Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive232

SlimVirgin violation of Wikipedia:Blocking policy

SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) blocked User:Tsunami Butler to gain an advantage in a content dispute. This appears to be part of a pattern of behavior on SlimVirgin's part.

There has been a content dispute brewing since last fall. The background to the dispute is that one week after joining Wikipedia in November of 2004 [1], SlimVirgin authored the article Jeremiah Duggan, which she has OWNed ever since. This article is essentially a mirror for the "Justice for Jeremiah" website. That website is a compendium of libels and harsh attacks on Lyndon LaRouche, issued primarily by Chip Berlet and Dennis King, two former leftists who, twenty years ago, received relatively prominent press coverage for their polemics against LaRouche. Not long thereafter they faded into obscurity and the Duggan affair was an opportunity for them to get back into the public eye.

Jeremiah Duggan was a college student who was a casual attendee at a LaRouche conference in Germany. During the conference he committed suicide, for reasons that have never been explained. The "Justice for Jeremiah" project has implied that the LaRouche group somehow caused his suicide, although no motive has ever been suggested. Also, no reliable source has ever specifically alleged that the LaRouche group caused his death, although as SlimVirgin put it, "almost every single source that has written about this implies that it is somehow involved in his death."[2] The idea of an article for the sole purpose of promoting "implications" of involvement in a murder is troubling from the standpoint of WP:BLP. SlimVirgin has insisted on inserting material from this article in other articles, including: Helga Zepp-LaRouche,Schiller Institute, Lyndon LaRouche, Jacques Cheminade, LaRouche movement, and Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement. Meanwhile, during the latter part of that same year, Chip Berlet had begun to edit Wikipedia as Cberlet (talk · contribs · count · api · block log), and began working as a team with SlimVirgin in POV disputes. Along with Will Beback (who used the username Willmcw) they began to assert ownership over the articles on the "LaRouche template." In June of 2005, Dennis King opened an account as Dking (talk · contribs · count · api · block log), but he did not begin to edit LaRouche articles until November of 2006. His edits of those articles developed into a frenzy of self-citing (see [3], [4],[5])

Tsunami Butler (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) began editing in October of 2006. Among her first edits is a question on a talk page, where she receives a personal attack from Cberlet in response:[6][7]

Tsunami Butler began to put together evidence that Cberlet and Dking were in violation of numerous policies, including WP:COI#Citing_oneself, WP:LIVING#Biased_or_malicious_content, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:RS. This became the basis for a MedCab case (see Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/medcab06-07.) Four days after SlimVirgin first took notice of this case [8] it was closed without any explanation[9]. The essential content dispute between SlimVirgin and Tsunami Butler was over whether Wikipedia articles should be a soapbox for the theories of Chip Berlet and Dennis King, in violation of WP:NOT.

Here is the chronology of SlimVirgin's ban of Tsunami Butler:

• April 1, 2007: SlimVirgin asks for ArbCom permission to ban Tsunami Butler. [10]

I won't list all the diffs for the following section, as the material has been neatly archived here: Tsunami Butler ban discussion.

The reason given for the proposed ban is "acting to promote LaRouche," under the "LaRouche 1" ArbCom case, where it says: "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche." However, SlimVirgin was unable to produce any evidence that Tsunami Butler had violated this remedy. As ArbCom member Kirill Lokshin put it, "The various LaRouche rulings have not really been kept up-to-date with the evolution of policy—even the most recent considerably predates a number of significant policy developments in 2006 and 2007—so I do not think they should be interpreted as providing for broad restrictions on behavior; the main remedy imposed in them that was not applied to specific parties covered only the introduction of LaRouche-originated material into unrelated articles, in any case."

Consequently, SlimVirgin changes her rationale for the ban. Unable to find evidence of a violation of the ArbCom decisions, she falls back upon the old stand-by, accusations of sock-puppetry. Tsunami Butler has informed me by e-mail that she edits using AOL in Los Angeles, meaning that she has a dynamic IP address. As I understand it, this means that any check user evidence linking her to another user is circumstantial at best; I don't know how many people edit Wikipedia using AOL in Los Angeles, but my hunch is that it is quite a substantial number. SlimVirgin chooses her words carefully when she says: "A check user has confirmed that Tsunami Butler appears to be sockpuppeting."

The relevant policy that has been violated by SlimVirgin is the following: Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Admins must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on. (Wikipedia:Blocking policy)

From the time she launches the campaign to ban Tsunami Butler, to the actual banning 10 days later, I count 133 edits by SlimVirgin to LaRouche-template articles and talk pages, mostly of a contentious nature.

• Example: on April 6, 2007, Tsunami Butler requests that quotes from King and Berlet "be reduced to a level that is commensurate with their notability." April 7, 2007: SlimVirgin adds new attack material from Chip Berlet, alleging that LaRouche is guilty of secret, coded anti-Semitism: "You would have to listen over time to a ... set of patterns, and you would begin to hear the echoes of the classic antisemitic conspiracy theories." This material is added to Schiller Institute.[11]

This ban should be overturned, and POV pushing at the Jeremiah Duggan article and related articles should be scrutinized. --NathanDW 05:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is pretty much the same info that was on the now deleted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlimVirgin...it was deleted for a reason.--MONGO 05:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, NathanDW's post appears to be vexatious. As was clearly explained to him already, Tsunami Butler was blocked for sockpuppetry, confirmed by Checkuser. The block is clearly valid. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• I know virtually nothing about LaRouche; he sounds like a political cult figure similar to Ayn Rand, with a small cadre of devoted followers, a few equally devoted opponents, and a majority of the public who has never heard of him. But I find the claims about LaRouche in Jeremiah Duggan to be problematic. There are some weasel words ("The group is widely seen as a fringe political cult"). I'm also not sure whether it's appropriate to mention LaRouche's prison term for tax evasion in an article this distantly related (it is, of course, appropriate to note this reliably sourced fact in LaRouche's own article). I think it's questionable whether allowing significant influence in the LaRouche article from relatively minor figures (Berlet and King) is appropriate under WP:BLP, especially since Berlet and King are Wikipedia editors themselves, and we usually don't allow self-promotion of this nature. While we must be on the lookout for LaRouche POV-pushing (I've seen enough Ayn Rand POV-pushing to know the kind of stuff that got people pissed off here), we must be equally diligent to ensure the articles do not tilt too far in the opposite direction. I would urge Arbcom to revisit their cases on LaRouche in light of WP:BLP, which didn't exist when some of the cases were initially heard. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• tl;dr, and please, cut it out with that funky formatting, it looks like you cut and pasted from a 40 column C64. SchmuckyTheCat 06:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin explained her TsunamiButler block to User:Don't_lose_that_number, another Larouche rep on WP:

  The permanent block was for a violation of the ArbCom rulings and for WP:SOCK. The accounts are believed to be operated by a banned user. The ArbCom does not distinguish between sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, and they made that explicit in their LaRouche2 ruling. However, as I said, I'm perfectly willing to have another admin review the block — bearing in mind that seven admins apart from me have commented already — and then it will be as though that admin instigated it; or they may agree with you and unblock. If you want me to pick one, let me know; otherwise you can choose an admin and ask him or her to e-mail me for more information.[12][13]

  I also see no problem at all with this block. It is very common for ArbCom to not distinguish between sock and meat puppets based on their behavior pattern, and once there is such pattern any admin can block, regardless of any content disputes or involvement. SlimVirgin makes it clear that multiple admins reviewed and supported her decision, both before and after, so I think bringing this issue here, without mentioning these reviews and support, including the certification of the action by an ArbCom member, is misleading at best. Crum375 13:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the block looks good to me, it has received plenty of attention. I do wish you would keep your complaint much briefer though. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have been handled properly. Not a content issue, but rather violation of Arbcom rulings. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Same as this? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think every i's been dotted here. I would also hope that arbcom can make it crystal clear what LaRouche supporters can and cannot do (apologies if they have clarified earlier rulings somewhere already). IronDuke 13:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I know absolutely nothing about the content dispute, but it seems pretty clear that SlimVirgin was on absolutely solid ground here. Let it go. --Leifern 14:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Khoikhoi 05:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

<--Multiple clarifications have been issued, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche_2, as well as the case decisions themselves, which establish a bright line test. Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles. In other words, sources tied to the LaRouche movement are not considered reliable for use in articles except those that are closely related to LaRouche. I don't see how this is ambiguous, except as you can see from the talk page links, this seems to come up over and over again. Thatcher131 14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And it's utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. SlimVirgin initially posed her desire to ban as an ArbCom violation, but she dropped it like a hot potato after Kirill Lokshin pointed out that there was no ArbCom violation. After that, she had to resort to the all-purpose, "one size fits all" excuse of the ban-happy admin, sockpuppetry (or in this case, meatpuppetry.) But I would also point out that Herschelkrustofsky was banned for very specific reasons, not simply disagreeing with SlimVirgin on content. If anyone who has a content dispute with SlimVirgin is a meatpuppet, then you are giving her a virtual 007 "license to ban" which it looks like she has abused more than once. Please remember that, lacking a valid claim of a violation of ArbCom rulings, the operative policy is Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Admins must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on. (Wikipedia:Blocking policy) If the basis for banning is supposed to be so solid, what is preventing her from having another admin do it? --NathanDW 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So if some other admin just does it, does that satisfy your complaint? --Rednblu 16:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely you jest. We are looking at major league POV-pushing by SlimVirgin, Cberlet and Dking, aggravated by the misuse of admin authority to silence any opposition. In my opinion, this is an abuse of trust where the only appropriate remedy would be de-sysopping. The use of admin authority must be rigorously POV-neutral, or it undermines faith in the whole system. --NathanDW 15:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then your issue is POV-pushing, is it? I don't have independent knowledge of what the truth is. But when I look at a page like Jeremiah Duggan, it looks just about right in terms of a 50-50 turf war over what rumors and hearsay will be allowed on the page. There is a lot of OriginalResearch there--on both sides. I'm not sure it is good for Wikipedia to have such a page--because, by my standards, there are no ReliableSources that have adequately Verified their assertions. Notwithstanding my questions about whether the page Jeremiah Duggan should be deleted, judging from the HistoryRecord and the TalkPage, it does not seem that the honorable User:NathanDW, User:SlimVirgin, User:Cberlet, or User:Dking have any of them singly or together done POV-pushing that is not completely justified from the best available rumors and hearsay attributable to the best ReliableSources. Can you suggest a step-wise procedure that we could both use to detect this "major league POV-pushing" that you see? --Rednblu 18:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be very enthusiastic about removing the rumors and hearsay from said article, which would leave it as a stub. The article was put up for deletion by one editor, who was promptly blocked by SlimVirgin (see User_talk:IAMthatIAM.)

But, to the larger issue of POV pushing. It's a perennial problem, and there are lots of policies here to discourage it. But my real issue is POV-pushing with abuse of admin powers, which is intolerable, and when someone is caught red-handed doing this, there ought to be consequences. --NathanDW 03:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So what is your stepwise procedure for detecting "POV-pushing with abuse of admin power"? I would be glad to try it out. --Rednblu 08:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an easy one. The tell-tale sign is when you see an admin blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute. --NathanDW 16:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be circular reasoning. It hasn't been established that Tsunami Butler was blocked to "gain an advantage in a content dispute". That account was blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user based on CheckUser findings. -Will Beback · † · 18:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Another question, why was the original RfC oversighted? What policy did it violate? Or are all RfCs permanently deleted once they run their course? If not, why was this one the exception? Cla68 13:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just answered my own question...although several users (including myself) endorsed the RfC, only one was listed in the block for attempting resolution with the object of the complaint. Therefore, according to the rules, the RfC was deleted. If I'm wrong on this, please let me know. Cla68 14:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If I understand right, there was evidence that Tsunami was a sock. The blocking admin, however, was also involved in heavily editing the same article that Tsunami was editing. Thus, it was a conflict of interest for that admin editor to also act as the blocking admin. I've seen the same situation resolved appropriately here in this forum or on the admin noticeboard by the involved admin editor stating the problem, noting that they have a conflict of interest, and then asking another admin to look at the situation and act if action is warranted. That way it won't appear to be a conflict of interest. I guess this is Nathan's complaint and I dont't want to "hijack" it, but that's what I feel is the real issue here. COI more than POV. Cla68 23:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The block was reviewed in advance by Taxman, Fred Bauder, Jpgordon, Will Beback, Thatcher131, Ral315, and Georgewilliamherbert, all admins. You're beating a dead horse, for reasons best known to yourself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You can add my name to the list of admins who have looked at and approved the block. I've seen SlimVirgin on many occasions not blocking, but taking something to other admins, because she was involved herself. Admins don't (or shouldn't) block regular users they're in dispute with; they do block sockpuppets in articles they're editing themselves, when the sockpuppetry is obvious. Can that be abused by an admin accusing an obviously innocent user with the opposite POV of sockpuppetry, in order to block him? Sure, which is why other admins can review the sockpuppetry evidence, if someone thinks that the person wasn't a sockpuppet. That's been done. SlimVirgin was right. Time to move on now. Musical Linguist 00:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can point me to the diffs that show where those other admins reviewed and commented on the proposed block of that editor before the block was executed, then that should close this discussion. Cla68 05:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd imagine most of the discussions were made privately rather than publicly; certainly the discussion Slim and I had regarding this were private, as they should be. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

talk page of user: Grace E. Dougle being blanked

Need help with how to leave the talk page of an user who has left Wikipedia: [14]. --Mihai cartoaje 08:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Of course, that is the user's preferred version; it's filled with warnings, but seeing as how they're the subject of an ongoing RFC, I don't think it's the right time to blank this particular talk page. If they were to return unannounced finding the evidence of the previous warnings would be impossible unless you know where to look. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That user is not the subject of an ongoing RfC. --Mihai cartoaje 08:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I stand corrected. I striked out that bit of my comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The user is the subject of an RfC [[15]] and is involved in an RfC involving mihai cartoaje, who has been stalking me and harrassing me [[16]] DPeterson^talk 12:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The usernames are significantly different. Could this just be inattention? --Mihai cartoaje 13:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But the warnings were undeserved. The warnings from RalphLender and DPeterson were for moving threaded replies to comments in a RfC to the talk page, which the RfC rules say we must do.

I think I understand what happened now. At the time I went on a wiki-break to catch up with my income tax filings. Also, I didn't know what to answer the user: being disdainful would be hurtful, but being friendly would make people say "the user wrote a positive comment about you because you are friends." My unexplained wiki-break combined with an user writing a positive comment about me in the RfC made people think that it was an alternate account I had created. That is not true: look at this thread [17]. I'm a guy; hardly a discussion I would participate in. But the suspicions made people bite the user, and Mr. Darcy write a very vitriolic warning which reads "If you don't alter the way you deal with this user, I'm going to have to block you to prevent further attacks" which may have meant, "if you don't stop complaining, I'm going to indefinitely block you because I think you're a sockpuppet."

I hope you understand now why the warnings were undeserved. --Mihai cartoaje 13:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I find it bizarre that RalphLender and DPeterson were tag-team edit warring to add threaded replies to the RfC, clearly against RfC rules, with similar edit summaries (and similar fake warnings). It's almost as if they were trying to push the user into making a mistake. Here are the relevant edit summaries with a name starred out:

(cur) (last) 13:57, 23 February 2007 RalphLender (Talk | contribs) (→Outside view)

(cur) (last) 15:18, 23 February 2007 Grace E. D***** (Talk | contribs) (→Outside view - moving comment to talk page, it clearly says users who post in other sections should not post here.)

(cur) (last) 16:02, 23 February 2007 RalphLender (Talk | contribs) (I may be wrong, but I don't believe it is the editor Grace's place to edit this Request for Comment page.)

(cur) (last) 16:06, 23 February 2007 Grace E. D****** (Talk | contribs) (rv and stick to the rules, cut out misleading edit-summaries: I did not edit other peoples comments of course)

(cur) (last) 20:12, 23 February 2007 RalphLender (Talk | contribs) (→Outside view - PLEASE do not edit this page. Leave other's comments alone.)

(cur) (last) 20:43, 23 February 2007 Grace E. D***** (Talk | contribs) (stick to the rules and post in appropriate section, and don't yell.)

(cur) (last) 20:54, 23 February 2007 DPeterson (Talk | contribs) (Please do not move or change my comments. That is for an uninvolved administrator to do.)

--Mihai cartoaje 17:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've followed this and other disputes of Mihai cartoaje, particularily on the mental illness page and schizophrerna article. He does seem to be hounding DPeterson with something like a vendetta. Mihai's blanking of another user's page is odd and the fact that both he and Grace E. dougle have/had RfC's about their conduct almost makes it appear that he is retailating against DPeterson. JohnsonRon 21:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never edited the Mental illness article or associated talk page. And Grace E. D was never the subject of a RfC. Please stop twisting facts. I restored that user talk page to the version it was when the user left Wikipedia. I note that you have changed the section title: [18]. --Mihai cartoaje 01:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course she was. JonesRD_talk 22:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Reporting continous insertion of unsourced material

Sc4900 (talk · contribs) has been adding unsourced and unverifiable movies to the filmography of Hrithik Roshan. The trouble started from here - one, two.

Sc4900 (talk · contribs) again added it, with this edit - three. Please note, Sashank-part1 isn't verified and he added Sashank-part2. Moments later zie repeated that - with this edit.

It was after this that he made the page Sashank. Sc4900's added in whoever zie feels like - Arnold S, Hillary Duff, Jackie Chan, and Cameron Diaz! Not a single reference on the entire page, seems like fantastic fictional writing on the part of Sc4900.

A search on Google, such as this one. The only result on the first page that even mentions Roshan is this page, which in fact is an older version of WP, with this rumour attached. Another Google search - this, reveals all the sites which suggest Sashank as a real film are in fact copies of older versions of the WP page of Hrithik Roshan.

I requested Sc4900 to stop adding it, by posting messages on zir's talk page - no response. Instead, these edits were made - again, again, and again, this time reverted by another user.

Recently, Sc4900 has made Killer (hindi film) which also seems to be entirely made up, as noted by Shakirfan (talk · contribs). An entire string of edits to London Dreams, The Time Machine (hindi film), Kabhie Jeene all show the user is trying to propagate rumours.

All of us working on the Bollywood bios would be grateful for any help in this matter. Regards, xC | ☎ 12:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The only positive entry I could find was one that said that Illeana(allegedly to star in Killer) has signed for a Hindi Film(it doesn't metion what and opposite whom). And how can this guy give a definete release date for a film whose Muhurat has not taken place? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 14:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The user is clearly disruptive and totally uncommunicative. I'll leave a stern warning on his talk page and block him upon next violation if I'm online. A Train^talk 15:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User continues to add unsourced material after last warning. Looks like vandalism to me. TwoOars ^{(T | C)} 02:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Update:I'd like to draw your attention to zie's latest edits -

• Adding non-existant movies again
• Here the same
• Newest fictional creation of the editor is Kaal 2. A google search further proves that the film does not exist.

There are more, of course, please have a look at Special:Contributions/Sc4900. Please stop this editor, zie's run amok! :P

Regards,xC | ☎ 06:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this guy is doing it as some sort of experiment or bet: to see how far he can go writing unverifyable stuff without hinderance.

This reminds me of a similar incident that happened with Nature magazine a few years back. They had published an article from a researcher who wanted to prove that you just have to write anything that seems scientific, with a lot of jargon for Nature to publish it even if it didn't make sense. He then promptly went to the press having "proved" his theory ; to the great embararrasment of Nature magazine.

I feel this guy is also trying the same. I suggest that he be blocked immediately and the articles deleted. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Further update:

• Sc4900 had added nonsense to the Priyanka Chopra article.
• Kareena Kapoor was also defaced - one,two.
• This edit shows addition of the same non-existant films.
• Esha Deol also suffered - see this edit.

