Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Miltopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Miltopia has decided it is in Wikipedia's best interests to welcome those who are here for disruption. Cplot harassment account OurAnthem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made four edits, the last being a test3 vandalism warning to my talk page[1], and at the same time, Miltopia decided to welcome him [2]. I'd appreciate a neutral third party remind Miltopia that welcoming those who are here for disruption is disruptive.--MONGO 06:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My experience with Miltopia on Encyclopedia Dramatica has been that he generally tries to tone down anti-Wikipedia activity. I have personally tried to create attack pages on ED and have been reverted by him. Look at this: <www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Miltopia>. He's actually getting on some of their nerves because of this. He also mediates disputes between users. I know that you don't like ED, MONGO, but Miltopia really isn't the person to go after here.--Desnm 06:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

None of what you posted has anything to do with the fact that he decided to welcome an obvious vandal after that vandal left a ridiculous warning on my talkpage. Please use your real account next time you post here if you want any credibility.--MONGO 07:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no other account I can use.--Desnm 07:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So warned. Based on the times of the edits, I think it's unlikely that he posted the welcome at 03:22 after seeing the troll edit to your talk page, also at 03:22, but I'll bet he saw the earlier edits. Thatcher131 07:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, the vandal account made an edit at 22:22, Miltopia welcomed him at 22:22 and a User:PullToOpen tagged the account with a sock tag at 22:22. Miltopia simply has my talkpage watchlisted and decided to welcome the vandal soon as he saw the vandalism to my talkpage. The times are all in the same minute, but Mitopia was on line and had just made an edit a few minutes before.(22:22 CTZ in U.S., sorry about that)--MONGO 07:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly possible. Thatcher131 07:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also possible that I was watching WP:AN, having edited there recently and saw his comment, tried and failed to revert it (got beat to the punch, see below) and figured he was about to get banned anyway. Furthermore, it's also possible that I care so little for MONGO that he could go on a 3 month wikibreak and the only hint I would have of his departure is the lack of pointless threads on ANI about me. Milto LOL pia 10:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If, in fact, you do try to tone down the garbage on ED, any chance you can work with somebody to get that disgusting crap about Sceptre out of there? The kid is 15, for God's sake. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I may get lynched for saying it, but in the interests of Wikipedia, someone has to - whatever happened to assuming good faith? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So, welcoming an vandal account is not disruptive?--MONGO 08:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. He was banned. The welcome had zero effect whatsoever. Milto LOL pia 10:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As much as I never thought I would ever say this, I'm with Miltopia on this one. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 10:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Whilst welcoming a blatant vandal isn't the most productive use of time, it will do no harm; it's certainly not disruptive, and this seems like a complaint with no grounds. Proto::► 12:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Posting a welcome message to a vandal account is certainly not disruptive. I often see someone vandalize, and give them a welcome message as a sort of "Hey, we can see you! Why not edit constructively?" wake-up call. It's sometimes more effective than a {{test1}}. I've certainly welcomed people, only to have my welcome message replaced in a mintue with {{indefblockeduser}} or whatever it's called, when someone else pegged them as a sock of some banned user. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The complaint wasn't that a welcome message was posted. The complaint was this particular user, with this particular history and with a recent ArbCom decision decided to welcome a troll that was harassing MONGO. Coincidence? Maybe the first time. Maybe even the second. But this is about the twentieth "coincidence." It iwll be a nice reference for the next coincidence. --Tbeatty 06:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't appreciated the context of the situation when I made my above comment. I was reacting to the idea that welcoming a vandal is automatically disruptive, but now I see that there's more going on than that, and I agree that this particular welcome message was a bad idea. I hope that Miltopia finds a way to contribute here without aggravating any situation around MONGO, and I hope that if he does find that way, the community is able to believe it, and accept his presence here. I hope we all are able to edit in ways that de-escalate conflicts and reduce drama. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Desnm created that account to defend Miltopia, first edit, sure knows a lot about me! It's also possible that Miltiopia could be indefinitely blocked from this website and it would be of nothing but benefit to this website...I see zero constructive edits. Peter Dodge and Proto shouldn't be defending disruptive behavior here as this isn't a playground.--MONGO 16:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate it if you would explain how this disrupts anything significant. It was a waste of space and of time, certainly, and not a serious or wise action, to be sure, but the only disruption that it appears to have caused for users other than Miltopia is this very acerbic section. Is there need for such hostility here? Calling for community banning of a user, discounting the entirety of the user's contributions to Wikipedia, making insinuations regarding sock puppet abuse, admonishing users for having an opinion that differs from your own - are such actions really necessary over such a minor issue? Think for a moment about the situation - is all of this hostility warranted for putting a welcome template put on a vandal's talk page? --Philosophus ^T 16:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no hostility on my part. I have done nothing wrong except inform the community that Miltopia is still being disruptive. The vandal account he welcomed was created by Cplot, who has created the largest sock army I have ever seen on wikipedia, and who has been vandalizing numerous pages for months now. Desnm creates an account and his/her first edit is here to defend Miltopia and knows a lot about me and you tell me that isn't a sock account of someone? Simply put, we don't aide and abet vandals by welcoming them on their talkpages. It's not like this is the first time Miltopia has been supportive of disrution, or been so himself.--MONGO 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

But again, how is this disruptive? I don't see how it aides and abets vandals, besides the possibility that it could be seen as a symbolic gesture. It's not like the welcome is "Welcome to Wikipedia! Here is a guide to vandalism and here are some pages that could be vandalised". --Philosophus ^T 20:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, can you just drop it? No one has responded any of the times you or Hipocrite have tried to get me banned. I don't go around complaining about you, so why don't you just find something else to do? Milto LOL pia 20:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Can you please explain how posting {{welcome}} on a vandal account's page is disruptive? It's just a boilerplate welcome, not an endorsement of any particular misbehavior. —Dgies^t c 07:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WHOOPDEDOO

I had just tried to revert him on WP:AN and had been beaten to the punch by someone with rollback. I welcomed him as a joke, knowing he would be banned. Not particularly constructive, but nor was it destructive. It has nothing to do with MONGO. Everything Desnm said is true. Stop making a federal case out of nothing. Milto LOL pia 10:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• And that was smart in what way, exactly? Guy (Help!) 15:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The question is, who cares? And why? The answer is nobody except MONGO and... I don't know about the second one. Milto LOL pia 20:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to be under the mistaken impression that nobody but MONGO cares if you troll him and deliberately provoke drama. You may well be wrong in that. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• MONGO is irritated by my mere presence; there's nothing I can do about that. I don't care about MONGO at all, so I ignore him whenever possible and don't give any thought to walking around eggshells for him. I can't and don't care to change the fact that MONGO doesn't like my presence; only he can do that. Milto LOL pia 00:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strictly as a matter of fact, there are around a thousand of us who could, if you continue as at present, actually change that, by the simple mechanism of ensuring that MONGO no longer has to put up with your presence. Just so you know. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm kind of wondering why Milto hasn't been 'sploded yet, but I'm far too apathetic to bother beyond that. HalfShadow 23:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Can we not go there? I'd be happier if this were just dropped. Milto LOL pia 20:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Now really, I'm sorry, are you guys going to blame MONGO for saying that an editor shouldn't welcome a vandal, let alone an editor who has a long-time dispute with MONGO, whom the troll just happened to speak to right before the welcome? It is disruptive, and smacks to me of WP:POINT. Worse, he's making rude comments like it's also possible that I care so little for MONGO that he could go on a 3 month wikibreak and the only hint I would have of his departure is the lack of pointless threads on ANI about me. I have no idea why you guys are sticking up for him - he even admitted he knew the guy was a troll. Having never seen this conflict before, the suspicion of WP:POINT only gets worse when I hear that he's an ED editor, who, from what I understand, has a history of being a pain in the rear end on Wikipedia. Milotopia, if you would just say, "sorry, I won't do it again", would it be that hard? If it was just a joke and not a big deal, then why the need to argue back and make a scene (PS sorry for editing anonymously, I'm trying to take some time off, and this is the closest I could get myself to do). 146.186.44.199 22:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• No really. The second step of Dispute Resolution is to disengage. Please try that now. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

First point is that Miltopia, on being unblocked, was given the condition that he was to stay as far away from MONGO as possible.[3] (His early edits were trolling and wiki-stalking MONGO.)

Second point is that Miltopia was involved in the pages relating to MONGO's RfAr, so he most certainly knows that MONGO has been very badly stalked and harassed by Cplot, even if Miltopia doesn't think that's a problem. (LOL, Loldongs, LULZ, Duh, Whoopeedoo, etc. Hope I got all those words right.)

Thirdly, anyone who is even remotely familiar with this case recognizes Cplot from his edit summaries, and knows that this is a troll engaged in very persistent harassment of another user, and that he is to be reverted and blocked on sight.

I'm not sure what Wizardry Dragon means by reminding people to assume good faith. If he agreed that Miltopia was being provocative, but that we shouldn't take it too seriously, and should just move on, I could understand that, though there has to be a limit to how much harassment of Wikipedians good users should be prepared to condone, and whether good users should be content to see someone in dispute with a harassment victim treating it as a joke. But if that's what he means, I fail to see where AGF comes into it. AGF would apply if we were to think that Miltopia was just checking the new user log, and sending random messages to people without checking their contributions, and had NO idea that this was someone who was trolling MONGO. Miltopia has admitted that he saw OurAnthem's edit, and was going to revert it himself, but was beaten to it. (For the record, I don't have a problem believing that.) In that case, it was in very bad taste. To treat harassment of your opponent as a joke is quite simply inappropriate.

I'm also puzzled by GTBacchus's post about how he himself has welcomed vandals. GTBacchus, you know Miltopia and MONGO have an rather stormy history. You have read that Miltopia saw the edit (and presumably realized who it was, since he has been following the case), and that he welcomed him as a joke. What you say about your own use of the welcome template may be valid, but it's completely irrelevant in this context. Miltopia didn't welcome him in the hope that he'd become a good contributor. He welcomed him in order to make a joke about someone harassing MONGO.

Those who defend Miltopia here seem to be unaware that an action or utterance can change its meaning according to context — just as "Good afternoon" can be a friendly greeting or a sarcastic rebuke to someone who is late. As Tbeatty says, there are just too many of these coincidences. And those who think it didn't do any harm — of course it did. It caused ill feeling. Miltopia, instead of saying how uninterested you are in MONGO, and how little you care for what he thinks, perhaps you could try (for your own sake, not for his) to care enough to stop making jokes that you may think are just below what's necessary to get you blocked. Musical Linguist 00:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Musical Linguist, you need to take a look at all these little situations and see what all this nonsense is originating from. These is like, the sixth time I've had to stop what I'm doing and troop off to ANI to dispel general mischaracterization and/or paranoia from other users. It's alarming that I managed to brush off MONGO for over a month and avoid him completely, save for these truly boring threads, and you still think I'm the one with the personal vendetta here. I don't see anyone else being followed to articles, WP:AIV, and several other pages. And you dragging up old junk already looked at by arbcom is only prolonging this. Are you interested in seeing this nonsense die out, or in re-debating every edit of mine, over and over, until you get the desired result? Milto LOL pia 05:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oi vey, can everyone just stop the drama already? Just get a clue. No one is out to get me, you, MONGO, Miltopia, or anyone else for tha matter. This whole issue is a massive failure to assume good faith, and I'd ask all involved to do so. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no loss of good faith here. The question remains as to if Miltopia is here for purely constructive purposes. When editors knowingly welcome those that vandalize, this is not constructive. The best thing to do with repeat vandalism is to block and ignore, not welcome them. That you would see it otherwise is surprising. Miltopia has had to stop his work to come here over the last week three times I see, not just this time and not just because of my report alone. IF Miltopia was doing nothing but constructive edits, then there wouldn't be any complaints to the contrary. That is not the case, however. Furthermore, not sure what has happened since, but anti-Semitic nonsense may be the norm on ED, however threads such as this are not welcome here. Wikipedia does not tolerate bigotry or find puns on people's religion or ethnicity acceptable. If Miltopia can make adjustments to his contributions then there won't be any reason for him to have to respond here.--MONGO 06:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm replying to Musical Linguist's paragraph directed to me. I don't know who "Cplot" is and have no knowledge of that user's harassment of MONGO. When I commented, I was simply replying to the idea that welcoming a vandalizing or trolling editor is automatically disruptive. I disagree with that principle, and I said so. You say I had read that he posted the welcome message "as a joke", but in fact I hadn't scrolled down that far when I made my comment. I reacted to what I had just read. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I think "joke" welcome messages are a good idea. It's certainly not how I use the {{welcome}} template. If I knew that my comment was irrelevant, I wouldn't have made it, certainly.

