located here.I think the comments there support BorgHunter's prognosis, unfortunately. - · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 20:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Emails I have received from User:Molobo

Just for completenness's sake.I don't speak Polish, so I'd appreciate some translations of the little niceities he threw in

1. As if this is going to stop me from pointing out nationalist edits against Poles. You seriously believe your little cenzorship will help in this nationalist crusade ? Hitled didn't got us, neither will biased editors on Wiki.Cheers ! Polacy nigdy siÄ™ nie poddajÄ….PamiÄ™taj o tym.
2. How amusing, you even don't let me defend yourself. Not to worry though, I lived in such system before 1989, I guess you would fit in nicely with those that enslaved us.
3. I shall contribute to defence against this German nationalism in any other means possible. Deletion of information about Wehrmacht war crimes or persecution of Poles in Prussia shows how biased Wikipedia has become by being dominated by members of some national groups do to their numerical advantage.
4. I am sure your move will be supported. I am also certain many Wikifriends will be brought by it, by pure coincidence.

Sounds like some curious threats, to me.Oh, and by the way, Molobo, I have added you to my spam filter, so I won't be seeing any more of your nice little emails, so don't bother sending me any more.User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• It sounds like Molobo is reacting inappropriately and has a persecution complex, but I don't think that the "in any other means possible" is actually a threat. --Improv 14:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Rdos again

OK, I have done my best to get Rdos (talk · contribs) to stop promoting his theory via Wikipedia, but he seems determined.Having removed the content, removed his reposting of the content, removed the reposting of the content on his Talk page, blacklisted his links which he was posting to every discussion on the issue - now he's using the article histories to promote it. this version of his Talk shows what I mean.I've issued a warning about disruption, I think if there's any more of this nonsense it should be No More Mr. Nice Guy. Just zis Guy you know? 20:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I fully endorse any blocks needed to make him listen.User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocks don't make people listen, they shut people up.In some cases tho, that's a necessary evil.I fully endorse any blocks needed to shut this guy up.Tomer^talk 03:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not promotion, and it has been moved to a private wiki. I just digged up the history. Where are the rules against assembling history on a talk-page? --Rdos 06:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you've already got a "private wiki", then you don't need to use the talk page or any other Wikipedia page, do you? --Calton | Talk 07:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't. I had no idea User:JzG would interpret it as promotion. It was a neutral investigation that I thought others would be interested in. Turned out not to be. --Rdos 07:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It was an article and subject judged -- multiple times -- as unsuited to Wikipedia, of which you were informed multiple times. Recreating it in whatever form on Wikipedia is recreating it on Wikipedia, period/full-stop -- especially when you've already been warned AND you claim to already have an off-Wikipedia place. Don't pretend otherwise. --Calton | Talk 07:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't recreate the deleted text. I didn't even make any descriptions of the theory at all. Some user (I think it was User:JzG) informed me that I could mention the theory on my user page and link to it. No doubt, it seems like he has changed his mind about this now. He wants the total eradication of it, and won't hesitate to delete history on Wikipedia to achieve his goal. --Rdos 07:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"It was a neutral investigation that I thought others would be interested in" - evidently by force, as you seem to have had no qualms about sticking the POV tag on an article because it didn't include your theory - see Talk:Neanderthal#POV_tag. RN 07:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put the POV-tag on it because it didn't include my theory. That was just a tiny bit of the reason for this. --Rdos 07:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Was Kelly Martin block of MONGO correct?