Clearly, this editor is trying to disrupt the bio and film pages. I've given about a dozen references proving zie's (mis)behaviour. What will it require for an admin to end this disruption, and block this vandal?

Any guidance in this matter would be appreciated. Regards, xC | ☎ 06:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

These movies have been made up by Sc4900 -

• Kaal 2
• Kabhie Jeene
• Sashank
• Killer (hindi film)
• The Time Machine (hindi film)
• Untitled Sangeeth Sivan Project
• Sashank Mavayya

This page is also entirely made up by Sc4900 - Shashank (hero)

How many more nonsensical edits will we have to revert? When will this vandal be blocked?

I was blocked for a revert war on Rani Mukherjee, when I was trying to cleanup the article, remove POV and throw out fangush. Here this vandal's given free reign and allowed to vandalize for almost a week. His first edit as a registered editor was on 16 April, 2007. However vandalism of this nature has been affecting Bollywood bios for many weeks now, thanks to several anon IPs. It may be the same, or someone else, fact is today is the 21st of April. Its been five days (minimum) and nothing has been done yet.

There is a fatal flaw in the system. Vandals, trolls and malactors are given respect, whereas those who are here to actually create an encyclopedia, and to do meaningful work, are slapped in the face and not given the support needed to do the work they need to do. - RickK

Best regards,xC | ☎ 07:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked this editor for a week and left a message on his talk page. Let's see if he starts communicating. My apologies for the delay in action. A Train^talk 18:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, A Train, this vandal needed to be stopped. Best regards, xC | ☎ 19:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with blocking him although there is a chance the user will return with a new name and start it up again. Users like these usually do.Shakirfan 22:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Requesting guidance and/or mentoring

While patrolling recent changes a few days ago, I noticed this edit. Because it seemed whimsical and was linked to a completely unrelated article, I left the {{uw-joke1}} template on the talk page of the anonymous editor here and reverted the edit.

The anon's response to this (as it sometimes is, of course) was to leave an abusive message on my talk page and to restore the edit, with a rude edit summary for good measure.

In conjunction with another editor, I continued to warn and revert. Along the way, the anon vandalized my user page. I reported them to WP:AIV, which resulted in a block.

I signed off for the night.

A few minutes later, the anon restored his edits from another IP, again with an abusive edit summary. The other patroller reverted, and the anon returned from a third IP.

The next time I logged in, I noticed the new activity and reported it to WP:AIV again. In response, Pilotguy implemented a rangeblock. I reverted the anon's most recent changes.

Yesterday, User:Anonywiki appeared and restored the anon's edits, using the edit summary to refer to me as a troll and agreeing a bit too conspicuously with the anon on the article's talk page.

I don't think there's any question that it's the same person, but I also think that along the way this may have evolved from a vandalism incident to a content dispute. I'm not comfortable reverting the edits again. They're silly and stupid, but I can see how some people may view them as valid. On the other hand, I feel that the user's edits at this point are clearly a variation on WP:POINT, as well as a probable violation of WP:SOCK.

After spending a year or so quietly editing articles of interest, I've only recently become more involved in change patrol and I'm still learning about best practices. I'd like some feedback on whether my actions have been appropriate and whether additional action (preferably not involving me) is warranted. Thank you. Dppowell 01:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the incivility of the anon-editor, I think the reference was valid. The edit war that followed however, is defenitely a candidate for Wikipedia:lamest edit wars. You don't want to end up there. So my advice: let it rest. --Edokter (Talk) 12:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure you can safely remove it as theres no article for it. Notice the link above it to the album is the exact same wikilink. Pull it out, block the user for socking. -M^ask? 20:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

looks like I needed to finish reading diffs, only the first couple do that, afterwards they wikilink Santa Claus. In this case, as obnoxious as it seems, leave it in, should still be blocked for socking, give him a 1 weeker. -M^ask? 20:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, both of you. In any event, I'm not an admin, so I leave it to one to decide whether AKMask's recommendation is appropriate. Dppowell 03:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Rules on RfC

Need help in keeping this RfC in accord with the rules: [19]. --Mihai cartoaje 10:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This individual seems to be continually attacking DPeterson in a variety of venues. See above filing by him.JohnsonRon 17:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It was not me who filed the RfC [20]. --Mihai cartoaje 06:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is another example of how this individual is harrassing other editors by making false and misleading statements and violating wikipedia policy of Assume good faith. He has no basis for his statement, "trying to trick one or more other editors into calling them sockpuppets." JonesRD_talk 22:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

sock puppet of banned user Cleargoing

Resolved

 – User already blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Cleargoing2 is a sock please ban.--Lucy-marie 11:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

lilkunta revisited

I have blocked this user for three days due to continued disruption. The original discussion related to Lilkunta can be found in Archive 225 of this page. Despite having been blocked for using nonstandard font and color previously, Lilkunta has continued after numerous warnings [21] [22]. Since the original discussion/block received a fair deal of discussion, I'm leaving this here for review. Also note the user refuses to remove the statement "I think what happened, Virginia_Tech_massacre is very sad. But sh*t happens" from his/her talk page. Maybe adoption could help here. - auburnpilot talk 03:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've dealt with this editor in the past. She is, and I'm sorry to say this, a lost cause. If anyone tries to work with her, she takes it wrong and snaps at them. Now she's making highly inflammatory statements on her talk page. Her consistently referring to this site as "Wiki World" leads me to believe she thinks of this as sort of a myspace thing. Personally, I don't think adoption would do any good, and we'd probably loose a good editor over it. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 03:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Making anons fill out a Special:CAPTCHA in order to edit

Makes it a real PITA to revert vandalism, since the CAPTCHA only applies to people who add new content to an article, it means anon vandals can still blank pages, but anon vandal fighters have to fill out a CAPTCHA to revert/undo them. I imagine RUs don't have to jump through quite so many hoops just to be able to edit--172.148.109.92 13:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not getting these CAPTCHAS. 86.145.105.149 13:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That's because your edit history is filled with page blanking/vandalism, which as I said, doesn't add new content to wikipedia, thus no CAPTCHA--172.148.109.92 13:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You'll only get the CAPTCHA if there's external links in whatever you're editing. You won't get them everytime; it's to prevent spam. It is a pain for anons trying to revert vandalism, though, I admit. – Riana ^ऋ 13:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • In theory aren't all articles supposed to have external links/sources? otherwise wouldn't they be origional research?--172.148.109.92 13:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
      • A citation is not the same as an external link, and it is quite possible for a citation to not contain any links at all. In a citation of a news article, for example, what counts are the publication name, dateline, byline, and article title. With those, a reader can locate the news article being cited, using the publication's archives. An external link to an on-line copy of the article is an added bonus. It is not a necessary nor an integral part of a citation. Indeed, if you see citations that are given as bare external links, please fix them to include the requisite information necessary for a proper citation. Uncle G 15:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• You could just create an account. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Here's why. MER-C 14:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • So what stops spammers from creating an account?--172.148.109.92 14:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Same thing, a capcha, but only for the first 4 days. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
      • But account can be indefblocked; anonymous IPs cannot. Natalie 19:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit war w/User:Stanley011 pushing POV on Cho Seung-hui, 3RR, ignoring consensus

First off I hope this is the right place. It seems trivial, but it is the principle. I have tried to "talk" to this person,Stanley011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), about his insistence on changing the wording in a particular sentence and I believe it is his POV. He is also bordering on being uncivil, and is ignoring consensus. He has said to have "compromised" by finding a reference to support his POV and changed the wording to "mother's aunt." I know this sounds ridiculous, but he is the only one pushing this and continues to change it despite the consensus, talking, and the many references pointing to a specific term, belittling other editors, and using grammar, vandalizing and accuracy as his reasons for the reverts. Where, hopefully, you can see by the evidence below, that it is none of them.
Evidence:

• On the article's talk page: [23]
• On his talk page: [24]
• His responses on my talk page: [25]
• Google search of the article that uses the term "great aunt": [26]
• An image on google, provided by another editor on the talk page: [27]
• Dictonary says both are correct so grammar cannot be used as reason for revert. Which he has used a number of times.
• Most importantly the article references the term "great aunt" throughout.
  

Hope it's not too much, or too little. I'm begining to doubt the good faith of the editor thus reason I'm bringing it here. Jeeny 15:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Stanley 011's response: I have laid out an argument for the wording I have used, here and thus far, contrary to what Jeeny has asserted, there has been no consensus reached on that particular matter--in fact, he refuses to respond to my argument, instead leveling false attacks such as POV pushing. It cannot possibly be my POV that I am pushing though because everything I have written has been well-sourced. Further, the very fact that this editor questions my good faith, when as you can see from my user page, I have contributed to and created countless articles for wikipedia, should be alone grounds for his suspension from editing. Thank you. Stanley011 15:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Update from Stanley 011: In fact, it is now Jeeny who is in the minority on this issue. Stanley011 15:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Another broken code of conduct! You even went so far to delete this entry?! [[28]] and then put it back? Your POV again, you insulted an editor's intelligence, and erroneously supported your reverts as a "grammar" edit, when in fact, was not. You, should be suspended from Wikipedia for many policy violations. My contributions have all been in good faith, even when I disagree with the subject or I am repulsed by an issue. I am an advocate of accuracy and good faith as they are critical here on Wikipedia. Jeeny 16:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is where y'all want to be. If there's been a 3RR violation, this is where it needs to be reported. --ElKevbo 16:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that. Forget it. I have no more energy and I quit this place because of people like him, and the constant vandalizing. I'm done. Over and out. I have wasted too much of my valuable time. Jeeny 16:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

zomg drama! Dispute resolution exists for a reason, we are not children running to mommy. If you've quit because of something as simple as this, perhaps you need to reevaluate how you relate to other people. -M^ask? 19:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, Stanley011 was blocked for violating the 3RR. - auburnpilot talk 22:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rookapooka

Resolved

 – blocked and articles being deleted

Rookapooka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - A probable sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user Danny Daniel. Recreated the hoax Captain Melonhead, a hoax that was created by a likely sockpuppet (now indefinitely blocked) of Danny Daniel. The user also created the article Space Jam 2, which is similar to the deleted hoax Astro Jam (created by User:Booooomerang, another indefinitely blocked sockpuppet). Rookapooka's username is similar to User:Ranapanna, an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet.Squirepants101 15:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked, and I will go through and delete all of the articles he created. I must say, I love the misspelled movie title. Natalie 19:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Request to block sockpuppet of banned editor

Resolved

 – EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

65.88.88.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a clear sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), given that's he repeating the edits of the previous sockpuppet that was blocked yesterday - 216.194.4.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), plus edits on numerous Irish Reuplican related articles, and even stalking my edits to undo edits like this on an article I reverted vandalism from. Please block, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Done Gnangarra 15:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone block the latest sock please? Rapunzel-lite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And 63.164.145.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as well. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Both blocked. – Riana ^ऋ 17:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Stand Dealt

Could an admin please checkout Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Stand Dealt, the sock just admitted to creating a new account each time he/she edits and its getting out of hand. --24fan24 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trying to harass me. It's getting out of hand? What is getting out of hand? What has been done? What is the problem? I am listing all of the accounts for you prior to using them so you can't accuse me of being deceptive. So what's the problem? -Clearages 19:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Much quacking here.  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  19:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, so much quacking, I've blocked all of them except the puppetmaster. I've also blocked the one I was most doubtful about - the least loudest quacking, shall we say - User:Movie Eager, and I invite review of all of the blocks but Mr/Ms Eager's in particular please.  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  19:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppets. Good block. No ambiguity at all. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Mackan

He has put a tag of sock puppety on my talk page three times[29]. But I wasn't done CU in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vml132f. So it is no reason to suspect a sock with me. He is doing personal attack on me now. Please give him a advice to stop it. DDRG 19:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets], step 8 in Reporting suspected sock puppets: "Tag the suspected sockpuppet(s). Edit the user page (not the user talk page) of the suspected puppet account(s) to add the text {{subst:socksuspect|1=PUPPETMASTER}}".Mackan 19:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks. JuJube 19:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to ask an admin, if he reverts the "suspected sockpuppet" notice, what am I expected to do? I reverted him twice, but that doesn't really seem like a solution to the problem. Mackan 20:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Mackan has already done CU on Vml132f and there isn't any evidence of him without "possible". And I wasn't checked in it. So there are any reason to suspect me as a sock. Is it able to be suspecting and to be putting a tag on talk page every minute?? Isn't this a harassment? DDRG 20:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon-user removing categories from pages

An anon-user (see Special:Contributions/63.215.29.25) has been removing the category Black Superheroes from various articles. He also tried deleting the category itself, but only removed the text from its page.

The same user also attempted to remove a section on the character Northstar's homosexuality.

This user has also added false information to articles, and has been warned about vandalizing several times before. --DrBat 19:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Block for Greedy Guy

Sole contributions consist of vandalizing Rugrats episodes. Editing Maniac 20:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• That's not really true. JuJube 20:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed he has made many other contributions. However worth noting he has already been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of MascotGuy. Will (aka Wimt) 20:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please resolve ongoing move dispute, over name

Persons named Juan González use an accent over the "a" in Gonzalez. Editors have moved the page for Juan González (journalist) to Juan Gonzalez (journalist) without the accent several times. Please help secure that the page can remain with the accent. The system is now locked against moving the page to the proper spelling. Dogru144 21:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

SHould be returned to the with accent version, as the no accents name leads to a disambig, in which all options HAVE the accent. ThuranX 22:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This should be settled on the talk page by propsong a move, gaining consensus, and following naming conventions. The user proposing the move has not provided any evidence that the accented version is used by the subject, or is the best-known spelling. Instead, the user created a new article then redirected the already existing article. That isn't the right way to change an article name. -Will Beback · † · 23:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It was I who reverted that change because instead of moving the article the user just blanked the original article, turned it into a redirect and then c&ped the content of that article to the version with the accent on it. This in turn completely messed up the history of that article. Furthermore, I don't think I've ever seen Gonzalez' name used with an accent (but this should be resolved outside of AN/I).--Jersey Devil 00:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the "á" is necessary for proper Spanish grammar (as the third-to-last syllable is the stressed syllable of González), but that's a minor point. It depends on what the journalist himself uses. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Henchman 2000 (talk · contribs) and Bowsy (talk · contribs)

See Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive6#Common debate ban on Bowsy and Henchman 2000 from AN/I, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive223#Meatpuppets/Sockpuppets, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Henchman 2000, User:AKMask/puppets, and Henchman's and Bowsy's contribs and talk pages. They've been accused of being sockpuppets/meatpuppets in the past, though the sockpuppet part was dismissed after Henchman admitted that they share a computer. However, Bowsy's edit to User talk:AKMask/puppets says "Bowsy and I", instead of "Henchman and I" (which could mean that he/she/they forgot to log in as Henchman 2000. This leads me to believe that they could possible be sockpuppets. I might be jumping to conclusions, though. Comments? — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 21:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You are. I think it should be perfectly understandable for an editor who people are conspiring against to be not thinking straight and make silly mistakes like these. Oh, and I admitted that we share a computer, and it was the honest truth, for why would you lie on a case that determines whether you have a future on Wikipedia? Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 18:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I documented the slip up on the puppets page as well, thats been updated. Bowsy has also expressed a desire to get my evidence page deleted as an attack page. I explained how to put something up on WP:MfD if he wants to, as I have confidence in a speedy keep on that. Not fully relevent, just a note. -M^ask? 21:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit: The updated section of the evidence page) -M^ask? 22:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a simple mistake, OK?! Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 08:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

139.153.12.133 blocked for 31 hours

I've blocked User:139.153.12.133 for 31 hours after repeated acts of vandalism and the user's replacement of the talk page contents with "Don't leave comments on my page you cunts." The IP is registered to University of Stirling (RIPE). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

another cleargoing sock to block

User:Cleargoing4ThisTimeItsPersonal please block ASAP.--Lucy-marie 22:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This user was blocked earlier by Alison. Will (aka Wimt) 23:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

How about User:Goingclear1 I think all variations ion these names need looking into.--Lucy-marie 23:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That user in fact stated "I am a sockpuppet and I am only here to vandalize Wikipedia"[30] and has been blocked accordingly. Will (aka Wimt) 00:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think at this point these Cleargoing sock can be reported at WP:AIV instead of here - they'll be dealt with faster and then cleared from the page. Natalie 01:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Block review request

• Chris Leak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 64.238.181.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 64.238.181.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I would like to submit this block for review. This user, under two different IP addresses, has repeatedly added an unsourced claim to Chris Leak that he is engaged and that his fiance is pregnant. I requested both in edit summaries and on the talk pages of both IP addresses that they either provide a source or stop adding the claim and provided them a link to WP:BLP, which states that unsourced contentious material (whether positive, negative, or indifferent) is to be removed on sight. Both IPs simply continued to add the claim.

Both IP addresses are from Gainesville, Florida, where the University of Florida is located, so it is distinctly possible that this individual has firsthand knowledge of the situation. However, it is still unsourced and potentially contentious.

I submit my reverts (which exceeded three) and blocks for review. Thank you. --BigDT (416) 23:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Further PAs

Resolved

 – Blocked for 48hrs for continued personal attacks, talk page semi-protected.--Jersey Devil 00:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Further personal attack by User:82.20.124.228. Andy Mabbett 00:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for 48 hours. The talk page has been semiprotected for two days after the IP tried to use it to launch personal attacks against users.--Jersey Devil 00:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Burgz33

Hi all. I've just blocked 76.213.169.162 (talk · contribs), 75.5.179.122 (talk · contribs), 75.40.61.80 (talk · contribs), and 70.253.160.220 (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets of the blocked user Burgz33. I'm not sure if CheckUser would be able to confirm that this is him, but if it is proven, I think Burgz is up for a much longer block. I was wondering if another admin could review this and let me know what they think, if they have had any experience with this user. Thanks, Khoikhoi 00:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Don't forget 75.12.159.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). JuJube 00:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I've had extensive dealings with this individual and tagged a number of the sockpuppets of Burgz33. He has openly admitted that he is still editing anonymously here on my talk page[31] where he openly mocks any administrators that have blocked him. You can also contact CambridgeBayWeather to verify this. Thanks. Yankees76 00:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• He's currently trolling WP:AN. JuJube 00:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not if I have anything to say about it. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 00:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like him. Also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Reporting Admin Abuse. Avoids block for abusive comments then complains that others are picking on him. Because of Burgz33 User talk:Yankees76 is now semi-protected to keep Burgz33 off the page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

He's now Wikistalking my edits and spamming AuburnPilot's talk page as User:75.43.137.179 claiming another admin is abusing his powers, referring to Khoikhoi. Yankees76 04:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Khoikhoi 04:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Carolyn McCarthy vandalism

I've reached my skill level on this page. It is being attacked mercilessly by pro-gun advocates because the Congresswomen is pro-gun control. I've tried to keep on top of the constant changes in the last couple of hours of adding in clear vandalism and POV and unsourced information. I've requested discussion on the talk page. The last reasonable version of this article is [32]. I've been reverted countless times. I have to step away and allow someone else with great available skills to protect this page.  ∴ Therefore  talk   01:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The page has been semiprotected before, and I semiprotected it again for 3 days. If the vandalism returns, I'll bump up the protection some. This is at the lower end of the amount of vandalism I would need to see for semiprotection, but I think it's warranted in this case. CMummert · talk 02:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock review needed

Resolved

Other admins are requested to review and comment on the unblock request at User talk:Nightscream. Heimstern Laufer blocked for 48 hours for a 3RR violation, rejecting the user's contention that he was enforcing BLP. I believe the user had a good-faith believe that BLP was being violated, and would unblock. Would appreciate further review and comments. Newyorkbrad 02:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what part was negative information about a living person? What I saw in the reverts was only the revert of a definition of the term "conflict of interest". I missed how it could be seen as a BLP issue. Would appreciate some clarification. Heimstern Läufer 02:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the disagreement is over felt vs knew. If Clark "felt" it was a conflict of interest, then that's a statement of his opinion. If Clark "knew" it was a conflict of interest, then that means that the article is making the claim that the producers (who are living people) acted incorrectly. I agree with Brad's contention that this user in good faith believed that WP:BLP covered this case. --BigDT (416) 02:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The change from "felt" to "knew" there was a conflict of interest implies a degree of certainty about the producers' alleged misconduct that is not well-supported by a cited source. The citation of a legal definition of "conflict of interest" applicable only to lawyers, which is enforceable by disciplinary action and sometimes civil or even criminal penalties, could imply that there was a specific regulatory definition of conflict of interest that Clark knew the TV producers were violating, which is not the case. I also think it's significant that the now-blocked user was addressing these issues on the talk page, in a reasonably appropriate manner, in the face of another user who was screaming at him and using obscenities. I agree with Heimstern that this is probably borderline as a BLP problem, but the user believed there was one, and that belief was not so unreasonable as to warrant being summarily disregarded. I believe that this was a situation that could have benefitted from more nuanced administrator intervention and a warning rather than a 3RR block, and certainly not a 48-hour block against a longtime editor with an extremely strong record of contributions. Newyorkbrad 02:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

All right, then, I can see how that could be the case. Unblocked. Thanks for keeping me accountable. (P.S.: It was only 18 hours. But either way, it is gone now.) Heimstern Läufer 02:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Carlblackburn (talk · contribs)

User continues to add this Web site[33] to the article PlayStation Portable's external links that promotes PSP Blender, a scam site that claims to offer commercial content for download (including PSP video games) for monthly fees. This practice is illegal. The link has been reverted several times by many users but Carlblackburn continues to readd it[34], citing that the Web site is not illegal when it obviously is. We've tried settling this matter in the talk page (Talk:PlayStation_Portable#Squidoo_site) but user refuses to acknowledge that illegal activity does not belong on Wikipedia. - Throw 05:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Robdurbar

The user account of Robdurbar has gone crazy. Deleted the main page, blocking everyone in sight. His admin powers need to be taken away quickly. — Lost^(talk) 10:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking where the stewards are. Agathoclea 10:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Desysopped. – Riana ^ऋ 10:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for unblocking me. Agathoclea 10:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about any rude unblocking summaries I may have left. – Riana ^ऋ 10:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What the fuck happened there? Was that someone saying goodbye in spectacular fashion, or did a vandal hack the account? Moreschi ^Talk 10:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt it was a vandal; that user left several weeks ago. A vandal would probably choose someone who is at their peak of activity. — Deckiller 10:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The block of Jeff makes it quite clear that this wasn't a comprimised account, for me anyways. Daniel Bryant 10:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how much this will shake up the RfA reform debates. — Deckiller 10:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's go and see... Carcharoth 10:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Merged from separate thread directly above.