  I would also reply to MONGO's comment above that Miltopia's noting of the {{Bruchim}} template is somehow antisemitic. Have you read the TfD? It's pretty clear to me that Miltopia saw the template, thought it was in absurdly bad taste, and showed it to his friend. The TfD agreed that it was absurd, and that's why it's deleted now. I'm not sure how you're seeing antisemitism there, but if you already think that someone is antisemitic, I guess you'll see what you look for. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I was too hasty in assuming that you knew the history of the Cplot harassment when you made your post, and for that, I apologize. I know nothing about the {{Bruchim}} matter, but would suggest that Miltopia would be less likely to cause suspicion if he refrained from jokes about a situation that many Wikipedians are rightly upset about, and if his reaction to accusations could be a little less provocative and flippant than LOL, Duh, cool it, and WHOOPDEDOO. I would also suggest that for someone who comes from a website that harasses Wikipedians, but who wants to edit seriously here and to be regarded without suspicion, it's not enough to claim to have no intention of antagonizing the people trolled by that website; it's also necessary to have an intention not to antagonize them. Musical Linguist 23:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You're only reading the part of that thread that you want to read. Miltopia posted a WikiProject logo that he noticed that is used to welcome editors who may be interested in the Judaism WikiProject on User:K37 talkpage. K37 responded "The hell? LOOOOOOOOOOOOL" LOL is laughing out loud of course. Miltopia then suggests K37 should post it to talk pages on persons who may be Jewish "Start using it on Jewish n00bs plz". K37 responds as to how he is supposed to know who is Jewish on the internets...read the thread. I am well aware that ED enjoys and supports lampooning all religions and ethnicities and was merely pointing out that since this is Wikipedia and not ED, the same kind of behavior here is much less likely to be seen as a playful pun. In fact, this kind of behavior certainly appears to be more akin to the disruption for which I myself and a number of editors associate Miltopia with. Thanks.--MONGO 04:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I read the whole thing. I know what LOL means, too. I didn't take Miltopia's suggestion at face value; I read it as pointing out how ridiculous the template was, and not a serious suggestion that K37 use the template on "Jewish n00bs" pages, because, as K37 pointed out, how would anyone know whether a "n00b" is jewish? That's why the template was absurd, and that's the observation they were sharing. Nobody was lampooning a religion. The template was, in fact, absurd. I laughed out loud when I saw it, too, and I wasn't laughing at Judaism or Jews. I was laughing at an absurd template. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You're still not looking at the entire thread. Miltopia posts the [4] Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism welcome template on K37's talk page. K37 responds: The hell? LOOOOOOOOOOOOL, Miltopia then suggests he post on on other Jewish editors talkpages....etc. All I see is a suggestion, in all liklihood in jest, that K37 should start welcoming Jewish editors by inviting them to join the Judaism WikiProject, even though I see no reference that either one of them are Jewish and the fact that Jews are routinely mocked on the ED website, a website that he, K37 and you apparently, are involved in. Miltopia needs to wear his wiki hat when he is here and cease being disruptive.--MONGO 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh. I'm talking about the entire thread, and have been all along. The content of the jest was that it's ridiculous to have a special template for welcoming Jews when this is the Internet and you can't tell if someone's Jewish. Every line of dialogue that you cite was saying that. ED doesn't mock Jews; it mocks antisemitism, by caricaturing it and showing it to be absurd; many ED editors are Jewish. I agree that Miltopia shouldn't be disruptive here, and I've repeatedly given him advice to that effect; I don't think that pointing out absurdity to his friend on his friend's talk page is disruptive. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...if he is not being disruptive, then there wouldn't be a need for you to have to "repeatedly given him advice to that effect". Best wishes.--MONGO 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please review my block

Dear fellows, following User:Biophys accuses and his reverting of the article on Boris Stomakhin I was arbitrarily blocked by English speaking user William Connolley who based his decision on the conclusion of Jkelly.. It is evident that they cannot validate statements of Biophys that I have violated BLP. Is the court sentence is enough reliable source? Official Court Sentence on Russian language dated 20.11.2006 This is now the most important matter in the dispute. By the way, if we would apply the same criteria to Stomakhin supporters statements they should be deleted too since they contradict to official materials, news articles and so on. Biophys wants only his sources to be in the article. It is evident he doesn't consent to any version made by Alex Bakharev, me or Mikka. User: Vlad fedorov.

The correct procedure here is to request an unblock, which you have done, and then e-mail the blocking admin. You are far more likely to get a favorable result that way. this could be considered block evasion and result in an extension of your block. MartinDK 09:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see. But the block itself is dubious. The reference for which I was blocked was inserted by other user, I have corrected the reference. I was practically blocked for other user who linked particular phrase in the article to other source which is disputed. Second thing, it is evident that administrator who blocked me just accepted the POV of one person and blocked me, because he can't actually evaluate Russian sources. He blocked me without evaluating any evidence of my wrongdoing which is contrary to blocking policy, he just relied on phrase of other - Jkelly - user, who also is incompetent in Russian. It is evident that both these individuals violated Blocking policy which requires administrators to review the causes before blocking. Vlad fedorov.

Here is the procedure from Wikipedia policy

Once you are convinced that a block is warranted, the recommended procedure for controversial blocks is:

1. Check the facts with care.

2. Reread appropriate parts of Wikipedia:Blocking policy.

3. Contact other administrators to sanity-check your reasoning, preferably on ANI.

4. After receiving feedback, place the block, wording the "reason" message with care and without jargon, and include a link to the user page of the user being blocked.

5. Place a notice of the block on the talk page of the affected user, with additional rationale, outlining the facts and the part of the blocking policy you feel applies.

6. Stay around to discuss the block with other Wikipedians.

7. If an act or acts of disruption do not warrant a 24-hour block, consider a warning or posting to ANI before issuing a short term block. (Someone may well block them longer than you would have!)

8. If in doubt, don't block.

The content dispute has already been debated here. Usually 24 hour blocks aren't brought here for review and especially not when they are being invoked as a result of a decision on AN/3RR. I agree though that this appears to be something that needs the attention of someone neutral who a capable of reading these documents. But that is a content matter and not something for ANI to discuss. MartinDK 10:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that neither Jkelly, or William Connolley have provided any explanations. I would like to know what action could be taken against them? Vlad fedorov

I would like to note that I was blocked allegedly 'for violation of living persons biography' and not for 3RR. Therefore it is appropriate place for me to complain see the talk page for User: Vlad fedorov. Vlad fedorov

In case there's confusion about the this, I declined to block User:Biophys here, after taking a look at edits like this which were being reverted. Saying of an article subject "He also criticized Russian government in defamatory and obscene statements." without source, as if this was Wikipedia's position on the matter, is both terrible editing and prohibited by our Wikipedia:Biographies of living people policy. As for User: Vlad fedorov's being blocked, I think that William Connolley showed good judgement in doing so. Mr. Fedorov clearly should not be editing that article; his feelings about the subject appear to be interfering with his ability to write a well-sourced, neutral article in collaboration. Finally, I don't know why Mr. Fedorov is complaining about the block, given that it clearly didn't stop him from editing the article, which is now currently in its BLP-violating version. Jkelly 18:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

...further comments here. Jkelly 18:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Further comments. User: Vlad fedorov continue violating LP policy, so I had to revert his changes. Main problem is a single citation taken from two unreliable sources and used for defamation of a living person. The source is unreliable because (a) the cited article is not dated (worse than blog); (b) the text of the article (Russian language) is clearly different when compared from two different unreliable sources; (c) the site has no any editorial oversight; (d) the cited text is ridiculous (someone asks Chechehn fighters to start nuclear war against Russian Federation). There are also other problems. None of other users (except Vlad Fedorov) ever disputed my arguments. See also Living persons notice board. Therefore, I ask you to block User: Vlad fedorov permanently from editing article Boris Stomakhin if he continue inserting this citation or other defamatory materials. Biophys 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also see User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Block_of_User:Vlad_fedorov. Biophys 18:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

May I notice that Biophys reverts edits with completely supported passages and which contain undisputed passages. Look here cur [5]he calls it '(missing references provided - see discussion)'. How could I work when he deletes everything which is sourced?Vlad fedorov 17:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted this because Vlad Fedorov inserted again exactly the same poorly sourced accusations. Biophys 21:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the mediator for this problem? The article should be stubbed and rebuilt from reliable secondary sources. Jkelly 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Biophys disputes both primary and secondary sources. Primary source - RKO website, secondary source Izvestia newspaper. Biophys claims that citation in Izvestia contradict to citation in RKO website, although there is a perfect match. Moreover it is strange that Biophys in evaluation of citation from Izvestia newspaper relies on RKO website, which he claimed to be unreliable. Jkelly, please join here to the discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#quote_.22Death_to_Russia.22Vlad fedorov 04:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

By reverting the whole article Biophys deletes other texts supported by citations and not disputed. Moreover, the citations that he calls 'poorly sourced' are not regarded as poorly sourced according to Wikipedia policies. Here is the cur which shows that Biophys deletes actually sourced texts cur[6].Vlad fedorov 04:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:NuclearUmpf (formerly User:Zer0faults)

NuclearZer0 has a history of tendentious editing on articles involving the War on Terrorism. A prior Arbcom case against him found that he has "engaged in editwarring and other disruptive editing" and has "failed to negotiate in good faith, engaging in repetitive assertions and circular logic". Since being placed on probation, he has notheless been blocked repeatedly for violations of policy. Now NuclearZer0 again resumed disruptive edit-warring on Iraq War and related pages. [7] [8] [9][10] [11] [12]

In doing so, he has also falsely-cited a "25-2" poll which he knows is the result of vote-stacking. Two different administrators have declared that poll to be entirely invalid. [13] [14]. To my thinking-- citing a poll you know to be the result of vote-stacking is just as bad as actually engaging in the practice. Worse, in fact, because he's been warned repeatedly the poll was invalid, but continues to cite it, saying the two admins' opinon that the poll was invalid does not override the opinions of the 25 users who voted in it. [15]

(I have also posted about this matter at Arbitration Enforcment)

Anything that can be done to help stop these behaviors would be greatly appreciated. --Alecmconroy 23:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Concur - I've observed this as somebody who has NOT edited these articles. He's been a problem. --BenBurch 23:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes ben sure this has nothing to do with your favorite noticeboard biting the dust? Where did GabrielF Conspiracy Noticeboard go? Please stop acting uninvolved. Whats next Tom Harrison or Tbeatty and Morton? How many GabrielF noticeboard people are going to leave "outside views" of how horrible I am? --NuclearZer0 23:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