Block was for a brief discussion on Gmaxwell's talk page. This block looks like a total overraction, please tell me if Im missing something. Do these admins have a history of conflict? Hort Graz 20:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I was blocked too for the same fact, but it was a symbolic punishment: just 15 minutes.--Pokipsy76 20:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like a "love-tap" block. I got that type of block for vandalizing User:Sceptre's vandalism page. [44] Netscott 20:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

MONGO commented again on Gmaxwells page after the block, should he be blocked again? Where are you Kelly? Hort Graz 21:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I generally detest applications of WP:IAR this is one which I don't object to. I would assume that Kelly meant it as something of a 'wake up call' or 'hey stop it!' with the (largely insignificant) block included as a form of 'exclamation point' to demonstrate the seriousness of the issue. There is definitely a need for greater deliberation and less hostility (more light, less heat) in this situation so perhaps it will do some good. --CBD 21:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

MONGO and Gmaxwell were discussing on the talk page. He got blocked for doing what you say he should be doing. Hort Graz 21:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

MONGO and Pokipsy76 were arguing offensively with one another on Greg's talk page.We do NOT encourage people to engage in flame wars on the talk page of a third party.My block was intended as a "tap on the shoulder", to get his attention and underscore the message that flamewarring on third party talk pages is not acceptable.MONGO's reaction to it tells me that he is in dire need of an attitude adjustment, however, and I think he should consider either (a) a wikibreak or (b) resigning his adminship. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I told you I did not see that Gmaxwell had asked to not post on his talk page.--MONGO 05:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that's not the point - after all Pokipsy76's only edit there was before Gmaxwell asked you both to stop, and he was 'blocked' too. It's just generally 'poor form' to import an argument onto someone else's talk page. Not a 'blockable offense' under any policy, but then '15 minutes' isn't what I'd call a 'real' block either. --CBD 11:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. It's a speed bump. You hit one of those at sixty and you wake up–at least one hopes. Mackensen (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll remember that the next time you do something that violates nothing. I was having a conversation with Gmaxwell, not that he bothered to lower himself to my level, being so important as he is...some truly are legends in their own minds I fear. I was doing nothing wrong...I'm not sure who Kelly Martin thinks she is, but with nary a single FA, I'd have to say, a nobody as far as this website is concerned. We got plenty of janitors around here.--MONGO 11:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have an FA (yeah, baby), and both a) still consider myself a nobody, and b) think hijacking Gmaxwell's talk page for your squabble deserved a fifteen minute 'hey, quit it', which is all it was. Proto///type 11:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Gah! MONGO, please stop. I realize this is not at all fun and I'm probably responsible for a large fraction of your current stress, but you aren't helping yourself. I apologize for contributing to your burdens, but I assure you that it is not personal and I think that is true for most of the people who have questioned your actions. You do many very good things. I am not saying that you are a bad guy. I just disagree with a few specific things and am hoping to prevent them in the future... not see them spread to this board due to the added stress we have unfortunately placed you under. --CBD 12:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm at stress level zero. Kelly Martin had zero basis for a block, her commentary above was rude to an extreme. I am not blind to this. I was trying to inform Gmaxwell, that I believe thatthere was no content dispute, he responded and I responded back and to a comment made by a another and I didn't see that Gmaxwell had asked that we not start a forest fire on his page. Both the third party and myself were blocked by Martin. I don't care if it was for 15 minutes or fifteen seconds...you want to talk about abuse of sysop tools...that is a prime example. A polite request is the normal procedure I am confident.--MONGO 12:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You might want to remain a little more civil. Implying that Kelly Martin was not a "proper" editor because she had not brought an article to featured status was unnecessary, uncalled-for and uncivil. As for the topic at hand, I endorse the blocks, and Kelly Martin has my full support. Werdna (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't endorse them. It's not appropriate to block for whatever length of time without a warning, unless you're blocking something like a bot zooming through the encyclopedia pulverizing it. There are only two choices with a 15-minute block: either it's designed to mortify and embarrass, which is not what we should be about, or it's not designed as a meaningful gesture at all, in which case don't do it either.MONGO is not a child to be "love-tapped". Bishonen | talk 13:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