What's going on? --Dweller 10:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Emergency desysopping of USer:Robdurbar??? The accounts either compromised, or he's taking the **** Ryan Postlethwaite 10:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Desysop please ASAP. He is unblocking himself, blocking other users (just got me), and creating havoc. Anyone on IRC? – Riana ^ऋ 10:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Desysopped by Jhs. MaxSem 10:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted all his blocks, hope that's OK. – Riana ^ऋ 10:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You're too fast. A pity, I had hoped I'd get an opportunity of unblocking Jimbo once in my life. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fast? Tabbed browsing, my friend ^^ – Riana ^ऋ 10:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheese needs to be undeleted. MaxSem 10:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Good going Riana!--cj | talk 10:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What now then? Leave him desysopped and blocked, or take it to arbcom to make it official? Ryan Postlethwaite 10:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No formalities needed. He'll just remain blocked until he comes back with a plausible explanation how this was not him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we'll need a rather good explanation... no vandal goes and blocks a bunch of established users, not to mention a user the admin has blocked previously. – Riana ^ऋ 10:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Continue :) Daniel Bryant 10:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Should this be documented somewhere? Has this ever happened before? An admin goes rogue and got in three edits before being blocked, got in 25 blocking, unblocking, unprotecting, and deleting actions. Can someone confirm all the mess has been tidied up? Carcharoth 10:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It has. Good thing he wasn't pissed off enough to do something that's actually damaging. —Cryptic 10:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Shake up RFA? After this, we'll have people saying that the crats should be able to desysop...which will lead to even higher standards at RfB....arrrrrgggghhh....Moreschi ^Talk 10:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm one who thinks the crats should be able to desysop...but then again, I also feel we shouldn't raise the standards either :) — Deckiller 10:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we need more stewards who are highly active on WP? None of the stewards seem to be half as active as the folk you see on ANI everyday. Standards for stewards seem to be lower than for crats... who wants to have a go next year? :) – Riana ^ऋ 10:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Lower? As in, like, needing to speak ten languages, active participation on 50 WikiMedia projects, and accounts on more? Moreschi ^Talk 10:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the criteria are different; because of that, I think it might not be a bad idea to consider giving crats the right to desyssop. But I agree that we need more tools to fight hacked or crazy admins. — Deckiller 10:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Before we get too hung up on the idea that we need more stewarts or drastic measures to prevent a rare sysop rampage, remember that this mess started at 09:57 with the unprotection of "cheese" and was over by 10:14 when Robdurbar got desysopped. I'd say the stewarts (and JHS in particular) did a good job. As to bureaucrats getting the right or technical ability to desysop, I have no opinion.--Chaser - T 10:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah apparently they were alerted on IRC [35]. Will (aka Wimt) 10:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But is it good or bad that it took 17 minutes to deal with this? To be fair, the smoking gun of Main Page deletion (and edit summaries like "I wonder how long I can get away with this") didn't occur until about 13 minutes before he was desysopped. But is 13 minutes a good response time or a bad one? Carcharoth 11:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He got in more than three edits. Some of them remained deleted when I restored only the revisions of the main page from before the incident began. —David Levy 11:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just submitted a patch that disables main page deletion, please vote/comment. MaxSem 10:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WT:RFA thread is here. Carcharoth 10:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow... First case of rogue admin I've ever seen. Have to thank your for your quick actions Riana, before he deletes the whole Project... --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 10:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

RFCheckUser started at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Robdurbar ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 10:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the trouble couldhave been avoided if admins could not unblock themselves or .... there would be a 30 minutes delay in unblocking. Agathoclea 10:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I just said exactly the same thing at WT:RFA at exactly the same time! – B.hotep ^u/_t• 11:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, his autoblocks should also be undone. MaxSem 11:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I just undid the autoblocks. Can someone check if I've done it correctly? – Riana ^ऋ 11:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Done. >Radiant< 11:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Gah! That's a mess. From 10:01 to 10:14 on 19 April 2007, in case it scrolls off the screen. Hang on, they are vanishing in front of my eyes. Weird. How does that list work? Carcharoth 11:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You gotta show me how to do that sometime :) – Riana ^ऋ 11:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Tabbed browsing, of course :) Firefox FTW! >Radiant< 11:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That was a rather freaky demonstration of aberrant behavior... (→Netscott) 11:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser results in - account seemingly not compromised. Moreschi ^Talk 11:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe Robdurbar had logged in with the "Remember me" option enabled, and someone got onto his computer? --Ixfd64 20:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

---

According to someone (I can't remember whom, I thought it was in one of the IRC channels, but I can't find anything there), people in #wikipedia were panicing for quite some time before someone knew whom to contact (e.g. stewards). What is needed for this kind of situation isn't more stewards or ability for bureaucrats to desysop; what's needed is for people to know where to go when something like this happened, which luckily Peter Isotalo did (and also five or six other people who came in too late). When (or, more optimistically, if) an admin goes on a havoc spree like this, you should go to #wikimedia-stewards and write !steward, and someone will usually respond within seconds (there are stewards from many different time zones). If there are none, developers (in #wikimedia-tech) will be able to do a desysopping. Jon Harald Søby 12:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My problem was I couldn't remember the name of the stewards IRC channel: by the time I remembered it, he'd already been desysopped. Thanks for the reminder. Moreschi ^Talk 12:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem

Of course we did not follow proper process here, because Robdurbar should first have gotten a standardized warning template that deleting the main page is considered inappropriate, and that repeat actions may result in deopping. I have taken the liberty of designing this, Template:Uw-delmain1. >Radiant< 12:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well done, Radiant. I'm a bit puzzled regarding the "Welcome to Wikipedia" bit — admins are not new users as far as I'm concerned (unless the RfA reform goes a little too far, heh). Michaelas¹⁰ 12:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

ROFL :D. MaxSem 12:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the assessment. By the time I blocked him he had already been vandalizing on top of deleting. Even though the main page was involved I did check if there was a particular issue that needed an emergency deletion. The subsequent re-creation of the page showed a vandalizing intend. I knew that he could unblock himself, but the block would stop further deletions to bridge the time until a steward could be alerted. Agathoclea 12:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if this shows us anything it is that the whole emergency de-admining system works. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 12:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it's very encouraging. By the time I'd logged into the stewards IRC channel it'd already been done. – Steel 13:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd venture a guess that any admin that deletes Main page will be desysopped (probably emergency desysopped) whether the actions are repeated or not. I see no need for a warning for such actions. -- Renesis (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's not be overly dramatic. As the admin who recently deleted the mainpage said, "Indeed, it was my terrible mistake. Looked at the wrong page, pressed the wrong button. Restored immediately, so no damage was made." They weren't desysopped for it, and rightfully so. Zocky | picture popups 13:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Before today, main page deletions were entirely accidental and were reversed with no warnings. Bad-faith deletions of the main page require emergency de-sysopping. Period. // Sean William 13:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I was referring to bad-faith deletion, not accidental. And I agree with HighInBC below. -- Renesis (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we can all tell the difference between an emergency and something that can be discussed prior to desysoping, this would be the former. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, deletion of the Main Page is such a big deal that, even if it was accidental, it wouldn't kill the offending admin to be desysopped until such time as he explains that it was a mistake. If it appears to be an emergency, shoot first and ask questions later. The desysopping "bullet" does no permanent damage. --Richard 14:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Except, it leaves the "offending" admin with no way to correct his/her mistake. --Edokter (Talk) 14:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a few hundred others willing to correct that mistake, though. – Riana ^ऋ 14:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Availability of stewards and emergency procedures

Jon Harald Søby indicated that there will probably be stewards available at any time, as they are in different time zones, but that seems a little bit like wishful thinking to me. There probably are quiet times when no stewards are available, but the only way we will find out, unless a system is set up, is when something like this happens and we find all the stewards are asleep/away/inactive, or whatever. Can we be sure that stewards or developers will always be available? The other point Jon Harald Søby raised was that the people active in #wikipedia at the time didn't seem to know they needed to find a steward. I'm sure a whole generation of Wikipedians will now have this fact burned into their psyche! :-) But seriously, what other enculturation problems might lie ahead? Is there something that you personally don't know how to handle, and who would you go running to if you encountered something big you couldn't handle? The obvious thing that springs to mind is the dark mutterings made by people who, always invoking WP:BEANS, say that there are really destructive things that a rogue admin can do. I have no interest in knowing what those things are (and please don't try and guess), but can I ask if the solution would be obvious if the unthinkable started to happen? Carcharoth 14:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

More Stewards are not necessarily the idea. After all, does it make sense for an incident on the English Wikipedia that lasted only a few minutes warrant more Stewards to cover all time zones? Short of designing a new protection policy where only Bureaucrats can edit a certain page so that people know what to do when an Administrator goes wild (ugh) or a Steward-power bot that desysops Administrators that unprotect the Main Page (ugh), the easiest solution is, of course, make sure it doesn't occur again. Either way, Stewards are a meta thing and whether or not more Stewards are needed will be a meta consideration. x42bn6 Talk 16:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Steward bot = bad idea. People mess up. Prodego ^talk 01:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I have an alternative idea that could get us along without stewards. What if we made it possible for someone to effectually block an admin (i.e. self-unblocking would be impossible), but only with the agreement of several other admins. The likelihood of more than one account being compromised at any one time would be rather low.--Pharos 00:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Self unblocking needs to be possible, lest someone manage to block all active admins. Which, by going backwards through the logs with a bot shouldn't be too hard. Having no admins and no Stewards would be pretty bad. Prodego ^talk 00:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the idea would be that it would take the agreement of multiple admins (possibly three) to make an effectual block. And then, to guard against the remote possibility of more than one rogue, we could also limit the number of such accounts that could be blocked in this way (also maybe three).--Pharos 01:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Going back to Carcharoth's question, I firmly believe that the solution to the really destructive thing we never state is not immediately obvious. How to describe the solution without describing the problem is an issue beyond my current leaps of intuition. GRBerry 00:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I can think of two really destructive things, but probably not what you are thinking. What are you thinking? Prodego ^talk 01:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

E-mail, please, guys... :-) Anyway, I'd hope the developers are aware of any really big loopholes in security and/or vandal possibilities. I suspect some bot-operated thing is one of the big scary things (going backwards through the logs is a clever idea), but the specifics are beyond my intuition as well. Interesting Wiktionary story below, the idea of timing things for a quiet period like that is a good idea. Of course, some planes now allow internet access (I think), so that will soon no longer be a problem. Carcharoth 04:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh geez yeah. WP:BEANS and all that - Alison^☺ 04:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This has happened before on Wiktionary

The same thing happened twice before on Wiktionary. wikt:Wonderfool (talk • contribs • page moves • block log) Local: User:Wonderfool on Wiktionary did the same thing twice, once using the sockpuppet wikt:Dangherous (talk • contribs • page moves • block log) Local: User:Dangherous because no one in their right mind would ever sysop Wonderfool after his first rampage. On the second time around, "Dangherous" blocked all of the other admins and deleted the main page. This vandal timed it just right so that all of the stewards were on airplanes coming home from WikiMania 2006, so a developer had to directly tweak the database to remove Dangherous's sysop bit. See wikt:Wiktionary:Administrators/Former#User:Dangherous for some of the details on the Dangherous case. Jesse Viviano 03:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible technical solutions

If anyone has any ideas on how to allow regular administrators or bureaucrats to solve this problem, please post them in this section.

I am proposing a somewhat technical solution to the administrator turned badministrator (yes, the pun is intentional) problem. If an administrator turns bad, we should have some measure to allow other administrators to temporarily take care of the problem. We should have a system that temporarily remove all rights beyond regular editor from someone for 24 hours if 24 different administrators, or two bureaucrats, give a strike to an administrator in the same minute. I feel that this will give us time to find a steward to fix this problem. I chose 24 because 16 different administrators in one minute will be too easy to overcome for things other than true emergencies, but 32 different administrators in one minute might be too hard to overcome in a true emergency. Jesse Viviano 22:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a simple idea, why not write a tool that blocks a user every 5 seconds untill a steward can desysop? I could whip one of these tools up in about 10 minutes. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

But can't an admin still block users while being blocked? (I don't think they can protect or delete when blocked). --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 05:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of an admin acting like this before.

This might take a bit of work, but what if there a way to flag how many times within, say, 5 minutes, a user was blocked, so that if (for example) 3 different administrators blocked a rogue admin within a 5 minute timespan, the rogue admin would be automatically desysopped for a period of time, and the actions of everyone involved could then be reviewed? --Kyoko 05:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea of auto-desysopping. I hope you mean a software feature though. (I don't think we want a steward bot going crazy. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 05:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant a software feature. I wouldn't want to see a malfunctioning steward bot desysopping people... or granting admin tools to everybody in sight, either. --Kyoko 05:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea that an admin should not be able to unblock themself has been rejected because of the danger of all other admins being blocked, but a blocked admin could be able to unblock others, but not issue blocks or unblock themselves. It would then take two rogue admins to cause trouble once the first problem was noted, and this is much less likely than one.-gadfium 20:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the solution where an administrator can unblock others, but not unblock himself/herself if he or she is blocked. While it would work on Wikipedia due to its army of administrators, it could allow a rogue admin on a small wiki running MediaWiki with few administrators to take over it with no solution but to reformat and reinstall MediaWiki. Any technical solution must be able to apply to all installations of MediaWiki, no matter what size it is. Also, it makes it a pain to recover should an administrator accidentally block himself, or when the administrator intentionally blocks himself for testing purposes, and the test is finished and the administrator must recover from the test. Riana broke the never unblock onself rule when she unblocked herself in response to being blocked by Robdurbar for no valid reason at all, and therefore had a valid reason to unblock that was good enough that WP:IAR easily trumped that rule. I would prefer a solution where software determines that there is a consensus among administrators to temporarily desysop a rogue admin until a steward comes around and solves the situation, so that there is no possibility that a rogue administrator completely takes over a small wiki. Jesse Viviano 07:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is another possible solution that would work on big wikis like Wikipedia and Wiktionary: allow an administrator to sacrifice his or her sysop bit in order to remove the sysop bit from another administrator. This will then generate a message in a log for a steward or bureaucrat to sort out the mess this creates. In this wiki, such a sacrifice should cause someone to initiate a request for arbitration, because someone must investigate the situation and determine whose sysop bit should stay removed. If the sacrifice was done in a situation that warranted such a response, a bureaucrat can then repromote the person who sacrificed his sysop bit. If the situation did not warrant that, then the admin who did this would not get his sysop bit back, but the admin whose sysop bit was taken in this manner would get it back. Of course, this ability should not be allowed to be used against stewards and bureaucrats, because all MediaWiki wikis require them to grant and remove rights. Jesse Viviano 07:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Now this is an idea I have not seen before on Wikipedia. I think it could open the door to resolving wheel wars on Wikis. Very promising from a first glance. --HappyCamper 13:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Nekohakase (talk · contribs)

While I work to delete/unlink this user's various inappropriate PD images, can somebody that is less annoyed serve them a tactful warning? Circeus 00:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind that. I need to clear the source of several images anyway. THey need to be watched, though. They seem to assume scanning an image makes them the "creator", so I wouldn't trust the "I made/took it!" claims.Circeus 00:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen quite a bit of that, actually. Would it be too condescending of us to add something like "scanning somebody else's image does not make it yours" to the Special:Upload page? — CharlotteWebb 05:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, but I suspect nothing short of the suggested changes at Commons will really help, and even that will still let copyvios in. Circeus 15:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate blog linked from the userpage User:Hammersfan

Resolved

 – User has removed the link following a request from another user. Adambro 14:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hammersfan has a link from his userpage to what appears to be a blog written by him. One of the entries is as follows:[36]

March 13
What a f*cking c*ck

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chriscf

This person is a fucking cock - a close minded tosser who I'd very much like to hurt by inserting a cricket bat into his rectum and twisting very slowly. Tosspot Welsh arsehole.

As such, I feel that the link from his userpage to this blog is not appropriate. I've raised this issue with the user (diff) but their only response was to delete my message from their talk page, as they did yesterday when I left a warning about their behaviour. I'd welcome the opinions of other editors with regards to this issue. Adambro 12:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I get an "XML Parsing Error" when I try to follow the blog link above; it seems my browser (Mozilla SeaMonkey) can't cope with its bogosity of serving the page with an XHTML MIME type but using an HTML 4.0 doctype on it. *Dan T.* 14:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Annoymous user 63.231.59.4 removing content from pages

The IP 63.231.59.4 has been removing speedy deletion notices and some maintenance templates which I placed on several articles. I would report this user at AIV, but they're not currently active. He has no prior contributions before doing this, as you can see here. I've placed several warnings on his page, but am unsure about what to do next, and would like some input from an admin here. Cheers, -Panser Born- (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Watch for half an hour or so, and if they come back, go to AIV, I reckon. – Riana ^ऋ 15:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the advice. =) -Panser Born- (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Threatening Other Users

Someone want to give this guy the sternest kind of talking to? WilyD 15:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Indef blocked by Dgies --Guinnog 15:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone posing as Jimbo Wales?