To summon one of us you have to say one name three times, not three different names one time each. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I was not a participant there AT ALL. Where did you get that idea? (I did vote that it ought to be deleted though, and that Gabriel F should be blocked for a LONG TIME for having created it.) --BenBurch 00:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See how easy that was? Who is next? Ryan? --NuclearZer0 12:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. Leave me out of this entirely unproductive campaign. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: Nuclear has apparently admitted working with sockpuppets to falsify consensus. [16] His behavior of aggressive edit-warring on Iraq war is on-going: [17][18] -Alecmconroy 06:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Rofl I dont know how many times I and everyone else has to tell you that you need reading lessons. It says that I agreed with the views of Rex who was a sockpuppet, learn to read. Your smear campaign wont deter from the fact that the concensus is growing againts you, your attempts to eliminate people with a different view, through this post, the Arbcom you tried to file on Rangeley and now the RfC you did file against Rangeley is quite a dishonest way of attempting to make a concensus. Use the talk page and stop attempting to push everyone around, you fail at it. --NuclearZer0 11:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I may be confused but I am thinking that perhaps using a phrasing like "you need reading lessons" on a noticeboard where a lot of admins hang out is not the best way to avoid getting a block. ++Lar: t/c 01:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming Colbert vandalism

Maybe someone can regulate new user creation? (limit to 1/5 seconds or something) --N Shar 07:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just shoot first and ask questions later [19]. Hbdragon88 07:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, any page with "reality" in the title is being hit. BV warnings. ARGH. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a good idea ... that's the way to discourage users from signing up Template:Emot. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

They aren't here for constructive business, we don't need these people around. – Chacor 09:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, misread that, I thought at first that Yuser's comment was in response to Kathryn. – Chacor 10:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of "shoot first, ask questions later" - do we actually need indefs? (I did a few myself this morning, but am having second thoughts.) Normally we consider one-time vandals to be reformable, don't we? Wouldn't the "commodity" prank go stale anyway within a day or two, so that there'd be little likelihood these guys would try it again later? What was the experience with the elephants? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The elephant thing lingered for a few weeks. --Coredesat 18:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

While Coredesat is right, the initial orgy of vandalism did die down after a few weeks, the African elephant article still gets Colbert'red pretty regularly. It had to be fully protected again today after the same old joke. My humble opinion is that we should take a fairly hard line against this kind of stuff. Is it too much to hope that if enough Colbert wannabees get indef blocked, they'll start realizing they're being manipulated and be angry at Comedy Central, not Wikipedia? (And no, I won't get offended if you call me "naive", although I prefer "unrealistically optimistic".) -- Satori Son 18:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as a quick note, the reason it was targeted yesterday and today is because Colbert mentioned it again last night. —bbatsell ¿? 19:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that. Very annoying. -- Satori Son 19:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're naive, Satori. I think we need to take a hard line against this stuff. People who really want to contribute to Wikipedia can sign up and behave like human beings. While initial mistakes are normal while one learns the rules, I'm not for coddling the blatant vandals. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sign up? you need to read the front page a bit more closely. Not everyone who is an ip is a vandal - I was an IP for a looong time. --Fredrick day 21:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, I know it's current policy to allow IP edits. 90% of the vandalism I revert comes from them. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As do 90% of edits from testers who will one day create accounts and edit correctly... Milto LOL pia 21:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Lo, the poor IP editor - too noble and care free to take thirty seconds to acquire an account. - WeniWidiWiki 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

yeah don't worry - your userpage makes it clear what you think about IP editors - upto and including suggesting we report people who edit from IP addresses to their employers. Maybe you could make a special {{notwelcome}} message out of it. --Fredrick day 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this was the clip in question. I saw that as it aired and immediately hit Wikipedia to see how long it took for the new article to be created, and for it to be locked. I was impressed. -- Kesh 02:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill

I thought I would draw to the attention of admin the breach of WP:CANVAS on the above page. The AfD was initiated by User:Astrotrain, however, when the vote was not going his way (eight straight Keep votes) the canvassing began.

• User:Astrotrain, who has unsuccessfully nominated a number of similar pages for AfD, such as James McDade, [McGartland], [MacGiolla Bhrighde], [Breslin] then contacted a number of editors who had previously vote to delete those pages in the assumption that they would vote in a similar fashion on with regards this vote he was right!). So he then sent messages to Kittybrewter, Soltak, Weggie and Dhartung.
• User:Kittybrewster, then after voting for a delete, Kittybrewster in turn contacted a number of editors who she is in constant contact with on pages relating to the British Royal family and the monarchy, such as David Lauder, Chelsea Tory, Major Bonkers, Proteus, Laura1822. A number of them along with another close associate went and voted 'delete, but it did not stop there.
• User:David Lauder, then contacted User:Danbarnesdavies who is another editor who contributes mainly to British Royal Family pages.

the result of this was that the first delete votes came in on this topic.

• User:Astrotrain, obviously noted the "success" his breach of WP:CANVAS had and then sent them here, with similar effect!. Can admin please take the appropriate action as this is making a mockery of the whole system. --Vintagekits 14:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have placed a notice on Astrotrain (talk · contribs · count)'s talk page directing him to the discussion underway here. Navou ^banter 14:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have also put a notice on the AfD page itself. thank you--Vintagekits 14:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits, an administrator is likely to review your canvassing issue here, however, I do not believe they will speedy close the afd. Not to worry, the closing admin will review the afd and take into account any single purpose accounts if any, and users with a single purpose. Regards, Navou ^banter 14:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the update, its just that it is getting out of hand a bit now and spilling over onto others AfD's that User:Astrotrain has started.--Vintagekits 15:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the editors that User:Astrotrain contacted, so it is hard to say if this is a WP:CANVAS situation, though if I were closing this AfD I'd say that numerous editors who show up to a debate after a message on their talkpage and opine "Delete per nom" carry less weight in the discussion than other editors who have rendered opinions. I don't think this should be speedy closed, but I imagine the closing admin will weigh this when he goes through the AfD.--Isotope23 15:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

From the links I have provided you should be able to see that the people he contacted had already vote delete on other recent AfD's that he has nominated so the attempt to contact editor whom he knows will support him should be evident. I know the closing admin will take this into account however someone needs to warning the editors involved in canvassing that it is unacceptable, especially as it is now effecting other AfD's that User:Astrotrain has started and is skewing the vote of those also - it is making a mockery of the process.--Vintagekits 15:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vintagekits.--Major Bonkers 15:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Address the case in question; ad hominem arguments score no points. Trebor 16:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Assume Good Faith on Vintagekits' part. I was the one who added the canvassing template to the AfD, after seeing that User:Astrotrain had been canvassing for his POV that all IRA terrorists are inherently non-notable. After observing his behavior, I believe that all AfD nominations by Astrotrain of IRA members are bad-faith nominations in support of his POV-warring with Vintagekits. Argyriou (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that AFD is not a vote- and the editors in question have left perfectly good and reasoned comments on the deletion discussions expressing why they beleive these articles should be deleted. It should also be noted that Vintagekits has a terrible habbit of harrassing other users and admins with whom he disagrees with, and was formally warned about this recently. I would advise him to accept the consensus developing on these pages- namely that Wikipedia is not the place to idol worship fallen IRA members. Astrotrain 16:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A consensus like the one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin McGartland and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James McDade? Argyriou (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(in response to Astrotrain) If someone had pointed to reasonable precedents, then the "Delete" arguments would have held more weight. At the moment, all arguments seem to be "not-notable" without elaboration, or a variation on WP:IDONTLIKEIT with regards to IRA members. It's not a vote, so a bunch of people turning up and saying the same fallacious things shouldn't (I hope) contribute to the decision of the closing admin. Trebor 16:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Right... I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but which delete opinions contain "perfectly good and reasoned comments"? The ones that say "per nom" or the ones that say "seems like" and are predicated on WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning and claims that Wikipedia is somehow becoming a IRA memorial? These would carry more weight if the people leaving them would actually take the time to form an argument.--Isotope23 17:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebor: To draw attention to Vintagekits's previous naughtiness is not to make an ad hominem point, it's to question his credibility. Isotope23: What don't you understand regarding the argument of IRA memorialising? As I write on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill, there seem to be a large number of articles about minor IRA personalites, citing POV sources and with a latent republicanism/ anglophobic leaning. As far as I can see, the argument is quite clear.--Major Bonkers 17:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that your argument isn't a deletion rationale... we don't do conferred notability (or non-notability) and the status or existance of other articles is no rationale for deleting or keeping this article. Either the subject meets WP:BIO or he does not and right now I don't really see any credible argument being made that he doesn't meet it. Furthermore, POV isn't a deletion reason either; it is a reason to cleanup and NPOV an article.--Isotope23 17:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Vintagekits has promised to do a clean-up over-night, so we'll wait and see what turns up. I understood your previous posting to be that you did not understand the argument of memorialisation, not that it was not a good cause for deletion. I suggest that the problem that Wikipedia faces is this: that there are a series of linked articles, all of which display slight but significant bias, and which are set up and maintained by persons prepared to devote the considerable amount of time necessary to this task. I do not agree that this individual merits a dedicated page; the only significant aspect of his life was his accidental shooting by the Police, and there is nothing to stop the manner of his death being reported in a suitable article.--Major Bonkers 20:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Normally articles like this would be nominated for speedy delete (nn-bio). It should also be noted that Administrators recently had to speedy delete and blank a page about an alledged IRA member after Vintagekits added unsourced allegations about murder and terrorism. There is a clear danger to the integrity of Wikipedia about creating articles on minor IRA members where there are no reliable sources to back up the information provided. Astrotrain 17:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Diarmuid O'Neill satisfies WP:BIO, with two non-trivial stories linked right there at the article's bottom and the link to the Amnesty campgain. The various arguments about Wikipedia not memorializing or glorifying terrorists don't follow any policy or guideline I know of. {{nn-bio}} would not have been appropriate, and if I ever saw a user who was tagging articles nn-bio because of POV reasons, I'd consider a block for abuse of the speedy deletion process. As for the AfD, I !voted, so I can't do this, but it should be closed as a "speedy keep" (already running about 2:1 in favor of keeping even if we count all canvassed !votes, and possible bad-faith nom). | Mr. Darcy talk 17:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The first version of Diarmuid O'Neill is sourced by The Telegraph, how were there no reliable sources? I wouldn't consider the initial version of the article to be a candidate for speedy deletion. One Night In Hackney 17:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(to Major Bonkers) Yes, it is ad hominem, because you're questioning his credibility by citing a previous and fairly unrelated matter, while in this case numerous editors agree with him. I don't see what relevance you linking that page has to this discussion. Trebor 17:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Trebor, it isn't an ad hominem remark, because all that I have done is write 'See:' and provide a link. I have not made any comment whatsoever; it's up to any other interested party to click on the link and draw their own conclusions. I, unlike you, have made no comment and I have had the grace not to impugn either your bona fides or those of Vintagekits.--Major Bonkers 19:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then the obvious question is why you did that. What relevance did it have? What did you hope to accomplish? Assuming good faith, I'll give you a chance to explain. Trebor 19:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The obvious answer is that those contributing to this discussion should have the opportunity to see a full picture of a User's behaviour and be in a position to draw their own conclusions.--Major Bonkers 20:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And that means it is ad hominem. Rather than arguing the merits of the case at hand, you're commenting on the person who brought about the AfD. You can say you didn't put across a point-of-view but, being realistic, a link to a CheckUser can't be seen in a positive light. So my original comment stands: you are bringing into question the user, not the AfD. Trebor 20:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Its relevant for users to understand that Vintagekits has been proven to use sockpuppets to canvas support for his attempt to add yet more IRA propoganda. Astrotrain 20:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And how is that relevant? I am not a sockpuppet; I support keeping the article. The fact he may or may not have canvassed in the past does not justify canvassing this time. Trebor 20:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

DownDaRoad is my account, I have NEVER denied it, there is a difference between acceptable and unacceptable canvassing

 *                    Scale         Message            Audience 

• Accepted Limited posting AND Neutral AND Bipartisan
• Not accepted Mass posting OR Partisan OR Partisan

• Term Internal spamming Campaigning Votestacking

I rest my case.--Vintagekits 21:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained to you, Trebor, that I have made no comments at all on either Vintagekits or his previous conduct. I am happy to let his record speak for itself (as he should be) and for others to draw their own conclusions.--Major Bonkers 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone else here troubled by Astrotrain's nominations of all of these articles on IRA terrorists for deletion, with obviously spurious claims of non-notability? These strike me as bad-faith nominations, and I'm perturbed to see that someone might be using AfD in furtherance of a political or personal agenda. Thoughts? | Mr. Darcy talk 21:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly since a large amount of people have agreed that this person and the others are not notable- this is not obviously the case. Please don't attack the nominator- and put your arguments in the debate page instead. Astrotrain 21:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, that's just wrong. Two of your noms were already kept, handily. The one in question here is headed for a keep and clearly meets WP:BIO, per two articles in the Telegraph. The question here is whether you're trying to use AfD to push a POV - and in my opinion, based on your comments here and your actions on those AfD pages, is that you are. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to back up my statements with facts:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin McGartland - closed with one delete !vote vs nine keeps.
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_McDade - no delete !votes, thirteen keeps.