I don't endorse the block either. We can say it's not a big deal, as it was only fifteen minutes, but I imagine that having it there permanently on one's block log causes more mortification than the very temporary inconvenience of not being able to edit. The block was counter-productive because there's now more ill feeling than there was before. Mongo's posts did not amount to violations of WP:NPA, and there was no reason to block, especially without warning. Unless we see our role on Wikipedia as punishing people for violations of good manners, we should try to avoid demeaning good-faith editors by handing out unexpected blocks. An editor should never be blocked for something that isn't against policy, and that he didn't know could lead to a block. AnnH ♫ 14:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The goal we all share is to de-escalate this so we can get back to doing useful work. I'm sure Kelly Martin intended the block to do that. Even though it was done in a good-faith, it didn't have that desired result. Well, we've all made well-intended mistakes. What we don't need is to start blocking each other out of process for making out-of-process blocks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Scientology-related articles under spam attack

Scientology and related articles in the Scientology series are currently coming under spam attack from a range of newly registered accounts and anon IPs, all spamming identical links to ytmnd.com. Grateful if people could keep an eye on this and semi-protect/revert where needed. -- ChrisO 23:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection has failed - another newly registered account (probably the same person again) has re-spammed Scientology despite it being semi-protected. Is semi-protection bugged at the moment or something? -- ChrisO 23:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not bugged. The account Mattcruise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created back in January. [45]. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 23:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet it's not made any edits before today. Bizarre. -- ChrisO 23:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not uncommon. Premeditated vandals will often create "sleeper" accounts in advance to circumvent semi-protection on a page.-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was going to say. Vandals will use accounts that were created a while back in order to continue their edits when they are blocked or protection is on an article. Iolakana|^T 16:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The link should probably be added to the spam blacklist.There's a concerted attempt going on to Googlebomb that link to the top of the Google search results for Scientology. --Carnildo 04:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus in popular culture

I'm not sure where I should take a possibly long-term luke-warm dispute like this, so I'm pleading my case here. We need some help de-biasing this article. It has been the subject of a few recent revert wars, one of which I was involved in. There are some rather blasphemous examples of Jesus in this article, and a group of editors believe that this information should be left out until more positive examples can be found that balance out the controversial info. Does the NPOV policy extend to balancing facts? As I interpret it, it does not, it only calls for a neutral presentation of the facts, but perhaps I'm wrong. I've tried to establish a discussion on the talkpage in order to recieve some input from both sides, unfortunately, the editors who want to leave out controversial information are mostly AOL IPs that don't communicate. Someone please help me, I don't want another edit war to flare up a few days from now, which could possibly land me a 3RR block. The ikiroid 23:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been staring at this message for a while now, and I still can't figure out the raison d'etre of the article.Why does it exist?What on earth can it say?Isn't it guaranteed to be a vomiting up of offensive and celebratory depictions, depending upon the motives of the contributors?Isn't it also a fork?I mean, it promises to tell the reader how Jesus is depicted in the popular culture which the reader, ostensibly, must know.Very strange.Geogre 04:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

An entire article devoted to trivia. Hot damn. Mackensen (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I originally created the article because the examples of Jesus in modern society were quite limited in most of the articles in the Christianity series. After seeing as how Dramatic portrayals of Jesus was basically the same thing I supported a merge and a name change, which never really happened. I didn't expect the article to end up as a trivia dump as it is now. The ikiroid 13:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hrm... can we delete this as Trivia; complete junk-dumping-ground or has that not yet made the speedy criteria? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because it needs to be cleaned up doesn't mean it should be deleted. Shall we change it to "Jesus in secular culture" in order to achieve a wider scope? I'm adding a tag for cleanup. The ikiroid 15:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be hostile, but I really couldn't figure it out from the title.Would it be better to actually perform the merge and then make one of them a redirect to the other?I can't wrap my mind around "in popular culture."Again, I don't mean to be hostile.It's just that it....Well, are we talking about the political uses of Jesus (a huge topic that would generate tremendous heat), the casual references in things like Neil Gaiman novels and South Park episodes (which seems to not actually say anything but kind of doom itself to a trivia dump), discussions of depictions of Jesus in the dramatic arts (which would probably be a duplicate)?Really, I don't want to be mean: I'm seriously puzzled as to the objectives of the collection and the discursive function.Geogre 17:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, "Dramatic portrayals" sounds a bit narrow. I got rid of some of the trivial cruft. I'm starting to clean it up, I'm getting rid of the bulleted style, as well as some non-notable things. Anyone wanna pitch in? The ikiroid 17:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked User:The Br3 as a block evasion by User:Brando03