Resolved

This fella, Princess Peach Toadsfool, left a message on my talk page, [37] "Greetings, after a positive dialogue with Princess Peach Toadsfool, i hereby suggst that she should be promoted to an administrator. Will you please fix that? yours sincerely; --Jimbo Wales 18:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)" Signed with Jimbo's signature.. Perhaps this should be handled by an admin?

GavinTing 16:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Indef-blocked by Drini. Was a vandal account. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright =)GavinTing 16:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt reblocked

Recently, as most of you know, particularly if you have seen the hub-bub about it, I unblocked Daniel Brandt as part of a discussion around his appeal of his block. In his appeal, on his website dated April 11, he explained that the main reason he wanted his editing privileges restored was to be able to comment on the talk page of the article about him. This and other indicators of good faith on his part let me to grant that portion of his appeal while continuing a discussion of the other parts.

I still think he is acting in good faith, but for reasons that I do not understand, he now claims that my unblock of him was "the wrong decision." Ok. Well, then why appeal? Hopefully he can explain it to me, but in the meantime as a further gesture of goodwill, I am following his wishes again and reblocking him.--Jimbo Wales 12:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting sillier.Geni 13:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the idea of Brandt "acting in good faith" is the silliest thing I've heard in ages. Iamnotmyself 16:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, Wikipedia is an excellent spectator sport and a great use of my Saturday afternoon. 86.145.105.149 13:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm so annoyed I'm off to play 3 hours of tennis, I want to sit here following the drama unfold. Beats the hell out of the Super Bowl, never mind the Heineken Cup. Jimbo, with all due respect I'm not sure this was what Brandt was getting at in that email. He stated that, ultimately, he doesn't care about being blocked or unblocked. As long as his bio is up, he wants, however, to be able to comment on the talk page. His fundamental wish, however, is not to be unblocked: he wants his bio gone. He recognises that his state of blockedness doesn't really matter: he just wants the bio to disappear. I think that's what he was getting at in that email, not that he wanted to be reblocked! Moreschi ^Talk 13:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Brandt has never had a problem in making his wishes known to editors editing our article about him, as a review of the history of its talk page shows. Even his comments at WR have been used as clues to improve the article on him. We encourage him to continue commenting at WR and/or on the talk page as an IP# to help improve the article's compliance with WP:BLP - in particlular removing or rewording privacy issue items or poorly sourced items. Comments he makes that are removed are still in history and are read and considered. WAS 4.250 14:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, he didn't do any harm during the brief time he could edit. I also couldn't find the request to re-block him in his contributions on the Wiki. Was it in an email? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

He emailed Fred Bauder, and, per Brandt's request, Fred posted it on the mailing list. Moreschi ^Talk 13:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Brandt has an ongoing legal threat against the foundation which is sufficient grounds to block all by iteself. Note that the point of blocking due to legal threats is to avoid introducing bias (POV) based on threats. "Make the article the way I want it or I will sue" is the problem. We do want input that helps us make our articles better. We don't want to give ammo to people with a conflict of interest to interfere with our mission of a free neutral encyclopedia. Balance is key. WAS 4.250 14:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It is good that Daniel's desires came to match the communities, as the communities desire for Daniel to remain blocked did not seem to be enough. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's my guess (with no information beyond the email in question) that he meant that the "wrong decision" was not deleting the article, rather than the unblock. OTOH, it might make sense for him to clarify this issue. JavaTenor 16:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Those trying to remove his comments from the bio talk page have less fuel, if any, than before, so progress is being made, SqueakBox 02:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Global search and replace and edit warring by User:TingMing

TingMing (talk · contribs) is enforcing his own naming convention and edit-warring across dozens of Taiwan-related articles. I suggest an admin have a word with him. --Ideogram 21:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am alarmed by Ideogram's random warring. For the Chen Shui-bian article, it is uncontested and TRUE that Chen is the President of the Republic of China. Nonetheless, Ideogram continues to revert it to Taiwan and makes errornoneous judgements. Ideogram has no good faith after I tried to reach out to him. TingMing 21:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You just don't get it. If someone reverts you, you don't keep reverting. You take it to the talk page and discuss. Any massive change across dozens of pages needs to be discussed with as many as people as possible to reach consensus. You don't get to decide policy all by yourself. Your edits will not last long, you are wasting your time. --Ideogram 21:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already discussed and written notes before. You just dont get it. You have serious issues TingMing 21:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have also wondered aloud to separate editor 'who' this person resembles. They do seem to be ignoring prior discussions (though I am not acquainted well-enough by far myself with status quo). I'd like to second the concerns about mass-renaming/editing of Taiwan<-->ROC. I will look to see what discussions they have participated in. Shenme 21:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The only substantial discussion TingMing has participated in is at Talk:Guantian, Tainan#Chen Shui-bian is the President of the Republic of China. It's mostly insults (at least I think "Tai Ke" is an insult). --Ideogram 22:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

(Tai Ke is not an insult at all. You have no idea what it means. That is Chinese and not English. Even user Jerrypp772000 said that Tai Ke is not an insult) TingMing 00:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You really are a liar. According to my Taiwanese sources, Tai Ke is a term for a stereotypical native Taiwanese, complete with slippers and munching on betelnuts. Although the term has been rehabilitated recently, anyone using it in a political context certainly means it as an insult. --Ideogram 13:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

He has many similarities to Heqong (talk · contribs) but that account is too old for checkuser. --Ideogram 21:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And let me further qualify my concern. Anytime I see names changing back and forth between two or three versions I have to wonder at the utility of those actions. Repetition only makes me wonder more. Picking one particular (simple) article at random I see the same back and forth by six different editors since the article was created (five since November 2006). I see references to Naming conventions (Chinese) and wonder why something as simple as

Taiwan Province of the Republic of China     vs.     Taiwan

can't be decided. I'm afraid to dig into this, and no wonder. Shenme 21:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

We've never had a large discussion establishing consensus for policy on this. The current system is hard to understand, and many people have different understandings of it, with the result that usage is ad-hoc and decided by who last edited it. I have been trying for months to establish consensus behind a standard at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China/Naming Conventions but a large number of participants just want to leave the mess alone. You would certainly be welcome to participate in that discussion, maybe we can get it going again. --Ideogram 22:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution. Navou ^banter 21:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am very familiar with all the DR options. I'm not going to RFC or CSN, and this is too early for ArbCom. Which leaves this. --Ideogram 21:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of the blue, Ideogram comes out and destroys all productive edits that I am making. I didn't see him come out when Jerrypp772000 mass renamed all Republic of China articles with Taiwan. I am not eliminating Taiwan. I am actually following the Wikipedia Chinese Naming Conventions set forth on Wikipedia. Its people like Ideogram who are arrogant and ignorant to the system that Wikipedia fails. For example, Chen Shui-bian is the President of the Republic of China. It was a vandal who changed it otherwise. I tried to help by reverting it to the original, yet Ideogram persists in reverting my edits..thereby hurting the Wikipedia system. He is only doing it to annoy me. How random. TingMing 00:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Now this guy is edit-warring with me on my own talk page. --Ideogram 00:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram has persisted in deleting my comments on his talk page. The comments reveal Ideogram's motives and personality. He has persisted to remove that for fear that other users and admins will see it. TingMing 02:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the funniest thing you've said so far. Add it one more time and you get blocked. --Ideogram 02:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I haven't been following this conversation, but I'd like to note that there is currently no consensus that removing warnings or other forms of communication is governed by anything other than an editor's opinion. That said, editors are encouraged to archive and not simply delete comments, but it is Ideogram's choice what he or she would like to do. But those who repeatedly post comments that are removed are liable to be blocked as violating the WP:3RR rule. Make sure that you do not violate it, TingMing. --Iamunknown 02:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This Taiwan VS China thign comes up at least once a month. It's ridiculous, because we won't solve it easily, if ever. Some editors are Pro-China, and insist on seeing Taiwan as China, while Pro-Taiwan editors insist on seeing Taiwan as its' own entity. This is a political fight on a much bigger scale than Wikipedia, and I doubt it can be solved. ThuranX 05:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping that if we can get a large enough consensus behind a standard we will have enough patrollers to rapidly quash any potential edit-warriors. --Ideogram 09:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Pro-People's Republic of China editors and the Pro-Taiwan independence editors are pushing their own POV to the ire of Wikipedians. They have a baseless argument. Because the current de facto status of the situation is that the Republic of China continues to exist since 1912 and it currently controls Taiwan as a province. There is still a Taiwan Province government in Taiwan. There is no stressing the identity of China or Taiwan. This is mainly an issue about facts. Some pro-Taiwan independence users are continually erasing all signs of Republic of China, but that is the CURRENT FACT. They need to accept that facts of the situation and stop disrupting Wikipedia. TingMing 22:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fact is relative. Some people in the world consider the existence of the Republic of China fact. Others don't. --Iamunknown 22:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why his relationships with Nationalist, who is still currently blocked for another 1 month, is never mentioned here (or at least I didn't see it). There is a history of RFCU on TingMing/Nationalist which identifies him to be a possible sockpuppet. I have grown to getting tired of this pointless struggle he has been wrestling on, as he continues to revert, edit war, unilaterally pagemove, assume bad faith/personally attack, and etc. on articles and other editors while he has been warned for way too many times.

A simple removal of his comment on a user talk page (most likely insults/attacks) will get that person in trouble of being a radical politician for Taiwan independence. Some logic. Think about it.

If you're reading this, TingMing, I would like to readdress all the reasons for reverting your global changes in Wikipedia:

• The Political NPOV part in Naming Conventions you have been using all along has already been plastered with not one but two content-disputed tags. However justified your arguments are, they are no more than politically correct since you are only promoting one argument while others (many others) repelling yours with another.

• As Ideogram stated somewhere in Wikipedia articles I can't find it right away, there is NO consensus for this issue. With your pointless edit wars against other editors does NOT help improving Wikipedia in any way, but instead deteriorate it. Your intake of others' opinion is extremely harder than most of us thought, and that will not help to reach any consensus whatsoever. Quoting Ideogram: "If someone reverts you, you don't keep reverting. You take it to the talk page and discuss. Any massive change across dozens of pages needs to be discussed with as many as people as possible to reach consensus. You don't get to decide policy all by yourself." And as you claimed to have "discussed", what you did only offered your own standpoints and basically told everyone to follow it or else. You have even ignored several arguments raised against you.

Also, a consensus is not a proposal that will completely satisfy you, and it will cost you disapprovals in some parts to satisfy opinions of others. If you keep on your political accusations on anyone that goes against your edits (and virtually everyone in this case), counter-reverts to protect your edits and refusal to listen to other people's inputs, nothing and I repeat NOTHING will reach to an end.

And Nationalism in editing is a form of POV, Not fact, as you suggest it to be. Not to mention that you're not even getting any strong support for your standpoint. Vic₂₂₆ 02:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Vwt NPOV

Is there where we report POV violations? User:Vwt seems to be creating a bunch of stubs about some financial company that was investigated. They were deleted, but he's adding them back. Should he be blocked?

Vwt comments: contributions are edits/additions to, or creation of, a wide array of articles are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and are across a spectrum of topics in Wikipedia. These contributions entries are not just a bunch of stubs about just one topic or entity. Why are you presuming Vwt is a he. The contributions are well considered, researched, complete initial articles with citation reference verified, change annotation comment descriptions, and in answered in Talk. All of these entries and/or edits are open for welcomed improvements, of course. None entries are intended as perfect, but wholesale, whole-cloth deletion is unwarranted, as is blockage.

These contributions consistently reference independent verifiable credible source publications, such as the New York Times and Dow Jones News’ published the Wall Street Journal which have widely recognized credibility (by most opinions, with some dissenters). These reliable publications in turn reference their fact sources. When verifiable, Vwt provides links to reliable online versions of the publications are provided into the article, and as reference links. These referenced links, in some cases, even link further in turn directly to source documents, usually from public records such as US judicial court findings of fact or other public documents. Links to government or established credible corporate websites are also provided when appropriate.

Some sensitive topics such as Censorship by Google are obviously difficult for Wikipedia editors to verify online through Google or any other electronic online search tools. A physical print version of the actual published newspaper should be compared with the internet news search result (they do not always match). For example, the print front page cover of the Wall Street Journal March 6th 2007, headlines, news text, and photographic images (which are correctly copyright source attributed in print by the newspaper), can be compared with electronic Google News “search results”.

This front page Wall Street Newspaper article text, headline text, and cover photo images [38] are not found by Google News. Front covers of news publications (text and images) are included in articles as Front Covers and Front Cover Images, are included as public fair use and used in compliance with referenced citations according to Wikipedia:Image use policy (derived from obvious newsstand public view reasons). We have come to expect an accurate uncensored neutral point of view factual information from internet search of news & facts, without censorship, algorithmic error, or copyright law misinterpretations or misapplication. These objective examples demonstrate in this contrary – there is censoring of US Publications news and images, just as Google demonstrably censors China news and images -- see history on Censorship by Google. Some editors may consider this "missing news" to be original research but Citing sources: Google News (missing) and the Wall Street Journal (Print and online, news and images evident) are credible verifiable objective credible sources. Wikipedia should reference this US Censorship by Google in the article that already similarly references absence of controversial China images and news in Censorship by Google along with similar observations in other countries. (Vwt Comments) — Vwt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The SPA tag above isn't really necessary. It is obvious that it is a single purpose account. WP:SPA outlines that a SPA isn't against policy, per se. It just depends on how the SPA is used. IrishGuy ^talk 00:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Corey Clark

Hi. I've been having trouble over the past two months with User:Liaishard, who continuously inserts non-NPOV material into the article. Right now, she she insists on changing a passage so that a point of view taken by Clark reads as a fact. Specifically, in the passage detailing how the producers of American Idol told Clark and his fellow contestants to select one of two attorneys for representation that the producers presented to them within two days or be dismissed from the show, the wording indicates that Clark and his fellow contestants felt this was a conflict of interest. Liaishard keeps changing this passage from "felt" to "knew". Liaishard insists that it's a fact, not an opinion, that it does not require a legal conclusion, and that because it's from Clark's book and his own words, that it's a "direct quote". I've tried to explain to her a direct quote is a word-for-word reproduction of someone's words with quotation marks, and that the passage "Clark felt" or "Clark knew" is a third-person paraphrase, but she refuses to listen, insisting that no, it's a first-person direct quote. Wen I try to correct her on this terminology on the article's Talk Page (as I have done numerous times over the past month or two), she disagrees, but without explaining why my assertion is wrong. She also continues to insert a dead link that she herself previously removed for that reason. User:Geniac, who I've asked for help numerous times, intervenes only sporadically, as he is probably very busy. User:Seraphimblade, who has also tried to help out, has a banner on his page that he is currently away. This has been going on for months now, and I would appreciate some decisive action with Liaishard, who neither understand nor cares about the site's policies. Nightscream 23:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered asking for a third opinion? If more then 2 editors are involved I would suggest that you go through dispute resolution, try the mediation cabal. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Geniac suggested Third Opinion some time ago, and when I requested this, Seraphimblade intervened on one or two minor points, but he did not stick around. One of the problems is that Liaishard will say at one point that ok, the article reads well now, and imply that she is satisfied that Clark's side of the story is represented, but then will go and change and insert something else, igniting an entirely new edit conflict all over again, using the same fallacious arguments, and Seraphimblade did not stick around to help on these. I've essentially been battling to keep the article neutral and well-written by myself, and I'm not an admin or anything. Nightscream 18:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Try Dispute resolution. Corvus cornix 20:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

ArmenianJoe (talk · contribs) banned

ArmenianJoe's contributions consist of almost entirely edit warring. He has several blocks, all of them for obsessive edit warring at Denial of the Armenian Genocide, Armenian Genocide, and related articles. His latest block three days ago was for a week, for immediately warring again at Denial of the Armenian Genocide as soon as his prior 48 hour block for the same thing ended. He then created the abusive sockpuppet account Israyel (talk · contribs) to, of course, edit war at Denial of the Armenian Genocide. I've blocked the sockpuppet and extended the block to indefinite. There is no reason to put up with a patently unproductive and unreasonable editor. Dmcdevit·t 05:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I can definitely endorse the block; my concern is with the use of the word "ban" here, as I would think we could only consider him banned if the ban were agreed upon by the community. Heimstern Läufer 05:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you've got it backwards. Admins have the discretion to impose indefinite blocks only when they think there is already agreement on the matter. I consider him banned because in my judgment that's the common-sense thing to do, and the community will not reverse the decision. If I am wrong about it being non-controversial, then I am wrong about him being banned. Dmcdevit·t 05:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My limited understanding of the matter is that we've moved away from that practice toward more discussion of bans before they're considered enacted. But I dunno for sure. Anyway, doesn't make a difference for now, as I'm not challenging this. Heimstern Läufer 06:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Heimstern is correct. While the old definition of a community ban is indeed that of an unchallenged indefinite block (passive community ban), the community has generally moved away from that definition to one coming out of a result of community discussion (active community ban). I made up the phrases in the parentheses, just to show contrast. The correct terminology in this case would be block. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that there are two types of community bans. One type is the ban that is meted out after discussion at WP:CN. The other is for more obvious cases where no discussion is required. As I have read somewhere, if any admin is unwilling to unblock an indefinitely blocked user, then it is considered to be a community ban too. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. However, nowadays only those that are discussed are considered bans, as those of the former definition may leave room for sockpuppetry. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? That's completely wrong, and overly bureacratic for bureaucracy's sake. I don't know what you mean when you say "the former definition may leave room for sockpuppetry," banned users are banned users. There has been no change in how bans work, except in the minds of legalistic types. Dmcdevit·t 07:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being over bureaucratic, and I never said that there was a change. I only said that the community has shifted, not that the old definition is now wrong. And I take offense at you calling me legalistic. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit is entirely correct here. We've been having problems with some people on the Community Noticeboard assuming to themselves the 'right' to decide on bans - it doesn't work that way and it never has. A community ban is when no-one will unblock, and has no connection to the Community Noticeboard endorsing, disendorsing or deciding they have a say in it. There are no lynchmob mechanisms on Wikipedia, and we're not installing this one quietly on the side. Just because a small group of people (and it is an insular group of regulars) have decided to write a process for their amusement does not obligate anyone else on Wikipedia to respect it in any way - David Gerard 09:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. A ban is just an indefinite block that nobody will lift. Let's not get into instruction creep and please let's not act as if community consensus had anything to do with those nasty little lynching mobs that sometimes form on pages like Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. --Tony Sidaway 13:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You could rephrase that. Navou ^banter 19:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:LYNCHMOBSrUS? --kingboyk 13:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me chime in and state I agree entirely with what Dmcdevit, Tony, and David have said regarding the distinction between a ban and a block. I don't see how WP:CN can claim any special weight; it is a random collection of users self-chosen at random without qualification. A community ban, as defined as a block that no administrator will lift, has infinitely greater weight and authority than the second coming of Quickpolls. Mackensen (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) It seems different from quickpolls. The consensus gathered there appears to carry weight. Granted, the participants are not chosen arbitrators, however, it is a mechanism for consensus gathering working with WP:DE and WP:BAN. Regards, Navou ^banter 19:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious, who are the sockpuppets? It'd be good to tag them and start a category. --Iamunknown 06:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would we want to start a category? Putting the sockpuppeteer's name(s) in lights isn't a deterrent to sockpuppeting - quite the reverse.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  09:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I never suggested that it would be a deterrant. Have you seen the Category:Wikipedia sock puppetry tree? Tis regular practise to put suspected and determined sockpuppets in categories for evidence. --Iamunknown 19:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki help

I'm looking for some help from people here on another Wikimedia project I'm sysop on. I'm a sysop (the only one) at the Cornish Wiktionary], and I've been repeatedly deleting spambot and vandalism pages.