And the subject of this thread is snowballing to keep right now, 17 to 7, and most of the delete !votes have nothing to do with notability. Don't use AfD to push your own agenda. If you see articles that are too POV, clean them up. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to my comments on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill page. There are a series of articles about minor members of the IRA that, frankly, are being used to memorialise those individuals and promote their editors' own partisan views. Astrotrain finds that objectionable and while it could be argued that the articles need substantial revision instead of deletion, it is also arguable that such articles could be merged or revised under different article headings.--Major Bonkers 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

But that's not Astrotrain's argument. He's claiming that these subjects aren't notable, which appears to be false. If Astrotrain objects to the use of such articles to promote partisan views, then he should work on the articles - not file AfD noms with questionable claims of non-notability. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is part of the same argument. These individuals are not sufficiently notable as to warrant an article in their own right; the existing articles should be merged.--Major Bonkers 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree- he could be mentioned in a list of People killed by the British police or something- but is not notable enough to have an article in his own right. Its not even clear if he was even in the IRA- the Telegraph says he was an IRA suspect, and there is no evidence from a reliable source if this was confirmed. The only source for being in the IRA are unrelaible Republican forums. These articles are dangerous to the credibility of Wikipedia- we've arealdy had to delete a similar article after libelous information was added by Vintagekits. Astrotrain 23:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Tirghra state the he was a Volunteer on page p.365 and Gerry Kelly confirms it. As for claiming that I added "libelous information" - you know that I was the one that was proven correct in the end - would you like me to prove it?--Vintagekits 23:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think Astrotrain is making bad-faith nominations, too. Argyriou (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly a substantial number of people think in a similar way to Astrotrain and it is wikipolicy to assume good faith except where shown otherwise. - Kittybrewster 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain has clearly demonstrated bad faith by his comments in the AfD discussions. I'm not going to be convinced otherwise by one of his meatpuppets. Argyriou (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And that, Trebor, is an ad hominem attack!--Major Bonkers 09:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is unclear to me and I am not a meatpuppet. Are you a sockpuppet of Vintagetits?? - Kittybrewster 09:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Kittybrewster 24 hours for the above personal attack (referring to Vintagekits as Vintagetits). I am posting a notification here so that other admins may review the block as needed. I will note, as my own devil's advocate, that I did not find any other recent WP:NPA violation by Kittybrewster, but I thought that attack was egregious enough to merit a block. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Larry Darby again. - suggesting community ban

As one can see by the section a little bit above, there have been serious issues at Larry Darby with User:LarryDarby. Darby has most recently attempted to use a sock puppet User:User:BopBeBop(confirmed by checkuser) to get around WP:COI issues and making nearly identical edits, personal attacks and general claims that Wikipedia is controlled by Jews and Zionists. Example difs include [20] [21] [22]. Most recently, in response to my attempt to give him advice - [23], he responded with [24] and [25]. At this point, some other admin probably needs to talk him and/or give him a long block for personal attacks and other issues. However, I wouldn't object to treating him as having exhausted community patience. (This was added at/by 20:44, 30 January 2007 JoshuaZ)

previous AN/I thread. I asked about this in the above thread, and, as can be seen, Yuser31415 was also concerned about this. I contacted Yusef about this new spate of edits. ThuranX 02:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to my interactions with this user, it is now clear he is not here to help, nor to contribute constructively or civilly. I would support a community ban of this user. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It just occurred to me... Given that Mr. Darby has had contact, and an established OTRS case, we should get a link over to those pages ASAP. Those Wikifolk who folllow these things should know what he's done since they tried to work with him. Yes/No? ThuranX 02:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if Larry is going to cite WP:OFFICE agressively over Larry Darby, I would support deletion and salting that page. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There hasn't been any OFFICE concern, merely an OTRS matter. No reason to delete at this time. JoshuaZ 02:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, whichever it may be, let's get someone 'up top' notificatiated, so we don't have to suffer through Darby calling again and restarting this mess. ThuranX 02:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I already left a note on the page of the person who answered the OTRS complaint. JoshuaZ 02:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Independent of that we can still decide as a community that we don't want him editing. JoshuaZ 02:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I might note that he himself doesn't want to be editing. Apparently Wikipedia is "propaganda."[26] Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Per this edit [27], I suspect that Larry has decided to just lash out a lot. More evidence of a need for an indef block? ThuranX 03:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope: that IP resolves to Texas: [28]. Besides, it doesn't seem in character for a guy who's the head of the atheist whatever group from Alabama to type vandalize WP by typing that Colbert stuff. Part Deux 07:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• I support an indef block. This guy is clearly here to push an agenda and isn't even trying to hide it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What a complete windbag. Support, and admonish the state of Alabama for almost giving this guy a real position of power. (See his article.) Grandmasterka 04:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also support community ban. Note also that (presumably) he posted "Who is the Wikipedia agent for service of legal process in Alabama?" at the top of his talk page, which might count as a legal threat. Sandstein 06:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, given the above I think we have what indicates a consensus. I am therefore going to block him indefinitely. JoshuaZ 22:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I count three editors for and one against this ban. Am I missing something or does that constitute a consensus? It is very possible that I'm wrong here, but I thought that community ban was supposed to be a mechanism of absolute last resort. I thought that temperary bans and strong warnings usually come first. --Selket 23:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Bans can be made when a user exhausts the patience and trust of the community, by deliberately violating the spirit of the law even if not the letter of the law. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Selket, see the community patience clause of WP:BAN. JoshuaZ 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I had seen that section and it states in relevant part, "Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users." I'm not questioning the action; I'm trying to understand the rule. Does four or five people constitute "widespread community support" rather than "agreement between a handful of admins or users"? --Selket 04:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading this section, I see six people supporting the ban (JoshuaZ, J.smith, Grandmasterka, Sandstein, Yuser31415 and ThuranX (if I interpret his/her post correctly)) and noone opposing it. So unless there comes real argumented opposition (not procedural opposition only), I would call this a case of community support for a ban. 09:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no opposition (procedural or otherwise). I'm just trying to understand what the procedure is for future reference. Thanks. --Selket 09:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Arthur Ellis

Arthur_Ellis (talk · contribs) has recently used several sockpuppet accounts to evade a one-month ban. (Evidence: [29]) These sockpuppets have caused disruption on some of Ellis's most-frequented sites, including Warren Kinsella and Rachel Marsden. Some of the sockpuppet names have also been abusive to other Wikipedians, and/or to noted public figures.

Ellis's ban was imposed on 28 November but is now slated to run to 2 March, as the clock is reset with each sockpuppet violation.

It's obvious that Ellis isn't taking his ban seriously, and I believe it's time for the community to impose a more serious punishment on him. Given the staggering number of violations we're dealing with from the last two months alone, I think a community ban may be in order. CJCurrie 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support permanent ban. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Ban. This should have happened weeks ago. JoshuaZ 02:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Based on what I've seen of this user, endorse ban. --Coredesat 02:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse with comment: it's not just socks, but apparent meats. I blocked LotusLander2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for the account's first-ever edit, a direct reversion to Ellis's preferred version of Warren Kinsella. In an e-mail to me the following day (yes, I still have it), LotusLander2006 acted ignorant of (or surprised to be "confused" with) Ellis, yet identified herself as none other than Rachel Marsden. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• It appears that the Rachel Marsden article is currently protected on a version edited by one of the aforementioned socks. Just wanted to point that out. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected. Thatcher131 15:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, and now it's been fixed. Thanks. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. For a partial list of blocks, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Bucketsofg 14:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per above. Addhoc 19:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban --SunStar Net^talk 01:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• I see CJCurrie and Jayjg agreeing on something... world peace cannot be far away ;) Anyway, endorse with the recognition that the person has also made positive contributions to the encyclopedia. Kla'quot 02:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Known Ellis IP

Any objections to blocking 209.217.96.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for an extended time, say, six months or even one year? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be able to change his IP at will, at least when he's determined about it. A long IP block won't accomplish anything. His favorite articles are permanently semi-protected already, since both he and Kinsella tear them up whenever they aren't protected. Thatcher131 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

True; still, the idea occurred to me when I noticed the comparatively tiny edit history and the suggestion that no one but Ellis has ever used it—and that he returned thereto. Thanks for the reminder. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

His IP will be stable as long as it's not blocked, but then he switches. Probably DHCP on a cable modem that he can reset by unplugging the modem. Thatcher131 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, probably... :P RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Blocking the IP might be a bad idea, as he'll probably go IP-switching. Roving IP edits happen... --SunStar Net^talk 01:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Some heavy words towards me

I need some help from some admin willing to communicate with User:Sys Hax, as I believe it no would be productive for me to try it myself.

I tagged the image Image:Abigail brittney hensel twins.jpg as "replaceable fair use" (WP:CSD#i7) some days ago and left him (non-boilerplate) message explaining matter. Then, after the 7 days period, the image got ultimatelly deleted by admin Herostratus.

User:Sys Hax wasn't happy with this outcome and left me a harsh message, calling me a "jerk" (edit summary) and "self-appointed bowdlerizing luddite". As I get a lot of such attacks (and as I don't know what "bowdlerizing" means), I decided to ignore it at the time.

Later, User:Sys Hax took some time to contribute to an (already existing) RFC dedicated to my persona. There, he developed his thoughts on the image deletion issue and asked "WHY HAS WIKIPEDIA NOT BANNED THIS HOODLUM?". He also took the opportunity to define me as a "punk who would prefer to drive around at night and break off car antennas with a baseball bat". I decided to ignore that too. A good thing from this RFC is that people now has some place other than my talk page to attack me, and I got less "You have new messages" warnings (note that I don't want to imply that this is the sole reason people contributed to my RFC). (btw, I don't know what's a HOODLUM).

Later in the day, he left me another message explaining me I'm a "vandalizing punk who should be banned ", called me an "image vandal" in an article's edit summary, and voiced in this same article's talk page that I'm a "known image vandal" and a "punk who's deleted hundreds of images for fun, always giving a ridiculous, bogus rationale". Also according to him, I "would rather be driving around at night smashing off car antennas with a baseball bat".

After some more time, he decided he needed to left me one more message, calling me an "asshole" (at least an English word that I have already learned!) and explaing me again his theory about "smashing car antennas with a baseball bat". It's funny that in this same message he says that "Judging by the number of complaints filed against (me)", I "won't be an admin very much longer". Well, I'm not and had never been an admin. But anyway, based on this misguided assumption that I am an admin, he goes on to wonder how did I "get to be an admin anyway?", and offers alternatives: "Are you the "catcher" homosexual boyfriend of a real admin, or are you just a pimply high-school social reject who hacked into the wiki admin database with a kiddie-script?".

At this point, I decided he needs help. And that's what I came here to ask for.

Btw, he removed his last message on my talk page, according to his edit summary, to "take (his) concerns to wiki administration".