I blocked User:Brando03 about a week ago; immediately afterwards, User:The Br3 was created.I didn't notice that until the User:Brando03 account, fresh off the block, so to speak, vandalized my talk page.I reblocked for the vandalism, and when I went to User talk:Brando03, was redirected to the sock.I'm putting it here for further admin review. JDoorjam Talk 23:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Copy of Half-life computations

I need a copy of this article for personal use and revision and as a learning tool. It contains many valuable items which can also find use elsewhere. Please provide me with a copy of the article. Thanks. ...IMHO (Talk) 01:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk page. JDoorjam Talk 01:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ceiling cat vandal: the return!

The ceiling cat vandal has struck again: [46] probably with more to come.--Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 02:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A bunch of AOL IPs doing it are filling Recent Changes...it's bad enough to move up the wiki defcon.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

AIV backlog

Just want all you admins to know that there's quite a backlog over at AIV. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 02:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Backlog cleared. JDoorjam Talk 03:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Big war going on...

...at White (people). Sprotected after request on my talk page. Howvever, per RL concerns I must leave ASAP and so cannot finish dealing with the incident myself. Would appreciate if another admin restored order. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The continuing trials of Wiki-star

Wiki-star (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps changing Orion Major's comments on a whim to this and that even after final warning, as its "fun". Has a history of being extremely abrasive and stand-offish to other users, particularly as it concerns to Majin Buu. Has repeatedly been a problem user since inception and on several occassions has asked to be permanently blocked. Sparring even now during consensus concerns on Buu's talk page. Says he will not stop until perma-banned or "when justice is served", and though he's currently blocked (again) for his current shenanigans on Buu, after months of continued strife I believe it may be time to acquiesce to his request. Papacha 03:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I blocked him for 24 hours for editing other users comments.No other interactions.Wikibofh_(talk) 03:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: Unfortunately, blocking Wiki for *seventy-two* hours doesn't do a lick of good, so I'm sure he can do a day standing on his head. Temporary blocks are a minor deterrence when you've got five months-worth of problems with fellow users under one's belt. Papacha 04:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• The amazing thing to me about this fight with Wiki-Star—and please, make no mistake, I think he's an idiot of the first order and a destructive presence at Wikipedia—is that you guys have been content to just argue and argue and argue and argue and revert and revert and revert and revert at for months now. Aren't you tired of it? We have other dispute resolution methods, you know, from mediation to RfCs right up to arbitration—why not try some? It feels like the current strategy is to let him keep being an ass, tattle here and hope someone blocks him for a long time, which, given his personality, will probably work but isn't really the Wikipedia way, I don't think. · rodii · 04:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Boy, if I had a nickel for every time I've heard that... Listen, you can try to be "nice" to him all you want, you can try to communicate and discuss the problem with him in a civil and respectful manner a dozen times, you can try to come up with different ways to handle this situation a million times, you can ban him for 24, 48, 72 hours, hell even a week only to see him return and act in the same disrespectful, ignorant, uncivil, hostile, manner that he has grown accustomed to. Not once has he listened to the voice of reason, do you actually think he is going to listen to an admin, much less a mediator? The fact of the matter is this plain and simple. Wiki-star has been, is, and always be Wiki-star, and unless the proper measures are taken, then he will continue to roam Wikipedia doing the same thing he has done since the very second he typed in his name and password for the first time. -3bulletproof16 04:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Who said anything about being "nice"? You want "the proper measures" taken (i.e., you want him banned), arbitration is a better route to go than just complaining on AN/I and hoping you find a sympathetic admin. But there's a process to go through before you get to ArbCom. I'm suggesting that you start that process. If you are right about Wiki-Star—and I have no doubt you are—he will continue to shoot himself in the foot, but you'll have a firmer foundation for your complaints. · rodii · 05:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Dude, I'm not even a party to most of it; to be truthful, this is my first time filing a compaint versus the guy & I'm just sick of hearing about it. But knowing what I do of the user, harmony is kiboshed five minutes in, regardless of the undertaking or best intentions. People have discussed, discussed, discussed resolution over the hill and around the mulberry bush and through the bend and back again - they...will... not... play. Arbitration is a wash, given his personality. Consensus is a failure, as his definition of the word is the conformity and embracement of his own ideas. It's ultimately an exercise in futility, as time would be better spent head-butting dead pixels out of one's monitor.