If anyone here could help me, that would be much appreciated. Just tag [delete template] on the page, and I will delete it.

It is a fairly inactive wiki, I need all the help I can get. Thanks, --SunStar Net ^talk 16:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be better to enlist help from the SWMT to help you out. // Sean William 18:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Threatening Other Users

User:Tivedshambo over exercises personal judgement and abuse wiki rules

User:Tivedshambo vandalizes (deletes content of user:kosigrim's pages and logs

User:Tivedshambo writes threatening remarks!

11:25, 22 April 2007 PCT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosigrim (talk • contribs)

• Hi there. Can you provide some links to the edits you find offensive, please? - Alison^☺ 18:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not know how to recover deleted content

• This link may be pf some assistance when dealing with diffs. Navou ^banter 18:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Background to this user's complaint. I nominated Child surrealism for prod, as (IMO) it was not notable enough. I added the standard {{prodwarning}} to this user's talk page [39]. Rather than waiting for the prod process, Kosigrim blanked the page, and amended the prod warning [40], calling me an egomaniac which I found offensive. I also found that Kosigrim referred to other users in this way, which I removed[41].

I left warnings on the talk page about WP:NPA [42], [43], which Kosigrim removed or amended [44], [45].

So to answer Kosigrim's accusations against me:

• I exercised personal judgement in nominating the article for prod. However it was Kosigrim who blanked the article.
• The content I removed from Kosigrim's pages was in line with WP:NPA
• I have made no threats against Kosigrim, other than the warning that continued violations of WP:NPA can lead to a user being blocked.

Hope this settles matters. – Tivedshambo (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Block needed for spammer 70.121.109.189

Resolved

70.121.109.189 is adding a commcercial link, has had a full barrage of warnings, and continues. Please block posthaste. ThuranX 18:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. In the future, you can report linkspamming at WP:AIV. Picaroon 18:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Block 218.206.201.189, please

Resolved

 – blocked for 24 hours. Natalie 19:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Has been warned and reported, now vandalising userspace pages. Immediate block seems inevitable. Thanks. Kosebamse 19:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

IP blocked for 24 hours. In the future, you can report this kind of thing to WP:AIV for a faster response. Natalie 19:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Had done that already, but as the vandal was quite quick I thought another hint should be in order. Thanks for helping, Kosebamse 19:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

America's Next Top Model, Cycle 9

Resolved

• America's Next Top Model, Cycle 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Firstly, my apologies, as I am sure that there is a better place for me to report it – I just don't know where it is since it falls under multiple categories.

I came across this article when I saw it improperly nominated on the AfD page, possibly accidentally, since the original "nominator" also tagged it as not meeting web notability. I planned to just nominate it procedurally, but realized the page was clearly a hoax, as I don't believe it has even started filming yet, and Cycle 8 has not yet finished.

Since I nominated it properly, it has been edited 34 TIMES, the vast majority being IPs, the remainder probably being editors using tools to revert "vandalism" not realizing what they're doing. It has been blanked twice, both times being replaced by actual patent nonsense as opposed to a regular hoax, and the second time blanking the AFD tag (which I've replaced).

I'd like to see the page either protected... or more simply, speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G1. -- NORTH ^talk 20:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

!   The infobox says it will be first aired in September 2007? (brings up calendar) Yes, seems a speedy to me! (Have they started the article for "Found" yet?Shenme 20:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry this is not Patent nonsense, and does not merit a speedy under G1, not in its current state. But it should be deleted by consensus shortly. DES ^(talk) 21:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In its current state (just an infobox), no, it's not patent nonsense. It only contains information on when it will probably air, which should be deleted per not a crystal ball. This version, which has appeared a couple of times in the edit history, IMHO is patent nonsense. The original version is genuine hoax. Fortunately, all roads point to delete, so it's not a big deal, but in a slightly different situation, it would be impossible to have a valid AfD discussion. -- NORTH ^talk 21:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets User:MascotGuy

Resolved

User:Pridejoy Guy is creating many accounts and is certainly a sockpuppet of the above. About 15 so far. (see account creation log) GDonato (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked by Physicq210 earlier. IrishGuy ^talk 21:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone is bullying me

This user User:TyrusThomas4lyf is bullying me, keep calling me idiot (here) He seems to be there all the time. Whenever I make a change on the page, he reverted my edit and tells me not to mess up. Is there something wikipedia can do to make him stop? Chris 21:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put {{uw-npa2}} on his userpage because I found 2 nasty edits. It looks like a content dispute of some sort - I suggest both of you see WP:DR and follow the steps. x42bn6 Talk 22:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will ignore him from now on.Chris 22:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Pejman47

Please see [46] and [47]. This user has been making personal attacks and unwarranted accusations against me. Could someone please tell him to leave me alone? I don't want his behavior to escalate any further. Thank you. Atashparast 22:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

He reverted me again without discussion here [48], despite the fact that I left a comment on Talk:Pan-Iranism. Atashparast 22:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

He has again reverted me, for the 3rd time, without any discussion at all on Talk:Pan-Iranism. He has continued removing information, even when a major source has been added, and I have made clear my intentions to add more sources. His version has no sources whatsoever, thus it makes no sense for him to remove my information. This behavior is uncalled for and simply rude. Atashparast 23:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, You just reverted that article fifth time in two days. and just broke 3RR just after I warned you about it! And no one "leaves you alone" in Wikipeida, if you continue your POV pushing. Look at current messages from different users on your talk pages!--Pejman47 23:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, I have not broken any rules, but you have not only attacked me and made accusations against me, going so far as to attempt to have my user page deleted, but you have also consistently removed information that does not conform to your nationalistic point-of-view. You continued such behavior even after I added an academic source. You have furthermore avoided any discussion of your reversions on the discussion page. Your nationalistic behavior is simply unacceptable. Atashparast 23:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Croton Gorge Park sockpuppetry

Several accounts were blocked related to editing of Croton Gorge Park following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croton Gorge Park. A CheckUser has turned up more accounts and confirmed already blocked accounts. Confirmed sockpuppets are:

• THB (talk · contribs)
• Keptarmed (talk · contribs)
• Rockshappy (talk · contribs)
• Goalporch (talk · contribs)
• Clearages (talk · contribs)
• Loose Every (talk · contribs)
• Moral Army (talk · contribs)
• Sleep month (talk · contribs)
• Itemsrange (talk · contribs)
• Movie Eager (talk · contribs)
• Stand Dealt (talk · contribs)
• Itemloans (talk · contribs)
• Solveeven (talk · contribs)
• Leastdays (talk · contribs)
• Enjoyclear (talk · contribs)
• Novelreach (talk · contribs)
• Delay Drew (talk · contribs)
• City value (talk · contribs)
• Learn Eggs (talk · contribs)

Administrator attention is requested. Dmcdevit·t 23:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked all that weren't but THB. Are you sure with him?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done a check as well and concur with Dmcdevit's findings. Mackensen (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked THB indefinitely—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Juro (talk · contribs)

User continuously deletes my comments with accusatory, derogative comments ("liar") [49] (all), based on that my IP is similar to a banned user's. I haven't run into autoblock, or whatsoever, but since mine, and banned user (User:VinceB) has the same internet provider, wich does not give fix IPs to it's users it might have happen that checkuser will find us the same. (What to do in this case?) I also got a checkuser request against me ([50]), just because my IP is 195... and because if two individuals talk similar, then they are the same... Intresting logic, however it may happen, that VinceB used this IP before, as many other users may did it, but I repeat, I haven't run into autoblock, according to the block log of my recent IP [51], it was never blocked, and nor the "what links here" (to my IP userpage) gave any sign of that this IP was listed on a checkuser page (except the recent one, based on the logic described above), or banned before...

Despite my kind requests, attempts to start a conversation and warnings (npa) to Juro [52], [53], [54], User:Juro continued the personal attack, didn't replied to my questions, and responses, (see previous difflinks) instead initiated a revert war [55], and deleted them all, including my talkpage comments [56], [57].

Checking his block log [58], I found something... funny. Not the 3 blocks for personal attacks and 3 other blocks for breaking the 3RR (six total for the action he/she just repeated above), plus one for evasing ban, but the indefinite block, he got for being a puppetmaster, maintaning 10 sockpuppets (!), but that indef. ban was lifted (!!!)

Maybe I'm rude, but imho User:Juro intitiated a revert war, despite the fact, that I bolstered my version with the strongest online sources, Juro placed personal attacks in edit summaries against me ("liar") (but, reading his contrib list, it could be anybody, just look at his/her talkpage comments, for example from march or february) - two significant things, he got 3-3 bans - I think Juro just played that "one more chance", User:Bogdangiusca gave him/her. He was indef blocked, but paroled (why?). I think - from these logs and histories - that Juro is maintaining this behaviour at least since June 2006, and seemingly won't change, despite he got even an indefinite ban. Giving him mére chances won't lead to nowhere, imho. I ask for blocking him, this time, indefinietly indefinite. Thank you. --195.56.91.23 02:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: And please, an administrator revert Juro's last 6 edits (wich are marked "top" - 22:53, 20 April 2007, and five above) to my versions. I do not want to escalate this, or push Juro into a 3RR violation. Thank you. --195.56.91.23 02:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to give some context, a banned user (User:VinceB) has very recently used IPs of the same range (195.56.) and we had to remove his vandalism from articles and personal attacks from talk pages before CheckUser proved that those IPs were sockpuppets. I guess those recent problems, coupled with the fact that 195.56.91.23 had not been active since November and the only IPs from the same range belonged to VinceB, are largely responsible for User:Juro's speedy hands. Unfortunately, a request for CheckUser, the only method available to decide this case, has just been declined. Since there is no proof 195.56.91.23 is a sockpuppet of a banned user, I suggest someone informs Juro about the declined request for CheckUser and asks him no to assume sockpuppetry in this case. Tankred 15:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The context is as follows: 195.56...is 1000% Vince B. It is impossible that an alleged newbie (which the IP claims) simultaneously:

• uses the IP of exactly the banned user in question and,
• knows that he has to talk exactly to user Tankred when dealing with user Juro
• immediately knows how to check whether an IP was banned - I have never claimed the this IP was banned, that what his claim (sic!!), - or even know what a ban is
• immediately knows how to turn to this noticeboard and what to say here
• does not simply create a user account [answer: that would be outright sockpuppetry, an IP is not] * immediately refer to the use of "WP:xy" in one of his first article summaries, while this is not done even by most long-term users
• immediately decides to stalk and basically revert the last edits of a user (user Juro), who is in no conflict with any user whatsoever but user VinceB
• is from Hungary and "interested" in Hungary-related articles, but by a "coincidence" he decides to edit the section etymology in the article Slavic language while having obviously absolutely no idea in that field (just like in any other - iow. like Vince B), and "by coincidence" this section was previously edited by user Juro
• uses exactly the same type of language, style and non-sensical sentences like user Vince B (just look at VinceB's comments before he was banned, the same like above)
• there are currently maybe only 2/3 users from Hungary active in this wikipedia, the last one is always VinceB under different names

Finally, note that Vince B explicitely said one weeak ago that know he is happy to be able to edit as an IP, which "makes him independent" to edit how ever he likes. And this IP is this "independet" user...In sum, if any banned user can come and claim that he is just another person using the IP of a banned user even if the situation is as clear as in this case, then I really wonder why a ban exists at all. Juro 15:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

To be more clear: Since the result of checkuser was that this IS the IP range and behaviour of user Vince B and "please request admin action", I am hereby requesting admin action, what ever that may mean. Juro 15:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've created a username since. I'de like to comment for the above, that user:Juro called me "Vince B" [59]. It was not hard to research him, User:VinceB and that dispute, they had. Tankred placed a test template on my IP talkpage [60], I simply replied to that, and complained about Juro's behave, what I also sent to Juro. (in fact first to Juro, asking him to cool down [61]. I have experiments on other wikis, so I'm pretty well aware of wiki policies, and how to-s, however I'm not intrested in such hated ethnic debates, so if this is the standard level and style of discussion, I thank you for the experiment, and I draw my conclusions from this. For the other evidents, like I'm from Hungary, and that accusatory, tendentious style above, I do not want to comment, they speak for themselves :) All in all I feel myself offended and attacked, immediately as started editing something, Juro "owns". --Norman84 16:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I just want to note again, to cut short this hated debate, User:Juro started against me, that Juro got 6 blocks for personal attacks and revert warring before (3-3), just the actions, he's doing right now. He got an additional +1 ban for ban evasing, and an indefinite (!!) ban for sockpuppetry, maintaining 10 (!) different sockpuppets. User:Juro block log. I do not see, why indefinite ban was lifted for this user, since his block log shows, that he's doing this almost a year (June 2006) now, and did not changed. --Norman84 16:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What you have written is almost an exact copy of what VinceB said at least 5x each time he was discussed before or after a ban; the only thing everybody has to do is to look at those discussions. I have explained above why you definitely, with a probability of 100%, ARE Vince B and you do not even bother to try to change your behaviour and language ("hatred" etc.) to hide it, you just hope that nobody else knows you here, so you can lie and lie and lie. So, instead of leaving the wikipedia, stopping lying and vandalizing, you - just like always - blame someone from the group Juro - Tankred - Pannonian; you usually prefer me, because I usually do not have the time and find it ridiculous to react (just like now) and you even managed to have me banned that way without me even noticing that there was a discussion about me...Simply because no admin cares here....I would like to point out that what we are discussing here is the fact that a banned user (Vince B) continues his retaliatory actions and continues to lie about his identity. And now he has also created a sockpuppet, namely Norman84. This is outright sockpuppetry. I wait for a reaction by an admin.

Let just say that this "new user" know too much about user Juro and about Wikipedia policy. His own words: "an additional +1 ban for ban evasing, and an indefinite (!!) ban for sockpuppetry". There is no way that this could be written by new user, so it is definitely a sockpuppet of somebody, most likely of VinceB. PANONIAN (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't find any evidence that 195.56.91.23/Norman84 claims to be a new user. There are many IP editors who find their ways around Wikipedia. That does not automatically make them a sockpuppet. --Edokter (Talk) 21:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No evidence? Eh? What about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Norman84 He registered his nickname on 21 April 2007. So, he can only be either new user either sockpuppet of another "old" user. And if he is not new user, why he do not use his old nickname? What he have to hide? PANONIAN (talk) 10:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this is a very interesting situation. It is intersting to know, that should I be banned, the only thing I have to do is to wait one week, use the same IP and just claim that that's not me anymore and nothing happens (don't you see a problem with that??). I can even start to edit the same set of articles, say the same things in discussions (like here), and even say explicitely in edit summaries, that I am going to edit under my IP - when I do that everybody will be fine, right? And not only that, instead of stopping vandalizing, I could even do more: I could try to have banned those, who know that I am a banned user, because they have had to do with me for years...Because that is exactly what Vince B alias Arpad and HunTomy and all the other names has done here. Secondly, as for "new": see e.g. what he has written on my talk page (I have deleted it) or on the talk page of Tankred. Thirdly, after his last contribution above, he can claim whatever he wants, that's Vince B word by word (just look at his defences or attacks during the last months, always the same text). Fourthly, if he was not VinceB (which is definitely not the case) and not a new user, what would he be then?? Someone who happens to have the same IP as a recently banned user, immediately knows whom he "hates" (to use his own vocabulary), immediately starts to stalk the last edits of that person ("just for fun"?) and someone who knows more about bans, wikipedia policies, relations between some editors than me (and I have been here for years now), but nevertheless this Mr. Someone has remained unperceived over the last months and only now suddenly "left the darkness" to do the same things like VinceB??? What other proofs do you need, you will not get fingerprints or a court decision for this. Juro 01:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I can tell it's Vince. He sounds exactly the same, right down to the same minor grammar mistakes he habitually made. :) (No offence meant on that, Vince, English is a tricky language and I'm amazed anyone who isn't a native speaker can ever learn it.) Vince, I'm serious, just give it up. You have done nothing but drive a wedge between the Slovakian and Hungarian Wikipedians, and I'm sick of it. Our problems stemmed not from any fanatical anti-Hungarian, fascist-nationalist efforts on the part of the Slovaks, rather from your belligerence, obsessive confrontations with Tankred, and general refusal to ever calm down. Unless you can learn to be mature and civilized, do not post here again under any IP address or sockpuppet account. K. Lásztocska 02:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I see, this is a deep debate. For Juro: you just did that. :) I've read your block log, where all of what I wrote down, are in it, and even there's a link to your checkuser case, where I counted 10 sockpuppets, you used. I've clicked on one, and it was in the Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Juro. That category has a subcategory, named Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Juro wich contains User:TemporaryQWE. Clicking on it's log list, from it's block log, it is easy to find out why was it blocked, and who used it [62]. It took a total of 2 minutes to find out all of these. If someone else did it before me, and reported, it does not mean, that I'm the same person, nor the fact, that I making :) grammar mistakes, or being from Hungary, but that it is a real problem, not a debate between two users. I am sorry, but by this, practically/virtually every non-english user, who edits anything related to Hungary, can be accused with this. Checking User:VinceB's comments, I'm pretty sure, he would explicitly say that I am he, as from the links I found, and given above, and that checkuser case, where my IP was listed, seems. I haven't found any similarites between us. Not in page edit histories, not in topics, not in grammar mistakes, maybe just some misthis on kebyorad :). I edit (want to edit) Budapest ang Hungary-geo realted things, since I'm intrested in that topic. I know only minor things about Johnny Weismuller or Occupation of Vojvodina, 1941-1944 [63]. I do not know, who's PANONIAN or K. Lásztocska, who recently joined, (nor Tankred or Juro) but seemingly you all have some tensions with Hungarian users.

I just reported a user, whom I found a disruptive editor with a long block list and a lot of sockpuppets, and who recently attacked me, destroying my work, initiating a revert war, and placed personal attacks against me in edit summaries. I hope, we all agree in that this is unacceptable.

I am sorry, but I have a debate only with Juro, so I will only reply to him (her?) from now on, despite that I'm getting attacked by more and more users, as time goes on. The counter is now at 4. I quit this debate now, if Juro wants to discuss, there's my talkpage, or this section here. Please accept this. --Norman84 12:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: Back to Earth: I'm not aware about how much should a comment be supported by difflinks in english wikipedia, but on others, it is a must, no matter what the comment claims. If I can count well :) my 15 difflinks are "against" tons of emotions, and lurking suspicions, and a link, wich shows my contribution history. I am sorry, but I do not see, what that link proves. I see. I'm new only to enwiki, not to Wikipedia itself. ;) Sorry, but I do not want to argue with such lines as "What he have to hide" (grammar mistake! hmm... :) ), since it speaks for itself :)--Norman84 12:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Can Juro or PANONIAN show evidence of their claims that Norman84 (& his IP) and VinceB are the same user, e.g. similar edits made to the same articles and talk pages? It's hard to follow your arguments otherwise.