If someone here is willing to talk to this user about his behavior, I would really appreciate. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I left a message. Jkelly 03:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

So did I. That entire section of that article's talk page had to go with fire. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you guys for your time. The user seems now a little more calm, as he used no personal attacks (or unknown adjectives) in the two recent messages he left on my talk page. Anyway, judging by his last editions, I believe he's still very annoyed about the deletion of the image he uploaded (and I believe very few editors have seen more complaints from users annoyed with image deletions than I did). Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

personal attack and abuse of personal userpage

User:Abu ali has decided to make usage of his wikipedia page for malice intent, when the issue was mentioned to him, his response was to add my user name to be pointed out together with the rest of the intentional attack on zionism.

after given fair warning and increasing on his offense (such as reintroducing my username after a wikipedia admin - Ryanpostlethwaite removed it [30]) he was recieved an issue of a final warning [31].

his response was to reply with false naivity.. that he did not see offense in the "zionism = moshe katzav" issue (he actually enhanced the issue by adding two more categorical misrepresentations), while he ignored his blatantly offensive reaction (i.e. putting me out on display). i honestly feel the best summary for the innapropriate activity of this user lies behind the warning in with these words:

"this finger pointing [at me] is unacceptable, i suggest you let go of your anti-zionist bash tactics or that you merely move them to a website which allows such activity. Jaakobou 11:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)"

in conclusion, i request this user be banned due to his counterproductive and even destructive use of wikipedia. Jaakobou 07:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

-- complaint moved from Administrator intervention against vandalism due to request by Woohookitty Jaakobou 09:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• The user linked someone's assumed political convictions to their edits on Wikipedia. I told them not to judge edits based on the editors religious or political beliefs. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think that it would be wise to remind Jaakobou to assume good faith and its incompatability with using phrases like "has decided to make usage of his wikipedia page for malice intent", "anti-zionist bash tactics" and "his response was to reply with false naivity". His compaint above is factually incorrect. He has accused me of vandalism for editing my own user page. He has accused me of making personal attacks from my user page, but declined to provide the text of these attacks (the simple reason being that no personal attacks were made by me). He has mischaracterised my reply to his "warnings" without providing a link to the text reply here and accused me of making two (unspecified) misrepresentations. If you examine his contributions you will find a mixture of personal attacks on other editors and aggrassive POV pushing (e.g. [32]). Of course Jaakobou is intitled to his opinions. And his conduct on Wikipedia (including his current attempt to ban me) is totally consistent with his ideology. But other users are also intitled to observe his actions and through them to learn about the ideology that he supports. Abu ali 11:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

there's no need for you to remind me of "good faith" after you decided to paste my username on your page for display even after it was removed by admin Ryanpostlethwaite - [33]. your current response here follows with that same false naivity you deny (your added reply see: reply herehas no mention of abusing my username does it?).

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.

(1) And his conduct on Wikipedia (including his current attempt to ban me) is totally consistent with his ideology. (see boldened text above) - this type of accusation is simply a repetition on your assaults.

(2) User Jaakobou proudly supports zionism and does not feel that being labled a zionist is a personal attack. I personally do not share his belief. But I do believe that one can learn much by examining his actions on Wikipedia. [34] - this type of accusation is simply a repetition on your assaults.

I repeat on my original request on this user so long as he insists on using wikipedia in a counter-productive manner. Jaakobou 11:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone ask this guy to calm down. ThanksAbu ali 11:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that singling out Jaakobou and posting his name in the Zionism links on Abu Ali's user page was inappropriate, and I am glad to see that Abu Ali has removed it from there. But it's not such a big deal, surely? After all, it's not as though Jaakobou considers the term to be defamatory. I don't see any inappropriate content on Abu Ali's talk page; and after all, on his own talk page, Jaakobou refers to " crack head arabs" and suggests that other editors are lying. Isn't this also a personal attack -- and racist, in addition?

There is no possible excuse for banning Abu Ali, even the original "offence", which I do not think warranted any sanction, has been remedied by him. I suggest that Jaakobou drops the whole storm in a teacup, and gets on with editing. RolandR 12:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Roland. Personally, I don't like political material on userpages, but many people do this, and I don't know that there's a clear rule, is there? If there's not a clear rule, I think we need to be very careful about singling people out. As far as insulting people, I recently had a situation where two other users were dealing with a much more serious political accusation, and along with some admins, we talked it through and got the material removed. I think Jaakobou had a right to be annoyed, or even offended, but even alleged incivility can be dealt with civilly, and in this case I think that was accomplished with the removal of the material. I hope that resolves the issue. Best, Mackan79 14:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What is this? -> (1) help me RolandR, (2) help me Mackan79 <- (1) RolandR, please don't change the subtext of conversations i've had in an aggressive atttempt to present me as racist - consider this a pre-warning. (2) Abu ali has made it clear that he percieves zionism as a derogatory affiliation ^{(see quote (2) above)} and to add to a personal opinion (which he's allowed to have) he used wikipedia in a counter-productive manner to say the least. (3) considering this new multiple account activity i think Abu ali should simply use wikipedia in a productive way and entertain his perception on zionism on the regular hate-websites rather than a serious enterprize... i suggest users RolandR and Mackan79 consider doing the same (i.e. use wikipedia in a productive manner). Jaakobou 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And presumably trying to get other users banned is an example of using "wikipedia in a productive manner"? I did hope that a word from other editors would convince you to calm down, but it seems to have had the opposite effect. Anyway this page is not the place if you insist on lashing out at me or other users. I suggest that if you want to persue this, look at the resolving disputes page. Abu ali 17:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) perhaps you should not treat warnings with provocation? (2) you can still change your mind and cease counter productive use of wikipedia... if you do this, i will not pursue further activity. (3) lashes... or other users (see above boldened text) is what i consider yet another personal attack which is besided the issue (do you go by the username "other user"?) of your own activity which is being reported after more than fair warning. Jaakobou 22:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

off-topic

There is no such thing as a pre-warning. If you want to complain about me, go ahead -- I'd like to see you explain how your dismissive reference to "a couple of crack head arabs" was anything but racist. And, before you accuse others of being aggressive, I suggest you take a look in the mirror. RolandR 21:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

reply:

• you've made a fair point about my use of terminology (albeit there was no racial intention) and i have changed it^[35], apologies to anyone who considered it as a racial slur.
• i request for you to show that same anti-defamation POV in regards to the misuse made on zionism by your friend Abu ali.

Jaakobou 22:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

off-topic 2: fair use image issue

• • By the way, Abu, when I was looking at your userpage, I saw that you are using a fair Use image on it. Would you remove that please? Jeffpw 13:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• no problem Abu ali 13:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very surprised that anyone sees a copyright issue here. Naji al-Ali created Handala as a symbol of the Palestinian people, the image has been very widely copied by other artists and cartoonists, in graffiti, on t-shirts and elsewhere. It is universal in Palestine. Preventing use of the image in Wikipedia is almost equivalent to censoring a conscious Palestinian presence. Surely, if there is any doubt, it is possible to contact his family and establish the status of this image. RolandR 12:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No one stops you from doing just that (be sure to get a release that is acceptable to Wikipedia, not just an informal mail or even worse a telephone call). Until then, it is a fair use image, and we have to follow the image policies. Note that e.g. the famous Che Guevara photo Image:Famousphotoche.jpg is also a fair use photo. Fram 13:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But there is a difference between a cartoon character and a photo. Even if the particular version of the image used by Abu Ali is fair use, there is nothing, as far as I know, to prevent him from himself drawing and using Handala. I don't think that the idea itself is copyright. RolandR 14:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you are not allowed to do that either. Making your own version of copyrighted cartoon characters is still a copyright violation (otherwise you could make your own Dilbert cartoons and no one could stop you!). Fram 15:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but is Handala copyright? I don't think so, which is why the image appears so frequently on t-shirts and other commercial items. RolandR 16:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It may be free of copyright, but unless we know for sure, we have to act as if it is copyrighted. I see Calvin and Hobbes on illegal T-shirts all the time as well, but they are definitely copyrighted. We have to err on the side of caution here. 20:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

tried to discuss apparent personal attacks, editor dismissive

I've been trying to engage with a user about apparent personal attacks,[36] and in reply I'm getting only a reiteration ("proof of concept").[37] I'm at a loss. Any input or assistance would be appreciated. — coelacan talk — 11:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't go looking for things to be offended by. If you can't get along with that user, avoid them. Jkelly 17:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And can you suggest a list of other things I should ignore in the future, besides X? Should I wait for Y, or should I set the bar even higher? — coelacan talk — 21:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that reply was thoroughly inappropriate, Coelacan. You should fix that. However, the editor in question, CyberAnth, has been up on this talk page three times now in as many days for problems. He was supported by Jimbo Wales for his actions in enforcing WP:BLP, and since then seems to be increasing in hostility. It's probably a good idea for some admin to make clear to him that being right once doesn't make him right always, and the behavior on Coelacan's talk page is certainly a personal attack. ThuranX 21:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry. — coelacan talk — 22:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

ThuranXm, Sir or Madam, that is nonsense. The post to my userpage in question was made some 10 days prior the WP:BLP incidents. See here. Also, this situation is someone writing words, and then claiming that the very words they wrote, when quoted, constitute a personal attack. That is nonsense. I suggest that if people do not wish to have their irresponsible words, spoken in deeper recesses of WP, displayed in more noticeable places, the way to avoid it is to avoid writing such words in the first place. CyberAnth 23:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just what are you talking about? I came to your talkpage and asked you to explain why you called me a "fuckwad".[38] The whole conversation is right there on your talk page,[39] so I don't see how you could get this mixed up. I don't care about the quote on your userpage and I've never complained about it to you or anyone. Quit changing the subject. — coelacan talk — 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User:CyberAnth It does look to me like you did call this fellow a "fuckwad". Could you please apologize? That would be most appropriate now. --BenBurch 05:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, if only I did. CyberAnth 07:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I did a little more digging. And indeed you did not. --BenBurch 17:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. How is this not calling me a fuckwad?[40] What exactly is it, then? What does "look at this person's actions, they are best explained by fuckwad syndrome" mean, and how can it be construed otherwise? I don't understand why I'm seeing this, you were seeing it, and now you're not. Help? I mean, WP:NPA, what does "Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion, including the suggestion that such a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit the external source containing the substance of the attack" mean if it doesn't refer to this?[41] And when I try to engage with this user and ask about it, I get it thrown back in my face ("proof of concept", CyberAnth says), Isotope23 brings it up and the only reply is "It's all just Coelacan. Trust me" and then CyberAnth deletes the whole thing from that talk page instead of engaging with myself or Isotope23. So what are you seeing that I'm not? If I'm thoroughly failing to comprehend something here, I'd appreciate a tip. — coelacan talk — 20:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please go read WP:AGF and apply it to your issue. Thanks! --BenBurch 21:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Attended issue

This issue went to the archive without attention. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive188#Primal_Therapy

Randroide 12:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Randroide, has any administrator taken action about this yet? It would surprise me if someone could just delete 2 weeks worth of discussion from an article talk page without any consequences. Did you restore the posts that were deleted? Further, it seems to me that the policy he cited in deleting applies to articles, and not what is on the talk page. Since you were actively discussing the issue, it should have remained on the talk page, in my opinion. Jeffpw 09:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A quick look over the issue shows the text does still exist (but now on Randroide's talk page). It should not have been excised from the Primal Therapy talk page. I've asked GrahameKing not to repeat such a removal, noting that any subsequent disruptive removal of valid discussion will result in a block to prevent further occurance. I will assume good faith and trust he won't do it again. Randroide, I am sorry that nobody responded to your request the first time around (it does happen, and you did the correct thing in reposting it, civilly). Proto::► 10:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No Sir: Your look was too kick for a complex issue like this. The text I restored in my own talk pake was from a different discussion deletion made by GrahameKing in his/her own TalkPage [42]. That deletion qua deletion has not been reported by me because, well, after all I think that deletion is a private issue among GrahameKing and the other guy. I simply copy-pasted (and linked) the deleted text in my own talkpage just for the sake of preserving data.