The editors of the article have reached consensus, - multiple times actually, not to put too fine a point on it - of which Wiki-star has utterly ignored. Do you honestly think that negotiation, mediation, and arbitration under WP:DR will make *any* difference when all else has failed and Wiki marches to his own drummer regardless? After all that's transpired, the benefit of the doubt doesn't swing in his favor in matters where *his* article is concerned.

And about that - it's not even about some inane animated character, something I've seen other editors take a bit of flak about. It's all in the attitude, and Wiki-star has it in spades (brace for verbage three steps beyond WP:NPA) - a masters in dickery with a minor in disruptive behavior & being outright crass.

Which, y'know, is not a *crime* per se, but detrimental to Wikipedia and all who use it as a rule. Papacha 05:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

How can you say that arbitration would not matter given that many disruptive users have been banned from the articles they were disrupting via ArbCom decisions? Please take 20 minutes to browse the ArbCom decisions archive to see for yourself. As Rodii has said, go through the process. It does work. - Merzbow 05:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry; it's just that it's so *frustrating* to have gone through all this for so long without resolution, even if it is a tad hasty to give up before all avenues have been reached. I don't feel I'm suited to start the process, however; as said I'm not much more than a side-party. Papacha 05:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I sympathize, really! I had to deal with him at the help desk before he stopped coming there. I'm just saying that if you want a definitive answer take it to arbitration. But that's a lot of work, I agree. · rodii · 20:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Yanksux

Yanksux (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), appears to be User:Warren Buffett (whom vandalised the world cup article) pretending to be me. Yanksox ^(talk) 04:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for eternity - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for all eternity. Iolakana|^T 16:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Pistolpierre

Pistolpierre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a very poor understanding of our POV and citation rules. He got blocked for 3RR for trying to put in that Adolf Hitler is the product of an incestuous relationship; he then posts large passages from a book by William Shirer, and then makes judgments about the subject of the article. He has a certain fascination with Shirer's book, prompting him to add large quotes from it in multiple articles. He does not seem to understand that we strives towards neutrality here, and that we cannot have copyrighted material here (a few sentences could be fair use; he was posting multiple paragraphs). He is now suggesting suggesting I'm a neo-Nazi, that I'm nuts, and comparing me with Neville Chamberlain. It would be poor form if I removed this guy personally, so I ask the community do me the favor. --Golbez 06:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No one else even responded; after this edit [47] i'm taking it upon myself. --Golbez 12:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked User:Rms125a@hotmail.com circumventing block

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is evading his block as 216.194.3.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (evidence: [48][49]). Can an administrator block please? Thanks! Demiurge 09:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Privacy violation by Zeq

Removed pending investigation of complaint by User:JDoorjam. Homey 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Philkemp

User has registered apparently for the sole purpose of adding the same link to about 60 articles, most of which are not directly connected to the site's topic. BigBlueFish 13:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• I reverted all of his edits and blocked him for 2 days for linkspam. I'll keep an eye on him and permaban him if he does it again. --Improv 14:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Lai Sim

I need the page "Lai Sim" deleted immedietly. I accidently defamed someone. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenginzburg (talk • contribs)