Also, I cannot see why Juro was immediately removing (legitimate-looking) comments from the talk pages; assuming good faith and linking to the result of the previous dispute would've made much more sense in my opinion. -- intgr 13:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Evidence" is listed above in my first comment (have you ever seen a "new" user immediately saying and doing things like this one?), the fact that he still has the same IP, the fact that VinceB explicitely said that he will do this, because as an IP he is "independent", the checkuser, and every word VinceB says above (compare that with last discussions with him when he was blocked, there are many of them, I do not remember all the places where they are) and in every word he has written in his edits and edit summaries (we all have been reading his mess for months, me for years, now), the fact that the chance that, given that there are 2/3 Hungarian editors in this wikipedia, we have a new one with exactly the same IP range, the same interest, the same users preferred to discuss with, the same language, the same style and a perfect knowledge of wikipedia's banning policies etc... is 0.00000000000000000000000001. He does not edit EXACTLY the same articles he edited during the last month and under his last name VinceB, of course, that would be too evident. No banned user claiming he is not himself would do that - if you want this kind of "evidence", you create a perfect precedence for all future banned users (as I have outlined above)...But still this is only a theoretical debate, because we all, VinceB, Juro, Tankred, Pannonian, Latocska (and everybody who knows him) know he is VinceB just by looking at what and how he writes. The fact that he writes "ten pages" of text (like always), in which he simply lies, does not change that....As for my ban (his favorite way to divert attention from the fact that the actual topic is he and HIS sockpuppetry), it is laughable that he mentions precisely this, because yes after years with this wikipedia, it was exactly him who forced me to create 2/3 sockpuppets (not all of the alleged sockpuppets, actually IPs, was me) in December or so, because he started to stalk me and deliberatly change my edits, and I wanted to avoid this, because I simply have other things to do in real life and cannot explain for each single edit of VinceB to an admin that the only purpose of the edit was to drive someone crazy or write some ethnic propaganda....And no admin could and can understand this, unless he has watched all his sockpuppets over the years, which of course nobody does... And do not want me, VinceB, to quote here what you have written on a talk page in the Slovak wikipedia...Juro 23:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

""Evidence" is listed above in my first comment"

That is not evidence, that is speculation.

"compare that with last discussions with him when he was blocked, there are many of them, I do not remember all the places where they are"

This is exactly what I am requesting; no admin wishes to go deep into edit histories while having a vague clue of what he is looking for. Given how long you claim to be dealing with this, I wouldn't expect it to take you 5 minutes to dig up a few examples of similarity. If you have already presented evidence like this in earlier cases, please link to that. -- intgr 00:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is an IP of a banned user and his typical behavior.[64] I am sorry, it seems I have misunderstood this result of CheckUser first. So, I have to ask any admin reading this to block User:Norman84 as a new sockpuppet of a banned user. And to VinceB: please, do not return to Wikipedia. All your sockpuppets have been blocked so far and we will not tolerate any of your edits. Tankred 02:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL I love this show above. Every newcomer is me, because they edit Hungary related topics, which as we ALL KNOW theat forbidden tio Hungarians. LOL. Now compare this accont with norman84. You are paranoid, ansd should take a wikibrake, forever. I was so happy when you wrote this: [65] oh (L). --The only sockpuppet of VinceB ever 15:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ccbond (talk · contribs)

User appears to be banned editor Harvardlaw (talk · contribs) who was given an indefinite block for removing AFD links and various other vandalism across Wikipedia. Can someone give this sock an indefinite block and delete David J. Silver as a vanity page. Thanks! --Bobblehead 06:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Having reverted some of his vandalism, I second the request. YechielMan 08:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked the account, deleted the article. -Will Beback · † · 08:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:The pink panther

I would like the community to look at the userpage of User:The pink panther. The user has put up on zir userpage that zie is [a young age]. I remember coming across a user earlier who was [young age], and his userpage was modified and page history removed since it revealed age.

I'm afraid I can't remember the name of the previous user, but I'm sure I can find it and will post as soon as I can. I also mentioned this user to Daniel.Bryant and he suggested that the [young age] year old user might have revealed other personal information as well.

Perhaps it might be better in terms of privacy for User:The pink panther to not reveal zir age?

Best regards, xC | ☎ 10:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: With the statement "I also mentioned this user to Daniel.Bryant and he suggested that the [young age] year old user might have revealed other personal information as well", I was referring to the fact that I believe the [young age]-year-old (ie. the precedent in this case) may have been revealing further information, and that was the issue. The correspondance is here. It just read slightly ambiguously to me at first, so I thought I'd clear it up. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well this post is broadcasting the user's age...He definitely doesn't know the implications of revealing his age, so I think a removal and maybe a oversight is in order... --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 10:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Age replaced with more...generic...statement :) Daniel Bryant 10:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put a note on the user's talk page and I'm waiting for a reply.... Meanwhile I suggest someone remove the various information just in case... --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 10:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's a sensible course of action - letting the user know the concerns and removing it as a precaution until they reply. Whilst there is no official policy pertaining to minors disclosing details (after this failed consensus), it always makes sense to err on the side of caution in these situations. Will (aka Wimt) 11:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, she reverted those changes made by the other editor. I think you get one free edit, as a courtesy, but if she wants to disclose her age, notwithstanding any possible consequences, then it is her right to do so. Calwatch 20:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I was going through the user contribs. and I found this... --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 11:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec) By the way, [66] [67] [68] - I stayed a long way away from the debate over at that guideline/failed/policy/essay/whatever, and I intend to stay out of this, but further input about the aforementioned would be appreciated. Daniel Bryant 11:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of being unnaturally dim... but I have no idea what you just said... --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 11:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a policy proposal or something about dealing with these kind of edits (ie. the death template). Daniel Bryant 11:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Right...I thought you meant the WP:KID thingy... I hope this won't escalate like last time. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 11:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

On the Internet, under-13s are usually considered minors. She's 13. I don't see what's the problem.

Everyone reveals as much as they choose. I reveal virtually nothing but others seem to go nuts. Generally it is uncouth to edit someone's personal page for them, but that has been done twice now. She's been warned on her talk page. IF she reverts it again, then we should just let it go in my opinion. (She may also NOT be whatever she says she is, either, as it could be a red herring.) Calwatch 20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't think she knows the implications of having her age revealed. Since she reverted my edit, I suspect that she wants it revealed so if she reverts it back, I'll just let it be. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 22:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• call me stupid but i dont think that im going to be killed or raped if someone knows im 13.sorry if my death template scares you,but i think the world is screwed up and i would like to escape it before all we have done to it comes to bite us in the butt.y'know what i mean?i think that it is only a matter of time before humans ruin the earth and wipe humans off the earth.were going that direction with our heavy reliance on technology,our morals,our authority figures/who has power.The Pink Panther 00:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll get to the point, so do you want your age revealed on Wikipedia or not? --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 01:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

i dont mind if my age is revealed.whats the big thing about my age anyway?i havent given away much,if anything,about where i live.so how would someone hurt me using just my age?the pink panther 02:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well actually your ip address shows where you live.... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 02:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

damn page logged me out without me realising it.oh well i fixed it.The Pink Panther 02:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, it's still there in the history if it's not oversighted. Maybe someone should do that? MSJapan 17:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Aggressive e-mail from blocked user

For the record (since his talk page is protected) I have received an e-mail from blocked User:Dhimwit (Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:33:44 GMT):

"Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page.

Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary.

Both at this stage and throughout the dispute resolution process, talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it."

You broke the above REPEATEDLY and should be PUNISHED by being banned

Andy Mabbett 22:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of what he said is correct, except for maybe the last sentence. ~ UBeR 00:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's because it is a quote. Only the last sentence is his own words. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Dhimwit originally sent me that e-mail after disagreeing with a week long block I gave him. In my e-mail he began it with this comment however "Because you are a power mad incompetent admin and were totally unwilling to enter into discussion at any stage, you have succeeded in your aim of pissing me off. I will now force you to read dissenting opinion that you hate so much." Is he spamming any other user's with this e-mail? --Jersey Devil 04:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not just killfile him? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, only sent me that one e-mail though, don't know if he e-mailed any others aside from myself and the person who made this report. I would indefinitely block his account if there was consensus amongst fellow users to do so. He uses that account and this IP. [69]--Jersey Devil 05:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I support it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ranjit Fernando Vandal/Stalker

A guy named crickettragic has for the last 24 to 48 hrs been vandalising this page non stop, adding rubbish in and providing a link to his Ranjit Fernando hate site. Due to his frustration at me constantly getting rid of his vandalism he has sent me numerous threatening messages on my talk page. This morning I woke up to find that my last 30 odd contributions in this place has been reverted by this user and was greeted with another message implying that he would keep doing so until I stopped reverting his Ranjit Fernando vandalism. What is the best way of dealing with this? I think for a start the page in question should be protected but due to this guy reverting so many of my posts he may have enough to qualify past semi protection. All the evidence is in this users history so if a mod could block this guy he or she would be doing me a big favour because I am not too keen on waking up every morning and seeing that 30 of my fair and genuine contributions have been tampered with. --12345ak 23:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you gave Crickettragic a lot of user warning templates. Have you tried talking it out without templates? --Iamunknown 00:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting.. since you were actually the one adding the hate sites, and he was removing them.[70] Care to explain? --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 00:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure he is the one putting in the link? Not to mention removing comments, editing comments to mislead people, reverting once, twice, reverting once at Ranjit Fernando, twice, three times, four times, five times, SIX times, once on an account that looks like a sockpuppet... I could go on and on and on here, but I think that you have violated WP:3RR and are harassing this other user. Striking because I think I and a few other users should learn to go back a little more in the history to get the true story. x42bn6 Talk 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, will you both stop accusing someone else of harassment and stalking. I personally think this incident report was a bit premature, but it appears that 12345ak thought it was the only way forward. Let's please try to sort this out, hear both sides and then try to resolve the dispute rather than escalate. (That means: be nice to all editors.) --Iamunknown 00:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I just wandered around. The misleading blog was added here, by an anon, 12345ak moved it (along with various BLP issues in later edits), Chanakaj reverted, 12345ak reverted back, Crickettragic reverted back as Chanakaj did, 12345ak reverted back, Crickettragic reverted back, and the rest is history, something like 10-20 more reversions. Then it spread to CVU and then they started reverting each other's edits at other cricketers: 12345ak starts the war. I think the first actual reversion by Crickettragic at another article was at 20:55. The rest is history. x42bn6 Talk 00:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Open and shut case... Exactly what x42bn6 said. Removing warnings on your talk page to remove the evidence won't help either.[71] --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 00:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, folks, cool down. 12345ak did not add the link, an IP added it.[72] I think what might have happened after that was just blind revert war and a failure to communicate. Sound about right, 12345ak? --Iamunknown 00:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but the edits above suggest 12345ak had an interest in the link - perhaps he was wrong to think that the link was proper (attack page?) - but the subsequent warring is horrible. x42bn6 Talk 00:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, but it goes back further ([73]) and, basically, the article has been subject to a lot of BLP-unapproved edits. The edit warring was bad but, hey, what are you going to do if you are new and someone reverts you and doesn't leave a comment? --Iamunknown 00:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm really confused because the history of the page seems to suggest that Kzrulzuall is right and the complainant is the one trying to get the link kept. JuJube 00:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he was. But crickettragic (talk · contribs) happened to undo just about every other edit 12345ak made as well, which certainly didn't help. If you were a new editor and someone started reverting all of your edits, what would you do? I'm not sure 12345ak was acting maliciously, I think it might have just been a blind revert war out of frustration because of failure in communication. --Iamunknown 00:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This link seems to enforce my point of view. Doubtful it was blind reversion.[74]. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 00:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And to stuff beans up my nose, the statistics here are actually correct so it is a good-faith edit but a bad-faith link along with BLP issues. So I think I can deduce that the link appeared to be put in my 12345ak so Crickettragic assumed it was a vandal, so there was no need to assume good faith, and then they edit warred all over Wikipedia. Kzrulzuall, it could well be a good-faith edit introducing good formatting and sectionising. The link's description was not changed. x42bn6 Talk 00:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw that diff, but I am inclined to (only because of WP:AGF) think that it was a good-faith edit by moving the link to the bottom links generally belong. --Iamunknown 00:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should just wait till we get explanations from the two of them. --Iamunknown 00:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with that... but it'll be a long wait since both of them seemed to have gone to sleep... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 00:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully I can clear this up for you guys. This bloke is a nasty troll and this complaint that he has posted was posted by myself hours ago in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. He has simply reversed the names in an attempt to cause trouble and confusion which by reading this thread he evidently has. Please look at my talk page and read the most recent comments he has left on it - "It seems that you have not learnt your lesson, you continue to vandalise the page of the great one (ranjit fernando). You are destroying the unique experience that is wikipedia. Blocking me for upholding the principles of wikipedia will do no good, as i will tell all my friends at uni to stalk all your future entries/vandalisms and revert them from university public computers if i/ranjit fernando article are blocked from editing."

Cheers, Crickettragic

12345ak has also frequently been undoing edits by Crickettragic on otherwise unrelated articles: purely to annoy him, it seems. A lot of minor edits, but frustrating none the less. For example: WP Cricket has started a de-stubbing project, which Crickettragic has been working on, and 12345ak decided to undo the following, as well as multiple others: [75] [76] [77]. AllynJ 00:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The user has been blocked by Alison. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 01:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Both have been blocked. And I really wish editors would stop overusing troll, vandal, etc. 12345ak reverted many of Crickettragic's edits, yes, but Crickettragic did the same and neither of them talked about it. Kind of seems like a failure on both sides to me. I think I'm off for at least a couple of hours: I'm exhausted --Iamunknown 01:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, hadn't spotted he had been. However I think a temp ban seems too lenient, see this particularly malicious entry on his talk page, and this one where 12345ak freely admits that he's reverting EVERYTHING CT has done today simply because of CT's attempt to remove the vandalism. CT was breaching protocol but 12345ak is being purposely uncivil, malicious and vandalising in such a big way that I'm concerned about any future contributions from this user. AllynJ 01:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to go to WP:CN about it, but I think an indef block or a ban will be too much. Despite the edit warring and attacking comments, he is not a vandal only account. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 01:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:12345ak stated that User:Crickettragic has left "numerous threatening messages " on his talk page. I just reviewed Crickettragic's last 5,000 edits, and he has left zero edits on User:12345ak's talk page. I think we owe Crickettragic an apology and 12345ak an indef block for trolling and disruption. Rklawton 01:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Crickettragic's request for unblock is getting reviewed, which hopefully, will be lifted. As for 12345ak, I would support a longer block but iamunknown's reasoning is probably accurate. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 01:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Cricket tragic is a hard working editor who does a great deal of good work on the cricket pages of wikipedia. 12345ak is a vandal who's been destroying his work in a systematic manner out of what seems like spite. The first post in this discussion shows exactly what's going on here. 12345ak should be blocked before he starts doing even more damage and cricket tragic should be left free to continue his work unmolested. User 12345ak is simply lying about his role in this and he shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt in this case because there is no doubt about who's in the wrong. Nick mallory 02:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well crickettragic has been unblocked so he can start editing again. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 03:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hi. I just got here and missed all this dialog. A third party reported Ranjit Fernando on WP:RPP for full protection as a full-on edit war was in progress. I ended up blocking both editors for 3RR for 12 hours; they were both way over the limit and the blocks were applied to stop the mayhem. Since then, User:Crickettragic asked for unblock & given the circumstances and that there was no chance of the war starting up again, he was unblocked. This was some time ago. As for User: 12345ak, he's still under a 12-hour block for 3RR but note that someone else has marked at least three other accounts as possible socks and they have been indefblocked now. Given that, I would certainly endorse 12345ak receiving the same esp. given what's happened here - Alison^☺ 03:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:12345ak was sockpuppeting. I've reviewed his edits and extended his block to indefinite. Rationale left on his talk page. —Moondyne 03:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry? He definitely deserved a indef. after that... Good research. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 04:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems he is back under a new alias, persistent young man. Lankanboy84 just made the same edit as 12345ak was doing. Either he is sockputteting again or it is someone else from the hatesite. Crickettragic 11:47, 23 April 2007

Blocked again :) - Alison^☺ 11:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Current IP seems to be User:129.169.10.56 --Dweller 13:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Block-log glitch?

I'm not sure how to check this; an attempt to block Peterm1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) gets a message that he's already blocked, but the log shows no such block. Any ideas what's going on? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No expert on this, but you could try lifting this autoblock if it's still in force before reblocking. Will (aka Wimt) 13:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting; the autoblock shows up, but not the block in the block log. Thanks for that. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Maurauth

This user is engaged in user page spam, vandalism on User talk:Yankees76, by placing false uw-npa templates [78], after being warned by that particular user for personal attacks [79]against Bucketheader on the Talk:Chinese Democracy (album) page. Quartet 14:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that this user is also placing empty (and possibly false) sockpuppet tags as well. [80]--Yankees76 14:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:24.199.41.50

This user has vandalized several articles during the last days by blanking sections, inserting insults or nonsense. Malc82 16:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The appropriate page for such reports is WP:AIV. Vandal got a week. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Good faith linkspammer User:Vanessajacynth

What does one do with a linkspammer who keeps spamming in spite of receiving multiple warnings?

I have noticed that User:Vanessajacynth has been adding a link to her personal web site on several articles (her early edits reveal that she is the creator of some images she uploaded, which came from the web site she's now spamming). In real time I have posted a warning on User talk:Vanessajacynth as each incident occurred, and those warnings went un-heeded. In fact, I deliberately didn't warn this editor in a couple of instances, and silently reverted the linkspam, because the editor has made constructive contributions to various articles.

Finally this editor reached the final warning — and subsequently posted two more links to her site on other articles (as well as a copyvio), which I have reverted. I can't seem to get her attention with warnings. What next? -Amatulic 17:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Serious BLP concerns regarding article "Jordan Anderson", please look

Resolved

I must leave the computer; will someone please look at Jordan Anderson? The article indicates that living people committed serious crimes yet is without a single citation and only has one external link (presumably a reference?). I further think that it is unencyclopedic and should likely be AfD. Thank you, Iamunknown 16:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My advice is to put an afd on the article, one of the worst I have seen on this project, SqueakBox 16:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The external link is to a news story that confirms all the facts statged in the article. Notability might be an issue still, but this does appear to be at least minimally sourced. DES ^(talk) 17:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There was some rather unpleasnat and IMO unnecessary details of violence which I removed and it now looks much better, SqueakBox 17:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just speedy it. There is no assertion of notability, plus WP:NOT a memorial (if you could call this that). A7 material. --Ali'i 17:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It was done: [81] Thanks. --Ali'i 17:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool, SqueakBox 17:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Iamunknown 18:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate location for meta discussions

Recently, there's been disputes about the appropriate location for meta discussions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Krimpet. Feel free to review if you like, but to spare you the boredom of the details;

• One side of the debate is that meta discussions regarding the format of the RfAs should be on the RfA itself.
• The other side of the debate says the meta discussions abourt format should go on the talk page of the RfA or at WT:RFA.

I can't find direction on this issue in policy or guidelines. I have my own opinions of course, but I'd like some feedback from admins. Thank you, --Durin 17:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Lost cause? Some people feel compelled to comment on RFA format in the middle of an RFA and there's little one can do to stop them. Or is this my counsel of despair talking? — coelacan — 18:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of a banned user

Resolved

I request administrative action against the following sockpuppets of the banned User:VinceB:

• User:195.56.91.23: Administrative action has been recommended at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser becase it is an IP of VinceB and his behavior.[82]
• User:Norman84: This just a user account created by 195.56.91.23.[83]
• User:The only sockpuppet of VinceB ever: An account created by VinceB to write a personal attack.[84]
• This is not his first attempt to evade a ban, see his most previous one. Could anyone help me please? Thank you in advance. Tankred 18:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Both names are blocked indef and the IP is blocked for a month. John Reaves (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Links to pro-pedophilia websites on userpage

Please direct all concerns regarding advocacy of pedophilia directly to arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org. This concerns regarding actions users or administrators have taken with respect to such advocacy. All such matters may be considered provisionally accepted by the committee, but are to be handled confidentially. Fred Bauder 12:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not disscuss this sort of wiki buisness on a mailing list, or anywher off-wiki. i will be filiong a formal RfArb, on the proepr page, since you wish this dealt with by the ArbCom. DES ^(talk) 15:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, if the ruling of the arbitration committee is that this may not be public, and that concerns must be directed privately to the arbcom mailing list, isn't that binding? A filing of request for arbitration would be a public concern. It doesn't make sense that Arbcom says "we want it private" and you would say "Ok, I'll take it up with Arbcom in public". What happens when they accept the RFAR? They then make it private and you're back at square one again. Is it just me, or does anyone else not see the logic in this? Please someone let me know because I'm really serious: am I just crazy? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If he files a request for arbitration, the request will be forwarded to the committee by email and the original request deleted. Fred Bauder 18:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack from User:COFS

Please take a look at this [85] This user has attacked me (and been uncivil) because we have different editing points of view. Something needs to be done about this guy.--Fahrenheit451 23:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't made an overt personal attack on that page; the worst thing I could find was "The moment you add unsourced statements I'll cut your head off (verbally)" [paraphrase]. Certainly his attitude has been combative and unproductive, but I'm not sure what, if anything, to do about it. A first-level warning against personal attacks might be okay. YechielMan 01:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of NPA warnings on his talk page already, as well as warnings about legal threats and other problems. I think the user is due for a 3rd or 4th level warning by now. -Will Beback · † · 01:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Since I decided to ignore Fahrenheit451s personal attacks on me more than a week ago - instead of reacting to his very personal insinuations and provocations - editing is much better. Check it out. I wish he would stick to that as well. COFS 03:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this edit by Misou counts as a succicnt 3rd-level warning.[86] -Will Beback · † · 08:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:COFS claims that "editing is much better". His recent "editing" has not been so good: [87]--Fahrenheit451 22:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd

ResolvedNothing happened. — MichaelLinnear 05:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:CINEGroup has made two edits, removing sourced material from two actresses pages (both are underage so I have purposely withheld their names). When I went to this user's page, there was a message reading "This user has retired and is not returning" or something to that effect. Could someone take a look at this?