The deletion reported here by me has not been restored. Please take a look at the (still) "missing" discussion This is the -yet unrestored- deletion reported here by me.

From your words, I assume that the deleted text should be restored. I´ll wait 24 hours. If nobody else restores the text, I will do it (I am trying to depersonalize this conflict as much as possible).

AFAIAC this incident is closed. Thank you very much, Jeffpw and Proto. Randroide 11:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Trouble with Editor

I am fairly new here so I am not sure if this is the right way to deal with a user that has been making personal attacks and deleting people's discussions. This person's IP address changes everytime they edit, however, it appears to be the same person. I started out ignoring it in the beginning, but I think it should be looked into.

• [43]
• [44]
• [45]
• [46]
• [47]

If my request does not belong here that is fine. Then I need some input on the best way to handle this person. RosePlantagenet 14:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

While I certainly think the anon IP's words could be chosen with more care, I don't really see personal attacks going on. On the other issue, that of removing or altering comments of other editors, you are correct. That is bad form, and a warning should be given message should be left on their talk page. I doubt that would have much effect, though, since it is multiple IPs. Jeffpw 15:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, it is probably difficult to warn and even stop an editor when their IP address changes. That was why I did not think much could be done or was even sure if something should be mentioned. I was going to suggest a semi-protection on the page but that seems to be only for the article and not the discussion page. Or a way to keep the editor from deleting people's comments. Thank you very much for looking into it so quickly. RosePlantagenet 15:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Rose: I am not an admin. I'm just another editor, like you. But I have this page on my watchlist, and I sometimes look to see what the problem is, in order to help if I can. Jeffpw 15:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. As I said, I am just kinda new. But, thank you for trying to help. I went back and removed the rude parts of the editor's statement and kept the rest. And, suggested to them that if they want to help out with the article that is great, otherwise there is no need to delete other people's comments nor talk down to them. I doubt it will do much good but there does not seem to be much else to do at this point. RosePlantagenet 12:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Substance abuse deletion

Hi, an IP-user has deleted portions of Substance abuse. This seems like something I could fix without being an admin - how do I do that (supposing I just have to undo an edit)? /PER9000 15:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, this guy (User_talk:216.62.85.65) seem to have been warned about vandalism in the past./ PER9000 15:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. In future, click on "history", click on the date of the last good version, click "edit" (it'll warn you that you're editing an old version), and save. This is called "reverting". yandman 15:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to use the edit summary to make it clear to other users what you are doing (even simply "rvv" is better than nothing, "ReVerting Vandalism"). Mathmo ^Talk 10:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon corrupting sockpuppet tags

I noticed an anon 71.156.44.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) making edits to the {{sockpuppet}} tags of a number of other IP users. One suspected sock that turned up a few times was SummerThunder. They have stopped for now but I'm posting here in case someone knows a history I'm not aware of. —Dgies^t c 19:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This guy: 202.163.200.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was doing it too, but for different sock users. Then he tried blanking this section. —Dgies^t c 19:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

See also:

• 75.1.5.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 193.231.12.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

–Gunslinger47 19:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Request an indef block of Dgiesas. This account was jsut created with a username similar to mine, reverting the same things 202.163.200.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was doing and blanking this section. —Dgies^t c 19:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Request an indef block of Dgie$ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), vandalism-only account, SummerThunder sock. —Dgies^t c 00:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Take to WP:AIV. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

202.163.200.153 has been indefblocked by me as an open proxy, per CRBL open proxy listings. Checking the others now. Syrthiss 12:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Others blocked indef too. 193.231 had about the most hits on CRBL that I've ever seen. I think I need to disinfect my computer just from looking at it. Syrthiss 12:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic

Since the warring parties on the Free Republic article seem unable to go a day without opening a new sockpuppet, checkuser, mediation or other process against each other, I have suggested to the three worst offenders - User:BenBurch, User:Fairness And Accuracy For All and User:DeanHinnen, in no particular order - that they leave the article and each other alone for a couple of weeks. If there is any more of the present crap I am strongly inclined to wield the clue-by-four and knock the lot of them out for long enough to give the rest of us some peace. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Having kept an eye on the FR stuff (while being completely out of the loop), I can understand your frustration, Guy, but I don't think both sides are at fault here. It seems to me more like one side gaming the system to drag down the other side to their level. SirFozzie 21:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am only TOO happy to drop it. --BenBurch 21:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hilary Clinton

There is a comment in the page on Hilary Clinton which states "She is also the Devil". I believe this to be inaccurate and libelous.

81.132.62.254 23:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This has already been reverted as vandalism RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I do like the understatement, though; it's merely inaccurate to say that she's the devil... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's fair.... Philippe Beaudette 23:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez made clear that we've had the Devil in the White House since 2000, so having her still there in 2008 shouldn't be too much of a shock... -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is going to BJAODN. Daniel Case 05:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion, established by checkuser

A Request for checkuser has revealed that User:BoxingWear has been evading blocks using sockpuppets. (See the case here.) Could an administrator please block him? Thanks, PTO 23:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Chick Bowen 00:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

MensKeperRa actively lobbying other editors and attempting to vote stack AfD

Recently, this user AfDed Allen H. Greenfield. However, he does not seem to be content to let other editors make up their own minds. After I voted to keep, he lobbied my on my talk page, [48], and additionally posted a long derogatory screed about the living subject to the AfD. Could someone attempt to get this guy to approach the AfD in a more moderate fashion? He seems to be overly emotionally involved. Jefferson Anderson 23:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a word with MensKeperRa.[49] Hopefully that calms him down somewhat. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Contributions review requested

I have recently blocked Edward called Enoch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and wish to get other opinions on an indefinite block. He has asked God to kill James Randi within 30 days (also Larry King, apparently). It seems like there ought to be a no-smiting-request policy to go along with no legal threats. Chick Bowen 00:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Only 24 hours. That looks more like an indefinite unless the user agrees to stop posting that sort of stuff. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I blocked him 24 for the crap on Kim's subpage, before I noticed the James Randi stuff. No one's yet gotten him to say a word on his talk page. Chick Bowen 02:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No smiting requests is a red link that will be turned blue when I have some time. Awesome. Proto::► 10:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's about time that policy was clarified--I've had my finger on the smite button a couple of times myself. Meanwhile, block extended to indefinite. Chick Bowen 15:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Penis vandalism (real-life)

Real-life effects of penis vandalism.

Maybe this image should go on MediaWiki:Bad image list as no doubt someone will upload it. --SunStar Net^talk 01:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Now someone will surely upload an image of it sooner or later. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. My mistake! --82.42.237.84 01:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC) --SunStar Net^talk 01:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You can barely see the image at [50] (not even visible at google maps); hardly seems worth the mention of all these big articles. Part Deux 10:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Disturbing comment

So apparently a WHILE back I was involved in mediating a dispute between a couple of users, Devin79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Jdorney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I don't remember what the outcome of it was, but apparently the result was Devin79 was blocked for personal attacks by pgk. Well, I was recently alerted to this diff here in which the personal attacks continue and Devin79 announces his intention to wikistalk articles I've edited under various IP addresses. I'm a little disturbed by this. Here's the relevant quotation:

All of the above is also relevant to Jdorney's girlfriend SWATJester. SWATJester wouldn't know anything about the SAD if it slapped him upside the head. Having served 4 years as a Force Recon Marine, I would argue that I am far more knoweldgeable about this particular subject then some basement dweller who runs around calling himself "SwatJester". I will also be editing his articles with various IP addresses. Both of these little dirtbags can go to hell.

Ignoring the fact that I've been in the army for almost 5 years, including an Iraq tour, and experience with special operations units like 5th SFG, CAG, and liaison work with CIA, this isn't about the content dispute: it's about the announced intention get around his block with IPs to specifically target articles I've worked on. I can't see how this is conducive to the project. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Signaleer -- disruptive editing and sockpuppetry

User:Signaleer is engaging in repeated disruptive editing of P-51 Mustang for many days despite a community consensus against this user's changes and many requests from many users to cease. He is also engaging in personal attacks, userpage vandalism, and 3RR violations. Recently, he has been continuing his disruptive editing using sockpuppet IPs User:72.135.19.52 and User:160.149.99.58 (both IPs from the same geographical area, making the same disruptive edits, user claims to be in US Army and the 160 IP is registered to US Army). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing low level edit war between Signaleer (aka IP160.149.99.58) and a number of other editors on the Convair B-36 article as well, all over whether one or another image better depicts the plane, [51] [52], [53], [54], even though the consensus is not in his camp.[55] There has been little effort on his part to discuss the matter on the article talkpage even though he has been encouraged to do so.[56], [57].--MONGO 05:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Signaleer and two of the IP address have made identical edits on Women Airforce Service Pilots adding non-notable, non-cited material, and reverting it when that material is removed (examples: [58], [59] (where he called the cleanup "vandalism"), and here as an IP). Signaleer also insists on hard-coding image thumbnail sizes in numerous articles, despite being repeatedly advised that this is contrary to the MOS. He has blatantly vandalized a userpage ([60]} and blanked a whole section of the article David Petraeus {[61]). Formal vandalism warnings have been placed on his talk page ({{Uw-delete3}} added [62], {{Uw-delete4}} added [63]; it should be noted that this last one was posted today, and he has not reoffended since its posting). His response to warnings can be read here: [64]. Akradecki 05:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In reference to this "disrputive" behavior and "vandalism" -- edit wars is not a violation of Wiki guidelines. Who is to say what the "consensus" is? This is a free online encyclopedia in which anyone can contribute or edit. I don't see fit certain images, I can revert them. -Signaleer 18:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

edit wars are very disruptive to wikipedia and if etending past 3 reversions, are actually a violation of wikipedia policy WP:3RR. Are you claiming to continue reversions under the ip address specified above? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And, for what it's worth, edit wars are contrary to guidelines, see WP:Edit war. As to who says what consensus is, the official policy does. Please abide by these. You seem to think that edit warring is an honorable sport...it isn't, it's merely disruptive. Akradecki 18:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. If it contines again with the ip reverts, i might have to reccomend a checkuser case. I am relucant to block an editor who has been here for a while based on a couple of IP reverts (as suspicious as they may be). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this morning, in addition to the above comment, he did his usual anti-consensus image reverts to both the B-36 and P-51 pages, which now put him past the level 4 vandalism warnings on his talk page. Akradecki 18:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki, in reference to your comment--obviously you think your way is the only way, and anyone elses does not matter and does not count. With that attitude, I think it violates working out to an argreement. I already stated why I believe the P-51 photograph should be left. The context of the subject matter. Is the P-51 used in airshows? Sure, but when was it made and when did it see military action for what it was designed to do? Used a military fighting aircraft in the skies of World War II, not paraded as an antique relic of a goneby era. Obviously you tend to think this matter is a closed and done deal discussion. Since you decided to change the photograph with a disucssion or dialogue of the matter, and the excuse that the photograph that was previously on the page was of "poor" quality. Is a poor judgement and reason for changing it. So who is right? Obivously you think you are, and vice versa.

In reference to the B-36 photograph, I've already made comments on the dicusssion page. Just a FYI, the United States Air Force owns and operates that museum. The photograph I provided is of better quality and better representation of the aircraft in lieu of Rogerd's photograph which he provided.
1. The image is at an angle
2. There is a spectator of the musem in the image
3. The quality of the photograph is poorer than the one I supplied and
4. The photograph I provide shows much more of the aircraft versus what he supplied which mainly focuses on the fuslage and not the entire subject matter

Again, this beckons back to the original problem...who is right? It's stated in the Wiki Guidelines that Wikipedia is not a democracy. -Signaleer 18:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, in reference to the P-51 edit, the user BillCJ took it upon himself to make the initial change http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=P-51_Mustang&diff=103326453&oldid=103321047 Please see this initial change of the info box image. His reasoning for this change is poor and in any event, does not fit into the context of the aircraft when it was used. The user BillCJ also took it upon himself to post this initial comment on the discussion page without creating a dialogue first. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AP-51_Mustang&diff=103519676&oldid=103510194 -Signaleer 20:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You can argue all you want, and though WP isn't a democracy, it is consensus-driven. Other editors have weighed in on the issues you mention, and the consensus went the other way. Don't feel bad, all of us have been on the loosing side of consensus now and again. The point is to respect others, respect the consensus and get on with life. Working well with others means that sometimes you have to realize that things don't always have to be done your way, and you're not the only one with a valid opinion.