Actually, it's Lai sim, it's already been deleted, and... how was that accidental? (stated as per instructions left on user's talk page). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You tell me, chief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenginzburg (talk • contribs)

Per this edit, Allenginzburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indef-blocked as a sock of Marytrott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Niggershvar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Fredgreg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Add User:Laisim (surprise...) to the list. User claims a few other names; none seems to be accurate. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC) This one e-mailed me to lift the block, claiming to be Lai Sim Pang (see "Vandal is back again..." immediately below). If I was wrong to block, I apologize. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal is back again...

Please see above posting "Twice-banned editor/vandal is back"... they are back once again, using the IP address 124.184.176.56. romarin [talk ] 16:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, and I see that he has aleady been quite busy today, from the above comment... romarin [talk ] 16:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but here's the trick: unless this editor was just adding on for fun and is not related to the Aussie cheese fries vandal (that's my moniker for this, er, editor), then we're getting it from more than one location (208.49.95.12 resolves to either San Francisco or Oakland, California, depending on the Whois service, while 124.184.176.56 resolves to the Canberra area in Australia—and I have no reason to believe either IP is a proxy).

Okay, this just got really interesting; if this user is in Australia, he used to be in Michigan. I did some further work on IP 208.49.95.12 on a hunch and it appears to actually resolve to the area of Oakland, Michigan, not California. Why the hunch? This vandal invokes several names; Mary Ellen Trott is the President of the Walled Lake Board of Education in Michigan; Eugene Seaborn is (former?) Principal of West Bloomfield High School (and East Middle School) in Michigan; David Pryor is Assistant Principal of West Bloomfield High School. Edit: Oh, and Lai Sim Pang is listed as a member of the UIA Katrina Project Staff in—you guessed it—Michigan. By the way, there is a User:Booch, but that appears to be mere coincidence. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Do they still send criminals to Australia? No, I'm kidding. This is quite interesting though... romarin [talk ] 20:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Only Abusive Aussie Husband wannabes ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Thomczyk - 3rd nomination

An admin speedy deleted Thomas Thomczyk per CSD:G4, but apparently nobody ever closed the AfD.--Isotope23 18:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Closed it.  RasputinAXP  c 19:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block of user Do! Run Run

I have indefinitely blocked Do!_Run_Run (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeatedly adding a fair use image (Image:Living room.PNG) from a game to the article living room which makes no mention of the game. Please review my actions. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User doesn't understand policy or refueses to? Seems like a good block... I guess... I'd rather just have a 24 hour block for now in case the user catches on... as it is the first block. But that's just my preference (assuming really good faith here). Sasquatcht|c 20:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Seemed to me that he was refusing to. I pointed him to counterexample 2 on WP:FU which is pretty close to this case, but he continued to add the image back in. I did comment in my block message to email me when he undertook to stop abusing fair use and he would be unblocked. I thought an indef block was appropriate in such cases to protect the foundation from possible legal consequences, but I posted here to make sure. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if this is the same person as User:Mr.Do!, whom I blocked here and on commons for uploading pirated material to Wikimedia servers. Both made edits to MAME, and both have names from Mr. Do! video games. An RfCU may be in order. --Golbez 21:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Request to block 60.227.115.38

An anonymous user using IP 60.227.115.38 has been persistently vandalising the article on Christadelphians by removing a link to a related article (Nazarene fellowship) and adding information of a personal nature about someone who has contributed to both articles.

Rather than discussing the accuracy of the content of the articles the anonymous user has resorted to ad hominem attacks on a contributor, and I request that he/she be blocked. Ekklesiastic 19:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Give us some diffs here. I can see the lame edit warring but I don't see any personal attacks. Sasquatcht|c 20:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Armando (Blogger)

More eyes would be useful at this article which is being multiply reverted to include personal information, poorly sourced, of a non-notable lawyer, which was initially inserted in an attempt to damage his career. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)