Ispy1981 01:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. CINEGroup removed a youtube link from one, and a CRYSTALBALL Violation. Both edits are fine. ThuranX 02:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not linking to a vandalised page because the subject is underage? Does reading a page about an actress make me a pedo? Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

These two edits are okay but they are linked to a possibly troublesome underlying situation. I am following. Newyorkbrad 00:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ashkani

• Ashkani (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Artaxiad#Artaxiad 4

“ Ashkani: Possible bordering on Likely. This will need an admin's judgment call. I can say that it is the same geographical area, but on a different ISP. However, Artaxiad's IP is already blocked, so that's what would happen if he were using a work/school/etc. IP instead. It's obviously not a new user, but it's the only user on its IP, which makes it more likely it is someone who switched IPs recently. Dmcdevit·t 03:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC) ”

As per checkuser case (linked above), I hereby request an "admin's judgment call" based on Ashkani's contribs. -- Cat ^chi? 01:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have indef blocked Ashkani. He is certainly a sockpuppet of an experienced Armenian User. He appears just after a number of Armenian and Azeris were banned or put on a paroles by Arbcom. Artaxid was caught sock puppeting previously. The checkuser is compatible with him been an Artaxid's sockpuppet. Small details (like the aircraft on the userpage indicate him been Artaxid). Even if there is a small probability Ashkani been a sock of somebody else he should be blocked anyway taking into account the recent Arbcom. Alex Bakharev 09:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Support block. He was creating copyvio articles too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Could this be a community block perhaps? -- Cat ^chi? 23:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a community ban if no admin undoes it, regardless of whether it is submitted to Votes for banning. Thatcher131 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Playboy rich

This user has repeatedly ignored my massages and has continued creating the pages Under Pressure (My Chemical Romance) or Under Pressure (The Used). User:Jamdav86 has advised me that the pages should stay redirects. – Zntrip 05:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"user has repeatedly ignored my massages"... well that's one way to get his attention. Seriously, though, he's making contentious edits and has only ever made 3 talk page edits of any kind, and all of those were to blank his own talk page. That's textbook disruptive editing. I'll block him for a few days just to get his attention, and hopefully he'll start communicating with you. A Train^talk 05:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I left a 'welcome' template there with an edit summary suggesting he read the links, and backed up your redirect edit with reverts. hope that helps. (not an admin, jsut a frequent flier of ANI air.) ThuranX 05:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're being too overt with the "massages" ;) JuJube 05:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, I'm not the only who noticed that. — MichaelLinnear 06:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I hope this helps too. – Zntrip 02:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin please check all of Playboy's image uploads? They're all licensed under the GDFL, even though a lot of them are CD covers, and I'm unsure about how to approach him. – Riana ^ऋ 02:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge University Vandals

Mohammad Rafique has been having his page vandalised constantly over the last month or so and the guilty party is from an ip address of Cambridge university. Earlier today I had this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crickettragic&diff=124971642&oldid=124956079 left on my talk page from the Ranjit Fernando vandal stating that he has friends at uni willing to help him vandalise. I believe the person that has been vandalising Rafique is the same person/people from the incident earlier today. The same IP has made malicious edits to both pages over the last hour. I belive the post history on Rafique's page backs me up - Here. Crickettragic13:07, 23 April 2007

User:131.111.8.102 {{schoolblock}}ed for one month -- Avi 13:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think that it's 131.111.8.104 that has been blocked. Not sure that this is going to be very useful though because the Cambridge proxy server load balances across 10 IPs, seven of which appear active at the moment (see here). Will (aka Wimt) 13:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You're correct :) -- Avi 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I just received this on my talk page. Crickettragic13:55, 23 April 2007

Hmmm that IP resolves to the engineering department and not one of the proxy servers at all. Will (aka Wimt) 13:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that. That and the fact that the editor made a death threat, I thought a one week block wouldn't cause too many problems. I'm hoping we won't need a range block, but we'll just have to see. Rklawton 14:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope so as well, but we'll range block if we have to :( -- Avi 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to strenuously object to some extreme blocking of a tertiary institution such as Cambridge University. I've reverted Avi's 1 month block because 131.111.8.104 forms part of Cambridge's IP proxy pool. We're not dealing with a primary or high school here people -- you're talking about blocking one of the world's most famous universities and we do not need another media fiasco like we had with Qatar. The common sense thing to do here is contact the Cambridge Computing Service helpdesk. I regularly file abuse reports when it comes to universities and they tend to be very responsive when it comes to dealing with such abusive users. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well, will you fire off the letter then, please? -- Avi 15:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's 1 am in Sydney and I only came across your block through having the IP talk page on my watchlist. I can do it tomorrow when I've had more time to compile evidence. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I can do it in an hour or so (hey, it's 8am here :) ) if you like. I was involved in blocking some of the CU vandals yesterday & know some of the history now. Crickettragic pmailed me some more detail earlier - Alison^☺ 15:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

confidential@ucs.cam.ac.uk seems to be the address you want to contact. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've contacted the University by email. No response yet - Alison^☺ 19:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As a Cambridge student avoiding work who found out about this due to an irritating "new messages" message (that still hasn't gone away), I find the idea that this may get into the media laughable... it wouldn't even make Varsity. The UCS *will* do the detective work to sort this out if the person(s) concerned is reported, but I ought to point out that it the response by their college will probably be nill or (imo more likely) life-changingly harsh. 131.111.8.98 16:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as your new message is concerned, see Bug ID 9213, it will go away whenever the developers figure out what's causing it--VectorPotential^Talk 16:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's the latter, that's regrettable, but something they should have thought of before coming and vandalising our project. One would have hoped for better from supposedly one of the world's top universities. --kingboyk 19:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"New" disruptive editor - WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL violations

User:VolcanoXeni, a "new" disruptive editor has appeared in the Scientology articles and is off and running with WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL violations.

• WP:3RR - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. Restoring essentially the same material each time. Please note that COFS was blocked 48 hours for mirror image edit-warring, see here.
• WP:NPA - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. Please note responses to NPA warnings by two editors here and here.
• WP:CIVIL - Just about any talk page edit, see history. Also see edit summaries like this - I guess I am the "loonie" referred to.

As far as "new", s/he seems pretty familiar with the workings here, see here so I do not think this user deserves much in the way of "newbie slack". --Justanother 19:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am one of the users who warned him. He is clearly a troublemaker, and needs some time to think about how to improve his behaviour to comply with WP:CIVL and WP:NPA. --Tilman 19:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. – Steel 19:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sock puppets/meat puppets

I wanted to report obvious sock puppet/meat puppet abuse at the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Landau7_(2nd)

I have dealt with these two in the past and the evidence was inconclusive. Now I think it is very conclusive. Drumpler 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad Bot No Donut

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shadowbot's bot rverted a huge ammount of links and changes because I formatted one wrong (missing a "[".) On Shadowbot's page is written "Non-administrators can report misbehaving bots to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." so that's why I'm writing.

The links in question were on another wikipage so the link itself was probably not the issue but the website was aol. In the spambot message was written...

"However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bmembers\.aol\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia."Benjiboi 20:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the bot's doing its job just fine to me. There's no reason for a webgroup link to be in that article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The bot reversed that edit as well as four others that were fine and had been previously saved. I hardly feel that's a fine job.

User: 216.196.230.137 is repeatedly vandalizing the article "Cumulonimbus Cloud"

This user is vandalizing the article [Cumulonimbus Cloud] by adding bad jokes to them. This user has a history of vandalism by also vandalzing the article [tornado]. This user already has two warnings but still hasn't stopped his/her vandalism. I've provided two links to make it easier to go to the article. When you go to the articles click on the "history" tab to see what this user has done. He also violated the three revert rule on April 21.

Weather333 21:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Introduction

Wikipedia:Introduction is getting hammered by vandals. I tried reverting, but kept getting "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits." Someone should look at the page. -- Jreferee 22:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia Introduction text, can't be vandalized, no edit there ever counts as vandalism, it's like the sandbox--VectorPotential^Talk 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

MartinBotIV (talk · contribs) was supposed to be resetting the page every half hour; presumably the bot is currently down. --kingboyk 22:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah--VectorPotential^Talk 22:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I previously only knew about Wikipedia:Sandbox. The "anyone can edit" portion of "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" on the front page links to Wikipedia:Introduction, which includes four tabbed pages, the first page having "What is Wikipedia?". I just read Template_talk:Please_leave_this_line_alone and it says WP:INTRO is one of the most vandalized pages in Wikipedia. In any event, I was mistaken in that I thought it was something that needed to be reported. A red-faced oops for me! -- Jreferee 23:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep an eye on potential BLP issues on that page, as ephemeral as edits to that page may be. El_C 05:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Pyrotrees - something strange going on...?

Have a look at these diffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pyrotrees&diff=122599804&oldid=122593897 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pyrotrees&diff=125298801&oldid=122601368

User:204.102.108.32 appears (to my untrained eye) to be repeatedly adding javascript to the user page of this inactive user. I'm not really sure what's going on - but it looks like he may be trying to do something potentially 'not good', so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. What do you think, guys? --Kurt Shaped Box 23:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats java, not javascript, completely different languages, and java requires you to execute the command through a Virtual Machine. Weird, but nothing dangerous. -M^ask? 23:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Any idea what it all means, as a matter of interest? --Kurt Shaped Box 01:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's real-life-example code. As code it does nothing, but if you were going to describe how you, as a person, would change cd's in a cd player in java, not english, this is what it would look like. It means nothing on a computer, but is useful for a teacher to make sure the student understands the syntax. -M^ask? 02:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jiahilmi

User created an article about a deceased person on userpage. This is users first edit. It may be a copyvio (I haven't checked). I am not certain what process to involve. -- Cat ^chi? 23:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a copyvio, from here. -M^ask? 23:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Go, G12, go! hbdragon88 23:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Userpages Vs WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:POINT again and again

I hope this would be the last time i'd deal w/ these childish stupidities. My stance on the matter of pointy and provocative userpages has been cristal clear. My question to the disruptors is Are you here to imporve Wikipedia?

Yes absolutely → Then you are more than welcome and many thanks. Your efforts are so appreciated.

Yes absolutely but it is my userpage and please don't censor it → then you move your ass and look for a web space provider.

The issue has been involving, for a relatively long time now, a few editors. I am talking here about User:Embargo and User:Matt57.

• User:Matt57's case: Level-headed editor Proabivouac had already spoken to him about the matter here after removing a quote of Hadith from his userpage before he reverted back under the pretext that [he's] not responsible for actions of other users.
• User:Embargo's case: I had already blocked him for a 24h period on December 11, 2006 because of provocative userpage after warnings. You can refer to his talkpage and userpage history for further info. Now and after the involvment of many admins, he is still posting a Sanhedrin (Talmud) tractate in response to Matt57's case (according to him).

So, what is the problem w/ both userpages? Well, Matt57 wants to make a pointy argument about the treatment of women in Islam by using such hadith. Embargo, on the other hand wants to make a similar point about pedastry in Judaism.

Please note that i've interacted w/ both users in the past w/ a relatively both positive and negative outcomes. My patience as an admin is almost gone (i hope not) and i think my n-time involvment on this matter would make things worse (i.e. harsh blocks). Therefore i hope some admin(s) can deal w/ this matter once for all.

P.S. I am not sure if there are more similar cases as i am not a policeman but please let me know if there are any. We are still dealing w/ This guy has racist stuff on his userpage!'s case above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted both as violations of WP:USER. -- Avi 15:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Avi. Appreciated. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

rv VANDALISM - take it to arbitration committee. Is there an arbcom ruling on this, or is it obvious from WP:USER? -- Avi 16:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the quote from the Talmud, even though user:Prester John still keeps his Hadith quote. I intend to keep my userbox supporting Hezbollah, if you have heard of the debate (scroll down), and to which user:Ryan Postlethwaite seems to ideologically object. Emбargo 17:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John's case is dealt w/. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Avi and Faysal, let me clear this with you - Do you agree with me that ALL religious quotes should be deleted from user pages? See user Itaqallah's page. I'm not trying to be disruptive or proving a point or whatever - the issue is simple. Either religious quotes should be allowed on user pages, or they should not. Please also remove the religious verse on Itaqallah's page. It is unfair and discriminatory to say that one user can have a religious quote to express their approval of a religion, while another cannot have a quote to express their disapproval of the religion. The policies in Wikipedia must be applied uniformly. Besides this user, there are many user pages where religious quotes are displayed. They should ALL be taken down, irrespective of the language, context or nature of the quotation. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That has nothing to do w/ your cases Matt. We are dealing w/ WP:POINT here. You can quote whatever you want as long as it is not provacative and polemical or a campaign for or against anything or anyone. Read the quote below. I hope it is cristal clear.

• Polemical statements:

“ libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea' ”

- Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia co-founder

If you can prove to us that you were not making a point then that would be another matter. If you can prove to us that Itaqallah is making a point then that would be another matter as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Matt57 - no religion prostelyzing or bashing. Wikipedia is not the Free speech corner in Hyde Park where everyone gets to take the megaphone and shout to the whole wide world their beliefs, problems, dreams, nightmares or I don't know what. Use Youtube people, it is much more fun and less stressful for that sort of stuff. Or MySpace or whatever.Baristarim 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide me w/ facts (policies and guidelines) re this? Also, where's the youtube stuff at Itaqallah's page? Did anyone ask you Baristarim to remove the atheist userbox at your userpage or the Ataturk's Peace at home, peace in the world. stuf? No. Why? Do i have to repeat it again and again? Because they are just NOT PROVOCATIVE! Did anyone ask you Baristarim to remove "This user supports the independence of Cascadia" which you were arguing against on another thread? No. So where is the problem? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Cascadia box is just for kicks :) Anyways, I will join in the conversation later. Baristarim 18:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That is reasonable. Itaqallah's slogan is borderline. Arrow740 18:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Borderline or not. The issue is simple: Having religious polemical statements on userpages is not allowed. I can translate my statement into French or Arabic too and could defend doing that but I wont. The simple and correct way is to agree to remove all religious content from user pages and stick to the policies and apply them uniformly. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Faysal, it is irrelevant whether I'm trying to make a point. If I saw a user with a userbox which I also wanted to copy on my page, does it mean I'm trying to make a point? No. I liked that verse on my userpage. It expressed my disapproval of a religion, just like another verse expressed approval of the religion on another user's page. I'm prepared to take this debate to any length so we can be fair to everyone. The quote you mentioned also said "campaign for or against anything ". Having religious quotes on userpages to express the approval of the user's religion means campaigning for the certain religion. Having my quote was campaigning against the religion, obviously. We must remove all religious quotations - that includes Itaqallah's arabic verse on his userpage. I agree to comply with Wikipedia's policies but they should be applied uniformly. Wikipedia's policy states that campaigning FOR is also not allowed on a user's page. Itaqallah's verse must be go as well. I find Itaqallah's verse provocative, because I dont approve at all of the religion he is trying to promote on his user's page. Policies must be applied fairly so please, remove Itaqallah's religious quotation also on his user page.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed ItaqAllah's polemical statement from his user page. Do we all agree on this? thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a strong opinion on which interpretation to favor, but it appears that by FayssaIF's standard, Surah 3 verse 102 is polemical. — coelacan — 20:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User Netscott reverted my removal of Itaqallah's polemical statement on his user page. I want to hear administrator's confirmation (particularly Faysal's) that, all religious polemical text (irrespective of language, text or nature) should be removed from a user's page. As I said, I'm prepared to participate in any amount of debate to make sure that policies are applied uniformly to all users. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly, not all religious texts are polemical. Professing a belief is typically less provoking than attacking another belief. Distinction is possible and discression required. "Make a narrow rule, so that I can (barely) honour the word, but ignore the spirit" is not the way Wikipedia works.--Stephan Schulz 23:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Having a religious quotation from your holy book is campaigning for that religion. Campaigning is not allowed on user pages: "campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea", said Jimbo Wales. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your premise is wrong. Having a quotation from a holy book is not necessarily campaigning. It can be, but it can just as well be a simple profession of faith, or just showcasing a profound thought or beautiful literature. Like a lot of things, it depends on the details and context. --Stephan Schulz 00:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So whats the limit to what we can and cannot quote from religious texts on our user pages? Can I quote anything from the Quran? This would not be a big problem if people said NO to all reliogious quotes on user pages. If a Muslim has a quote from the Quran on their user page, then I should also be able to have a quote from the Quran on my user page. Thats all I'm saying. If somoene can express approval of the faith they belong to, then for fairness, I should be able to express my disapproval of the religion. Why is that a big issue? And if you see below, people are voicing their disapproval for having any religious texts on user pages and this is what should be done, for fairness. Either allow all quotes or dont allow them, but DONT be selective about what can be quoted and what not. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don'y you suggest it on Wikipedia talk:User page and see how it goes.--Sefringle 01:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I aready did that on that page last month, and it petered out after a few replies. Tarc 13:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(dedent)Either allow all quotes or don't allow them, [...] - I guess your world is very black and white. The argument is nonsensical. "Either kill all life on Earth, or don't kill at all." "Either eat all the chocolate in the supermarket, or none at all". "Either allow people to own all kinds of weapons, or no weapons at all." "Either allow driving at any speed, or at no speed at all."...and the list goes on. This world has more shades of gray (and don't let me start about various colours!) than you seem to be aware of. --Stephan Schulz 17:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

An excellent religious quotation comes to mind. It appears in several versions.