And though you didn't mention it in this comment, I'll include this here, because it's valid for this overall discussion: Your attempt to deflect attention from your edit warring and make it look like I'm the edit warrior as you did at Talk:Women Airforce Service Pilots is not appropriate, either. The point here isn't to win a battle, it is to conform our edits to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and insisting on adding undocumented material and calling it "notable" flies in the face of WP:V, and then to call the editor who removes such undocumented material and "edit warrior" is, well, a sad way to try to justify yourself. If the material you've added is notable, as you said, all you have to do is document it. A brief note on how the pilot is notable, along with a citation, is all that's required to meet policy. And, it would have been a lot faster than all the griping. Akradecki 20:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Request assistance regarding User:Derex

---

Hello, the User talk:Derex page is being used by its user to conduct a rather bizarre personal smear campaign against myself. Whenever, I try to engage him in a discussion and respond to his accusations he deletes my posts and threatens me not to return to his talk page or else he'll have me banned. I would be happy to stay away from this individual as I very much dislike him, but he has conducted research into 6 and 7 year old posts I made on a previous website and posted them on his user page in some weird attempt to discredit my work here at Wikipedia. Frankly, I find this all rather disturbing. He is entitled to his opinions and I am entitled to mine, so long as we do not put our opinions into the articles we write. To do what he is doing smacks of McCarthism or a witch hunt and needs to be quickly knocked down and knocked down hard. Thank you for your time. --Jayzel 22:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It is on the bottom of his talk page. See under the heading "research notes. references collated by Jayzel68" [65] --Jayzel 22:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this mic on? Additionally, he has made numerous personal attacks against me. If you look at his talk page history you will find comments such as "(rm extended jayzel troll ... i fed him, i regret it)" when he deleted my replys to him. --Jayzel 23:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we have to wait to see how he responds. All I want is my name removed from his talk page. Since when did it become acceptable for Users to create files on each other? By the way, here is the beiginning of our debate [66] --Jayzel 23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I should just remind everyone of Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks

• Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.

• Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.

• Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion, including the suggestion that such a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit the external source containing the substance of the attack. --Jayzel 01:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• • And this had been going on for a while. Here is a comment from Derex back in October 2006:

[67] Let's suffice it to say that the main author of this article posted a previous version of to FreeRepublic with the title "TREASON OF BIBLICAL DIMENSIONS!"[2]. It's absolutely filled with innuendo and leading phrases. See this edit I just made for a good example. I used to think the facts were ok, but just a little overly-spun. However, I started factchecking another article by this author, and in at least 5 cases the refs did not actually say what the article said. It also has very serious WP:OR problems; it's an embarassment this made it to the main page. I think this thing needs to go before a peer review or something. Derex 23:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Cricket, cricket, cricket --Jayzel 00:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User Derex is now using a puppet to revert factual and well-referenced information in the 1996 United States campaign finance controversy article.[68] --Jayzel 00:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC) :::Seems you have need of this lovely hat. Derex 05:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks on the Administrator's notice board, no less.

Is this page a joke? You archived this with no action whatsoever? --Jayzel 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you just shout a bit louder? Derex 05:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'll respond as an admin to cut out the crickets. I can't guarantee I speak for all the others but for me, your complaint is rather hard to understand, and seems disjointed. Is your complaint that Derex posted links to articles you wrote in the past? If so, that's neither a personal attack nor a smear - it's not based on your affiliations, but your actions, and it's not exposing you to any outside persecution. Is your complaint that he is rude to you on his talk page, and deletes your posts from his talk page? Well, yes, I would say he could be more civil, but if this [69] is an example of your posts that he deletes, I would have to say that your posts aren't as polite as they could be either. Is your complaint something else? Then I guess you could make it more clear. But, if I may, rather than try to get admins to hurt each other more, let me offer some unasked for advice. May I? Please? Try to make peace. That does not mean "I'll stay off your talk page if you stay off article X" as I think one of you wrote to the other. Instead try to make article X reflect that both views exist, and give proper references: WP:CITE. And try to keep in mind that you are both here to give the world a free encyclopedia, with no personal benefit except a nice warm glow. That's a pretty good thing, implying that you are both likely to be rather good and well meaning people, if you would just stop calling each other names. Instead, try to respect what the other is doing. The encyclopedia will actually get better if the article properly reflects both views. Honest. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

NLP update – COI - domination and incivility - mediation possibilities

Hello all. Further to the previous 5 notifications [70] [71] [72] [73] [74].– here is an update. Pro nlp editors seem to have changed tack and decided to move - remove - or delete any discussion relating to the long term goals civility. Despite encouragement by at least one admin [75] towards NPOV summarization - domination by pro nlp editors is currently virtually absolute. Mediation by a neutral mediator seems to be more relevant - though these ANI notifications seem to at least be preventing the more basic facts from being removed from the article. The main critical views remain obscured through minimization - crowding out with non-criticisms - and selective editing. The can be fairly easy to present encyclopedically so long as editors work to summarize according to NPOV policies. It seems that the pro NLP group is strongly reluctant to allow this activity.

User Comaze is removing any information from his talkpage and from the NLP talkpage concerning his known COI [76][77][78]. He also seems to be deliberately dominating the talkpage – restating other editor’s headings – accusing me of 3RR (no evidence) [79] and again removing any goal or intention relating to solving the suppression of information issues [80]. Comaze’s activities seem to me to be deliberately disruptive.

Comaze and user 58.178.144.161 are dominating the NLP article by removing any critical information placed there – and by restoring argumentative writing [81]

In order to circumvent COI and meatpuppetry issues they are continuing to accuse me of sockpuppetry when evidence of sockpuppetry is completely absent (I am clearly working on my own and discouraging sockpuppetry – meatpuppetry – or any other such group domination behaviour). [82] [83]

They are also resisting peer review recommendations to add images and so on [84]

They seem to be uninterested in/dismissive of getting along with editors of a different view. In the interests of encouraging discourse which enables editors of all views to get along and be civil long term I don’t suggest a community ban on Comaze or 58.178.144.161. I will apply for mediation from a neutral mediator if the dominating group are interested. AlanBarnet 04:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Unwarrented blocking by administrator

Good day, I am writing to report what I view to be administrator abuse by the following Wikipedia administrator: User:Lar (talk). The following reasons are as followed:

1.This user began by giving me warnings about the layout of content of the Socialism article. While the user in question came off as well meaning, this user disregarded my own input in the matter while ordering me, with strong language to "take the advice of everyone else". This matter would not be a very big deal in and of itself, but a number of users, most notably WGee engaged in profanity and personal attacks against me, something that was not assessed by the administrator. The dispute itself has been a hinderance to the acheivement of consensus, and simply put, this administrator criticised me while "looking the others way" with regards to the questionable actions of the other users. Dialogue of this can been seen at the Socialism talk page.

2. This user gave me a number of warnings on my user page with regards to what he/she perceived to be a disruption. The issue at hand here is that he/she threatened to block me for the deletion of these warnings by me. This is not a blockable offense, yet this user clearly demonstrates that he/she believes it to be by stating that his/her "patience is wearing thin...". No user, not even administrators can tell other users what they can and can not include in their talk pages. This can be seen in my talk page. Checking the history might be useful.

3. This user has gone against Wikipedia blocking rules and regulations in that he/she has bolcked me for 24 hours: A. On no particular grounds, no specific reason or violation was cited as reason for the block other than that this user had perceived me to be difficult. B. This user and I were clearly engaged in what could be characterised as a "content dispute". It is clearly stated under the blocking guidelines, that it is not acceptable for an admin to block someone which is in a content dispute with them. This dispute referred to the discussion of page layout/settings in the Socialism article, where the dialogue of this dispute can be viewed here. C. This user, while not giving any specific citations/reasons for the block in question, stating that I should review the policies of Civility, No personal attacks, and verifiability. I agree, as I admit I could use a change in going about some edits. But the Wikipedia block guidelines has stated that none of these violations justify a block, and once again, no direct reason was given for the block in the first place. It should also be noted that the block in question took place almost immediately after I stated my intentions to report what I view to be administrator abuse.

4. This user has blanket reverted minor edits of mine on the grounds that "no consensus was given". This is a valid reasons for reversions regarding major structural changes, but does not apply to minor edits characterised by correction of grammer, etc.

In conclusion, it is my sincere belief that the actions of this administrator with regards to my account are not sufficiently justified. It is therefore my humble request that the actions in question be reviewed, evaluated, and that proper sanctions be given is such measures are found to be necessary. Thank you for your time, and have a good evening. ---- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 04:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to see here, beyond Lar being extraordinarly patient with a rather...vexatious editor. A short review of the history of EnglishEfternamn's talk page shows Lar patiently and politely advising Efternamn how to handle a dispute at Talk:Socialism (Efternamn was attempting to change the article from American to British English). Efternamn responded by removing Lar's advice with rude edit summaries, calling it "harassment", "vandalism", and "personal attacks". See further up this page at #EnglishEfternamn and WP:POINT for details and discussion about how Efternamn earned his most recent block.

The only 'proper sanction' that I can foresee is an additional block of Efternamn (he's had three in the last six weeks already) if he doesn't start behaving in line with Wikipedia norms. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

These are clearly ridiculous and severely misrepresented allegations of the way Lar handled this issue. EnglishEfternamn's conduct has already been reported up the page a bit here and at the WP:BLP/N.--RWR8189 05:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

See also EnglishEfternamn_and_WP:POINT in archive 189. I think maybe we archive things a bit fast here but... :) Anyway, WGee gave a very thorough recounting of the issues, referencing the edits that gave many of us concern, and calling for a community ban. My subsequent 24 hour block was characterised as mild by some. I remain hopeful this editor can reform, (although the wording choices in the above are perhaps somewhat indicative that it hasn't happened yet) and will continue to monitor this situation. As always I welcome review of my actions. See my talk page as well for further info if necessary. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Persistent subtle vandalism -- need admin with rollback button

An anonIP, 74.116.94.254 (talk · contribs) has been defacing Islam-related articles for weeks and it took me till now to catch on. He/she/it alters dates and numbers just a smidge -- enough to make them inaccurate. I've given warnings; we'll see if that will stop it, or if the account will have to be blocked. In the meantime, could an admin with a rollback button revert all the edits that haven't already been fixed? Zora 05:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The anon doesn't seem to have done anything since you posted this, but I'll try to keep my eyes on them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Peakdetector

This user has been introducing some bad-faith AFD nominations for articles on Gawker Media-owned websites like Gawker and Deadspin. Has been called on it on his talk page. Needs to be blocked or stopped. Daniel Case 05:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't he already stopped? Last edit 19:34, 31 January 2007. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've speedily closed both of those AFDs. --Coredesat 06:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Userpage message

I do not think that message 2 here is really within the spirit of the project. There is a thin line between personal opinion and hostility and that message (to my mind at least) does not match WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE. I am particular concerned about a statement that says You're at work? I think it is the solemn duty of all Wikipedians to inform employers that their employees are milking the clock and wasting valuable company time. Log in and I won't know where you work --Fredrick day 06:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed WeniWidiWiki's offending comment, here. I see no reason the Wikipedian community should tolerate (a) uncivil comments, (b) personal attacks against IP contributors, or (c) the very philosophy of Wikipedia, that anyone can edit any page. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks have to be directed at a specific person. Do not modify my userpage again. Do not place inappropriate warning /block tags on my talk page. - WeniWidiWiki 06:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It may not be a personal attack, but it certainly goes against WP:CIVIL for any anon editor who happens to visit your userpage. Also, remember that your used page is not entirely your own. —Dgies^t c 06:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree I removed it again. IP actually create most of our content. Biting them is harmful.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the backup. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