1. ""What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man." Hillel the Elder
2. "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them...." Matthew 7:12, King James Bible [88]
3. "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you...." Matthew 7:12, New International Bible [89]
4. "Don't be a dick." Wikipedia [90]

That is all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee rulings from five days ago:

While not explicitly stated on Wikipedia:User page, it is implicit there that users should refrain from creating user pages likely to bring the project into disrepute. Passed 8-0 at 21:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors are generally permitted to include in their userspace a limited amount of non-inflammatory personal expression not directly related to encyclopedic collaboration, including moderate declarations of POV. Passed 8-0 at 21:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

From Billy Ego-Sandstein. Take that as you please. Daniel Bryant 01:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Embargo (talk · contribs)

Embargo insists on re-adding an inflammatory userbox on his userpage, despite numerous complaints over the past few months on his talk page. This is the current userbox which I have removed, it reads This user supports islamic resistance wikilinking to Hezbollah, now I'm no islamic expert, but I know that in many countries, Hezbollah is very controversial political party (I think the USA still class them as a terrorist organisation). The statement is clearly polemical, as all the similar userboxes have been which embargo has been putting up. Please could an uninvolved admin have a look at the userbox that I removed? Ryan Postlethwaite 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Also, the continued replacement of a quote from the Talmud as a WP:POINT against Matt56 hadith quote (which was removed) shoudl also be reviewed. See rv VANDALISM - take it to arbitration committee. -- Avi 16:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• I've reverted back to the non-offensive version. This is getting to be an extreme exercise in WP:POINT -M^ask? 16:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • (Into the hot water) As much as I despise Hezbollah's acts of terrorism (I cannot call actions which intetionally kill innocent civilians anything else) I do not think that the formulation This user supports islamic resistance (wikilinking to Hezbollah) is per-se so inflammatory that it is not allowed on userpages. Go to arbitration if you must, but I feel repeated editon of another user's userpage in such a controversial case is not "good"; also, what would you do if the text in question was not placed inside of a userbox but *gasp* plaintext on his userpage. Would you still remove it then? Or would you allow it to stand? Where does the right to show bias end? People supporting Israel's retributive actions against Paleastinian acts of violence (and vice versa) would have to remove that information too. And people supporting the Iraq war (or opposing it). And people following radical muslim faith. And radical Christians (time of troubles in Northern Ireland, anyone). And Muslems and Christians and Atheists in general. etc. etc. etc. And then were are left with "This is an userpage" (End of File) CharonX/talk 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • However, it's clearly a polemical statement, which are against WP:USER, it's not even margianlly an infringement, it's perfectly clear cut. I'm sure Israeili people will be clearly offended by this statement, I think that says it all Ryan Postlethwaite 17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I went and blocked him for 3RR for a couple days until this clears up. I don't know whether or not it's a problem, if this must be taken to arbcom then do so. They may accept it, they may not.--Wizardman 17:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Technically, you can't really 3RR in your own userspace, but this delightful bit of trolling probably justifies your block anyway.--Isotope23 17:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is something that has been discussed before [91] [92]. The behavior of this user has been discussed numerous times as well [93] [94]. Embargo knows what he is doing. He is intentionally being disruptive. IrishGuy ^talk 17:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

...which is why I support the block. I know this is getting lumped in with the Matt issue from the other ANI post above, but these are slightly different situations. Neither really should be posting polemic statements on their userpages, but Embargo in particular seems to have a history of trolling.--Isotope23 17:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just before his block he created a redirect for Islamic resistance to hezbollah. Would anyone support a longer block due to the amount of trolling that he's done in the past? I'm kinda involved so maybe I'm not the best person to suggest this, but I propose moving it upto 10 days. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

............And block evasion??? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the IP. If someone wants to extend the account block I'd leave it to their discretion.--Isotope23 18:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And 'round and 'round this goes again. As I've said before, Embargo isn't exactly an agreeable person (in a wikipedia editing sense), but can you see where the uneven treatment can make him get a bit steamed? If there's really going to be "no polemical statements" allowed on user pages, then it must be enforced uniformly and this back-and-forth "some admins delete UserBoxA, but a similar UserBoxB is allowed to stay" stuff has got to come to an end. User:Matt57's (not 56 as noted above) quote is at this moment deleted, but when Embargo brought it to Viridae's attention, Viridae responded with "I can't see anything offensive about at all" ? Also note the previous time where Twas_Now was the one who suggested that either "This user supports armed resistance" or "This user supports resistance to hostility" (both with wikilinks to Hezbollah, note) would be, quote, "good for you" to use.

This is really what needs to be addressed; the need fora uniform policy for ALL user pages that will be upheld by ALL admins. Tarc 19:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Many, many things that may be offensive aren't, this is. Use WP:UCS when evaluating these and all is well. Life is unfair sometimes, it's true, and the onesthat can really be offensive can go, but most aren't offensive, just irksome. -M^ask? 20:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly the kind of BS hypocrisy that has gotten this user into trouble in the first place. Tarc 22:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this user got in trouble for spearheading WP:POINT, which is what most people who do these sorts of userboxes end up doing. Also the people who go around removing every piece of religious text end up getting into as well. Common sense, its a wonderful thing, any one who doesn't use it often should try it. -M^ask? 22:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Arabic, Itaqallah, and Matt (arbitrary section break)

I have agreed to the removal of religious text from my page, as long as the policy is applied to ALL, as user Tarc pointed out above. This user Itaqallah also has religious text (it doesnt matter if its in Arabic. It must go as well). I had removed it but was reverted and threatened by a block from Netscott for removing it. Can someone please remove this so it is clear the policy is applied to all uniformly? We're also discussing this 2 sections above this one. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed. This should be discussed with the other pages. -- Avi 01:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I must say I am not in agreeance with the removal of User:Itaqallah's Qur'anic quote for the following reasons: (1) It's in Arabic and (2) it is addressed to "those who believe" and (3) the primary reason that its removal has come about is User:Matt57's pointed addition of a "hadith" (I still am very doubtful as to the nature of Matt57's quote due to the fact that I could only find it mentioned on anti-Islam punditry sites). If the quote on Itaqallah's page was addressed to those who didn't "believe" as though they'd be subject to eternal damnation or some other such nonsense then I'd understand the removal but I don't see what User:Matt57 or (User:Embargo for that matter ) was doing as equivalent to Itaqallah's display. (→Netscott) 05:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It may well be that when all is said and done that such quotes would be allowed for the reasons you mention. However, as it is a point of discussion now, I felt it better to simultaneously discuss it here and try and prevent any appearances of impartiality. I would say, that being that this is English wiki, it would be a prudent idea to, at the very least, have an accurate translation of foreign sayings on user pages to help forestall any misconceptions. -- Avi 05:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Embargo wasn't the only one violating WP:POINT. as i explained to Avi, Matt57 put up that particular extract on his page in order to be provocative, and in particular, bait a response from me [95][96][97][98], despite him believing that scriptural extracts weren't allowed on user pages.[99] ITAQALLAH 15:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Netscott, the language, nature or context of the Quranic verse should not matter. Either all users should be allowed to have quotes from Islamic sources on user pages, or they should not. If I'm not allowed to have an Islamic source on my userpage, then it would be wrong for anyone else to be allowed to have a quotation. My question will then be: Whats the limit to what I can quote and not? I find ItaqAllah's Quranic verse "No one should die except in the state of Islam" as offensive. Please read my arguments above. If someone is allowed to express their approval of Islam, then others should be allowed to express their disapproval of the same. If you apply Wikipedia policies, you will arrive at the right decision which is, to not allow campaigning for or against anything. Having this Quranic verse qualifies as campaining for Islam and is thus wrong. I agreed to have my quotation removed and I expect that for fairness, everyone else including Itaqallah should accept the same judgements for their user pages. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt, my actions should not indicate that I agree that no religious quotations per se exist, but there should definitely be no statements that lead to project disruption. Pointed comments about stoning women, pedastery, killing infidels, ritual murder, theft, superiority of any one religion, race, or creed versus others (to name some hypothetial examples) are forbidden under WP:USER. Things like love your fellow man, live in peace and harmony, likely help the project.

In this situation, I felt that possibly disruptive comments should be removed, especially in a foreign language where the intent of the statement is unknown to 99% of project members. This issue needs to be hashed out and a consensus reached. My own personal opinion (FWIW) is that positive comments, even if religious in origin, are likely not disruptions, and should be permitted, but anything that can be considered disruptive should be removed, religious or non-religious. I removed the arabic comment because I could not be sure as to its meaning, and it was brought into a conversation about disruption, and the fairest result in my mind was to remove it for the time being, and reinstate it if it can be shown to be acceptable. It is not a comment as to the nature of the statement, as of now, since I am not certain as to the exact meaning just yet. -- Avi 15:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. "superiority of any one religion", thats what Itaqallah's verse said: "die not except in a state of Islam.". So not only is this a violation, it is also in Arabic as you pointed out. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"I find ItaqAllah's Quranic verse "No one should die except in the state of Islam" as offensive"- it doesn't say that at all. you are misquoting a religious text, and this is not the first incidence of such. ITAQALLAH 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, please dont falsely accuse me of misquoting. The verse says what I said it says: "die not except in a state of Islam." --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

you've changed your attribution. it's still a misquote though, as per your partial quoting. you strip it of context to forward your own point. ITAQALLAH 15:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, Itaqallah, in your opinion based on context, what does it mean and what is its purpose on your talk page? -- Avi 15:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

it means that Muslims should a) have taqwa (the actual word used in the verse) and; b) die as Muslims. it's on my page as i find it an inspiration, and is one of the most well-known verses of the Qur'an, and it has never seemed inappropriate to quote from religious texts, as a large part of the Wikipedia community currently does. it's in Arabic because, as Pickthall and others opine, no translation can fully encapsulate the meaning of the Arabic itself. ITAQALLAH 16:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, why did you not quote the full verse? It says in addition: "Do not die except in a state of Islam". This means that Islam is a superior religion. I should then be allowed to say "Dont die in the state of Islam", so again - where does it end? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

... please read my comment again. ITAQALLAH 16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Saying that "one should die in a state of Islam" means campaining for Islam. This is not allowed on Wikipedia according to Jimbo Wales. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If I understand the context correctly, the verse in question seems little more polemic than the Shema, one of the most basic affirmation of faith prayers in Judaism, which also speaks to those already in the faith. I see nothing wrong with it's presence on the userpage. (standard IANaAdmin Caveat) ThuranX 00:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Any other admin's care to weigh in? -- Avi 18:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

meh, its a non-polemic statement of faith. If it said 'I wish non-muslims would die' or 'I wont work with jews' or 'I worship the grand wizard' or something, thats polemic. A non-offensive statement of faith is fine. Even embargo up there, I believe, would've been fine if he had just had a ubx that said 'I oppose the continued military prescence in the occupied territories'. No, he said he believes in islamic resistence and linked to hezbollah. Just think about these things people. "Will people go apeshit if I do this?" isnt that hard a question to ask yourself. -M^ask? 01:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The verse can only be taken as campaigning. If the word Mu'minun (the object of address) is taken to be "believer" (though I recently read a paper of Stillman who essentially disproves this), then the verse can be saying that all people who believe in God shouldn't die except in a state of Islam. That's proselytizing. Even if it means only Muslims shouldn't die except in a state of Islam, that's telling Muslims "don't leave Islam." It's campaigning no matter how you interpret it, and the presentation of this message in a foreign language is discomfiting. Arrow740 06:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, it doesn't matter what you think the verse means; all that matters is what Itaqallah thinks the verse means. And the way he interprets the verse, there is no campaigning. --Kirby♥time 06:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What? Is he the only one seeing it? Further, as he interprets it, it means, excluding the "taqwa" issue that may be addressed in another place, "Muslims, die as Muslims." So, "Muslims, don't leave Islam." That is certainly campaigning. Arrow740 07:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. If a Userpage has a swastika, it is not provocative if the swastika in question is being used in the context of a Hindu religious symbol. If someone else interprets it to be a Nazi swastika, that sucks for them.--Kirby♥time 07:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

First I should say that not all swastikas should be acceptable. Second, you didn't bother to address the point I will now make for a third time, that itaqallah is at best telling Muslims "stay Muslim." That is campaiging. Arrow740 07:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not campaigning, that's Preaching to the choir. Campaigning means to go after people with uncertain convictions, while a "Muslim", by its very definition, has a certain conviction. I see his message as harmless as a Christian saying "Christians, believe in Jesus".--Kirby♥time 07:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As a "former Muslim" you must have once been a Muslim with uncertain convictions. The message is (in his interpretation) directing Muslims to not change their religion before they die. It is more strident than your example. Arrow740 07:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not the contributor. And I fail to see how being a bit more "strident" makes it unacceptable.--Kirby♥time 08:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that this issue even exists.

There is no question that Matt57's addition runs afoul of WP:POINT, though I doubt it was intended to disrupt thee encyclopedia. Matt57's quote, designed as it is to cast Islam in a negative light, is somewhat inflammatory, and should certainly stay removed. I take him at his word that he strongly feels that if positive representations of Islam are allowed, so should negative ones. There is a certain logic to this, but let's use common sense: someone saying their religion is right is not quite as inflammatory as saying your religion is wrong, even though the second is logically entailed by the first, because the second is overtly confrontational. I doubt that Matt57 meant to troll per se, but it has a similar effect.

User:Embargo is in an entirely different league; besides his overt antisemitism and paranoia, he is routinely uncivil and appears to be here mainly or only to troll; a Community Ban might be considered.

Now for the borderline case, Itaqallah's quote. The recent ArbCom ruling, "Editors are generally permitted to include in their userspace a limited amount of non-inflammatory personal expression not directly related to encyclopedic collaboration, including moderate declarations of POV." I belive this strongly disallows Embargo's behavior, weakly disallows Matt57's and allows Itaqallah's. This ruling appears to have been based upon WP:USER, which disallows "extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia," as well as "polemical statements." However, there is a difference between "inflammatory" and "polemic." Polemic's Greek root means essentially "belligerent," but nowadays means argumentative, particularly about controversial topics; ArbCom's wording could have (and should have) been stronger. Still stronger is Jimbo's quote, "using userpages to...campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea," but of course that only says it is a bad idea, not that it is disallowed. Itaqallah's quote is not inflammatory, might be construed as borderline polemical, and probably amounts to "campaigning for...anything." It is not disallowed, but it is a bad idea.

Like politics, religion is famously controversial, as it was when Itaqallah's quote was written, and remains so today. Banning all religious and political statements from userpages would discourage factionalization, protect users from being typecast and help us all get along. However, the community is not there yet; too many editors are invested in the notion of userpage as a platform for self-expression, and too many others fail to appreciate the degree to which this contributes to factionalization and battlegroundish behavior on talk space and in mainspace. Even when one edits fairly neutrally, declarations of partiality towards a subject one frequently edits creates the appearance of bias. Conversely, when people are asked to pretend that they are neutral, they will often wind up thinking more neutrally as a result.

To return to my original point, it's unfortunate that this issue even exists. It would be far simpler, and take so much less time for us all to parse, to simply ban all irrelevant opinions from userspace, for it shall be far easier for us to decide which viewpoints are irrelevant than which are unacceptable. I suppose I agree with Matt57 that clear and relatively objective rules are warranted. Barring that, we are doomed by our own hand to repeat these discussions again and again, arguing about what is or is not inflammatory, polemic, extensive, etc.Proabivouac 07:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/ Proabivouac on many points → (Itaqallah's quote is not inflammatory, might be construed as borderline polemical, and probably amounts to "campaigning for...anything." It is not disallowed, but it is a bad idea.) It is all about common sense. I must remind everyone that it was me who started this thread(s) and it was mainly because Embargo and Matt57 were making a point and provoking the community. Why? Embargo seems to be a Muslim having a Talmudic quote about pedastry in Judaism while Matt57, while being an atheist (as it is stated on his userpage) was quoting a hadith about the treatment of women in Islam.

Many users use the {{Torah_portion}} on their userpages. Is that inflammatory or provocative? NO! Why? Because they are Jewish and do not intend in any way to provoke anyone. So arguing about Itaqallah's Quranic verse is clearly a pointy argument. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As Prov said, the simplest and best solution for this to have consistent and easy to follow rules: You either disallow everyone to have religious quotes, or allow them. Allowing them causes factionalization as Prov said - thats why Jimbo Wales said its a bad idea (becuase its campaining for Islam). If someone is going to praise Islam on their home page, that is inflammotory to me because Islam says I'll burn in Hell. I should have the freedom to say whatever I want to say about Islam too, if others are allowed. That verse was offensive to me because it said everyone should die in the state of Islam. If thats true, I should be allowed to say everyone should not die in the state of Islam. Both are equivalent statements; niether is more inflammotory than the other - thats the main point here. The only solution is to keep religious quotes and these kinds of separations out, otherwise the question will always be: What is allowed? And as Jimbo said and he was right: campaining is a bad idea. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally speaking, i'll be supporting the idea. However, you fail to understand Matt that your and Embargo's quotes were an intent to provoke others. As for Itaqallah's verse, as he explained, it was his inspiration as it is the case for many Jewish and Christian and other religious users as well as atheists. What i fail to understand is that why are you insisting on Islam while avoiding talking about how Judaism and Christianity view and consider atheists. Why Itaqallah in particular?! Isn't it your own POINT which i've been refering to since my first post above? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What the verse essentially says is that anyone that doesn't die as a Muslim will be punished and burn in hell. That anyone should see something like that as "inspirational" is pretty much beyond my comprehension, but of course anyone is free to choose. Anyway, what matters here is that I believe that users should be able to visit each others user space without having to be confronted with such unpleasant threats, and the problem is not only with Itaqallahs user page. BrandonYusufToropov's user page also "welcome" non-Muslim visitors with a threat about hellfire, and on his page it is written in plain English. I have no idea what his intention was when he added it, and perhaps it has indeed been very much inspirational to him, but I still believe that is more important that users can visit each others pages without being exposed to any such threats. -- Karl Meier 21:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support Karl Meier's removal of this material from User:BrandonYusufToropov's user page.[100] According to current policy, material which is religious in nature is neither specially forbidden nor specially protected; the relevant questions are whether the material is inflammatory, polemic, extensive or campaigning. This presence of this quote is naturally interpreted as promising other editors - and perhaps also wishing upon them - eternal torment, and is plainly (and literally) inflammatory and divisive. "Go to Hell" is an uncivil insult in any spirit; how much more so when it is said in all seriousness.Proabivouac 07:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"What the verse essentially says is that anyone that doesn't die as a Muslim will be punished and burn in hell"- the problem with Karl's point here is that the verse doesn't say that at all, and so i call into question whether or not Karl is aware of precisely what verse is under discussion. ITAQALLAH 08:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This was another divisive and campaining verse, a stronger one. We must remove all religious quotes. Faysal, my intent wasnt to provoke. Its simple: either everyone should be allowed to have verses or not. The intent is irrelevant. If Itaqallah and BYT wants to educate the public about some aspect of the Quran they want to show to everyone, I did exactly the same. We can end this matter by deciding to remove religious quotes from userpages like Itaqallah's and BYT, because again, that is campaining for an issue, in this case, Islam. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I too would simply like to see a uniform policy in regards to this situation. I got dragged into all of this because of Embargo's case, where he worked out a compromise with one admin, only to have another admin revoke that, as well as decline to apply the same standard to other users. Whether the ultimate decision is "no polemicals" or "some polemicals" or whatever, I just want to see something that is applied across the board. Tarc 13:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is time to take this to Wikipedia talk:User page and discuss it. I believe that we've achieved somehow what this thread has requested. Now, we need to move forward and archiev this. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Another userpage has been introduced to the discussion,[101] so archiving is premature.Proabivouac 07:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody please fill me in. The reason no one could ask whether I would mind removing this material from my userpage is that . . .. ? BYT 10:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

We should also be removing this userbox from userpages as it faces the same problem:

This Muslim user strongly condemns any terrorist attacks and would like to point out Sura 4:29 of the Quran that says,"And do not kill yourselves (nor kill one another). Surely, Allah is Most Merciful to you."

--Sefringle 20:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoa that was a huge userbox that messed up my page. Cutting size by half. If it looks weird, my maths are wrong. As for the issue at hand, the statement on itaqallah's page is from one of the most widely distributed religious texts in the world, and is a non-polemic. It is no different than a userbox saying "Jesus christ is my lord and savior" or "Shma yisrael adonai eloheinu adonai echad", or "Hail Mary..." or "Our father...." etc. It's not divisive, it's not polemic, it's not aggressive and offensive and harmful. It's a nonissue. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on this as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the guy doesn't communicate and keeps reverting so i've just protected his user page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)