He's reverted me.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

From my talk page:

"Censorship of opinions you disagree with is totalitarian and despicable. Only a very new or uninformed editor would think my comments or opinions are unilateral. This is an ongoing debate, and I am fully within my right to express my opinion about the matter, just as any user of a controversial userbox is". - WeniWidiWiki 07:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but only within the limits of Wikipedia policy. Your comment is in violation of WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not vandalize my userpage again by censoring my opinions. - WeniWidiWiki 07:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the message and protected the user page. I will leave him a message concerning my protection.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Good job! Do they make a barnstar for censorship and squelching dissenting opinion? - WeniWidiWiki 07:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

WeniWidiWiki, this looks like a good time to mention StBenedictsRule. I hadn't thought of Ryulong as a stout monk before, but you get the idea. You're welcome to include both praise and criticism of Wikipedia on your talk page, but do it civilly please, or you won't be able to do it at all. --bainer (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bainer, if you are insinuating - or threatening - that I should be blocked or banned for holding unpopular opinions on what I consider broken Wikipedia policies, by all means get with it. AGF is a two way street, and obviously sarcasm is too complex a concept for many. - WeniWidiWiki 08:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well in this case the stout monk, rather than taking you aside for words, has protected your userpage which is more or less the same. But that's really a touch of colour to sell the analogy; the point of making the analogy in the first place was to illustrate that if you consider certain Wikipedia policies to be broken, by all means "expose the matter reasonably". Just don't get contumacious, and furthermore, don't get indignant when people take the contumaciousness poorly. --bainer (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Again, I underestimated some people's ability to detect sarcasm, and the blame for that rests solely on my shoulders. I obviously need to keep in mind that comments are easily misunderstood. Despite this, I think having templates placed on my page for personal attack, 3RR, etc. amounted to bullying by an out of line editor, and having the page locked was a bit draconian. - WeniWidiWiki 17:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet problem - User:Rjensen

It would seem that User:Rjensen has used two sock puppet accounts (User:Obow2003 and User:Jozil) several times in votes to create the illusion of consensus. All the edits of Obow and Jozil have been in votes in which Rjensen also voted (see diff, diff, diff, and diff for examples), and their language and style of writing style suggests that they are the same people. Even if they are not, it is obvious that Rjensen has asked these people to vote (making the accounts meat puppets). However, it is my belief that they are all sock puppets of Rjensen. The accounts have absolutely no edits in the main space, so this is the only logical explanation. A more detailed report is filed at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Rjensen, but there is a huge backlog there, so I posted here in hope of getting a quicker response. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Request Semi Protect

The Current Featured article is getting hit left right and center can it please be semi-protected? Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 07:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests for page protection come to WP:RFP – PeaceNT 07:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon - IP 213.170.207.96

Some other admin might like to keep an eye on this anon., who has turned up today apparently with some sort of axe to grind against Richard Dawkins and biological evolution ... along with a willingness to be uncivil on talk pages. As an affected editor, I don't plan to be the one to give any warnings or take any similar action, though I did suggest to him/her on the talk page of the Dawkins article that it would be an idea to read our policy on no personal attacks. Metamagician3000 07:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Board Game" entry replaced

The Wikipedia entry for "board game" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_game) now reads "Carl Calhoun, from Central Mountain high school in lock haven, pennsylvania was here." I'm not particularly technically proficient, so I wasn't sure what to do about the vandalism but report it here. 24.215.209.66 07:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with. To fix this crap in the future, see Help:Revert. MER-C 08:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Ramirez72

User talk:Ramirez72 has been adding the Philippines on the infobox of Spanish language which implies the language is spoken widely when it is not; in fact only 0.01% of the Philippine population speaks Spanish as per the 2000 Census. --Howard the Duck 08:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have tried to stay out of the debate, but Ramirez72 (talk · contribs)'s behavior has been less than stellar. He has twice engaged in personal attacks ([85] [86]), continually reverts the page with the insistence that his version is "Fine", and exhibits something of an agenda (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_language&diff=prev&oldid=104512627). He has stopped the personal attacks since I left a warning on his page, but hasn't stopped edit warring. JuJube 08:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It should not be there. 0.01% of the population is a frightfully small amount. And given this edit [87] ("fuck you carajo!") and his earlier pledges to keep re-adding it anonymously, I have blocked the user for a week. Any further crap will see an indefinite block. Proto::► 11:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please block this user and this ID address

I have already had trouble with User:tinylittletom who was later blocked. I have just checked my userpage to find out his new user A mysterious stranger and 194.106.39.211 have writed insults on my homepage.

I have already put my page back to normal but I'm fed up with this user insulting me in the last week

Please block him

Lyer 08:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is actually an interesting user. Both she and tinylittletom created a deleted article called Podminions [88] [89]. She vandalized his user page as well [90]. She signed a note on his page as A_suyash, an editor that reverted some of his changes on Shilpa Shetty. I don't know if this is even worth looking into, but I have a feeling they're all connected outside of Wikipedia. AniMate 09:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the anon's edits and blocked for six months. I'll look at the user in a minute. Metamagician3000 09:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Ryulong beat me to it - already blocked indefinitely. That was what I was planning to do after looking at the contribution history, so the block has my support if there's any debate about it. Metamagician3000 09:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Why hasn't Lyer been warned about his/her userpage vandalism to tinylittletom? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The only vandal comment that I can see was evidently self-reverted by Lyer after one minute. If I've misunderstood something, it won't be the first time, but at the moment this does not look like a case of moral equivalence. Metamagician3000 10:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

New way to fight spambots that make pages with nonsense titles

Following general consensus to implement an elegant kludge to protect non-existent pages in this VP discussion, I have created User:Flyingtoaster1337/Spam pages with nonsense titles, which may allow us not to pollute an entire category with nonsense titles. They include horrible ones like Talk:The Scream/ (deleted 10 times) and Template talk:Sri Lankan Conflict/ (3 times).

Now all that's needed to prevent these spam pages from being re-created is for a kind sysop to move my user subpage to Wikipedia:Protected titles/Spam pages with nonsense titles and protect the page. All the pages listed are currently redlinks so there's no need for any deletions in order for cascading protection to kick in. Flyingtoaster1337 10:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Done; moved, cascadedly protected, and linked to via Wikipedia:Protected titles. I am aware cascadedly is not a word. Proto::► 10:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :D Flyingtoaster1337 10:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Who says cascadedly is not a word? ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 13:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Cascading protection only works on transcluded pages. You'd have to transclude the pages in question before protection actually kicks. Just linking to them won't work. (Otherwise the featured article would be protected when it appears on the main page). - Mgm|^(talk) 13:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The spam pages are listed using {{protected title}} which transcludes the non-existent page onto the protected page. Flyingtoaster1337 15:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I realise why some of the pages aren't protected. For some reason the template breaks when the page name is preceded with spaces. Flyingtoaster1337 15:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So don't put spaces before your title spammers! HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Something in the template requires the namespace to be specified via the "ns" parameter instead of together with the rest of the page name. I've posted a corrected version of the entries on Wikipedia talk:Protected titles/Spam pages with nonsense titles. And the broken activity log link means that the template has to be fixed again. :/ Flyingtoaster1337 16:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:RolandR autoblocked

Please unblock him. Abu ali 10:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. yandman 10:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense addition to Electric Charge

Hello,

There have been several postings of nonsense on Electric Charge and i was wondering if user:Ayan2289 is the same as 71.225.220.43, as they have both posted very similar styles of vandalism. If so, then there is repeated vandalism happening by that user/IP. If not, then its just some copycat. Also if this is the wrong board, can someone please point me to the right one before removing it. Thanks User A1 11:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't believe this vandalism is serious enough for a CheckUser at this point. Just continue to revert (as long as you're not violating WP:3RR and if one of them does, you can report them on the proper "board," listed at the top of this one) and warn them if you spot vandalism. :) Once (and if) one gets to a test4, report him/her to WP:AIV. Srose (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Vandalism isn't covered by WP:3RR. If it's truly vandalism, just revert. - 131.211.210.11 13:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If it's not clear-cut vandalism, it's not...and from the way User:A1 is describing this dispute, it doesn't sound very clear-cut. Srose (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Srose - Will do : I'd say it's fairly clear cut vandalism/nonsense, Paco didn't name the symbol for electric charge (q) after his favourite food, nor is it named after the fictional character from the bond series. So i think 3RR is not applicable User A1 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My Warning

Hi, I received a {{test4}} Final warning on my talk page without previous warnings. Is there any way I can remove it or at least get a "first" warning if I did indeed vandalise Mr. User:Paul Silverman? The follow incidences have lead to this: I reverted this edit because I thought he accidentally put the examples on his page. I wrote on the talk page here telling him about the WP:Sandbox. He retaliated and vandalised my user page here even admitting that he was openly vandalising. So I wrote him a first/accidental warning here which caused him to give me my "final warning" here. I've recently read through his talk page to see if there was any information and it's littered with people accidentally editing his page and asking repeatedly for him to respond. Thank you for your time. I hope this gets cleared up because I would rather not like to be banned for something so silly.--Jude 11:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There does appear to be quite a bit of confusion over his user page...which makes absolutely no sense to me. He's made it clear with his edit summaries that he wants the stuff there. It would be a good idea for people to look at the page history before editing someone else's user space. I do agree that giving you a {test4} was inappropriate. I'm assuming that he may have overreacted because he's sick of people blanking his page. --Onorem 12:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As to 'any way to remove' the warning... just do so. Users are free to remove comments/warnings/whatever from their own talk pages if they wish. Doing so frequently or without following up may sometimes be viewed as 'uncivil' or 'sneaky', but even then it is allowed. --CBD 12:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

After looking more closely, you're not the only one who has had their page blanked in retaliation. Geniac and Calton got it too, while Midnight 7 was simply told his page would have been vandalized, but it was already blank...and mixed in an insult in the process. I still think that his user page has received an unusual amount of attention, but he's clearly not handling it properly. --Onorem 12:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the warning from User:Onathinwhitelines talk page. The edit was in good faith. Rettetast 13:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Eedo Bee

Has been removing LGBT tag from talk pages of articles relating to our project. His userpage states that she opposes LGBT issues, so it seems that this is WP:POV. A message has been left on his talkpage, but he is continuing the action. Have a look at his contribution history to see. I ask that an admin intervene, as it is time consuming and irritating to have to clean up after him. Jeffpw 12:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am a male. Stop with the female pronouns. Secondly, I have been removing unencyclopaedic content, that is all. I maintain that what I am doing is for the good of wikipedia, and I put such a userpage comment because of the LGBT hype up on wikipedia. I am removing the LGBT Issues banner on pages where there is no hint of an LGBT issue. Eedo Bee 12:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for misidentifying your gender. I saw you referred to as female in another area, so assumed it was correct. I have cleaned up my initial post here. Jeffpw 12:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I definitely think it's POV - the person seems to be Catholic, so is likely religiously opposed to the LGBT project. Somebody should warn this editor. Also, the "no hint of an LGBT issue" is rubbish, and this isn't for the good of Wikipedia. The person can demonstrate their Catholic, anti-LGBT bias in a different manner other than disrupting Wikipedia. LuciferMorgan 12:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take your Anti-Catholic attitudes elsewhere. The idea that Catholics set out to destroy wikipedia is offensive. Eedo Bee 12:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Eedo has removed the LGBT banner from (among others) Casey Donovan (porn star), one of the first gay porn stars; Billy Tipton, a woman who lived with another woman in a sexual relationship; and Sebastian, history's first recorded gay icon. These articles definitely fall under the scope of the LGBT project, and the deletion of our project tag is vandalism, in my eyes. Jeffpw 12:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You're incorrect Eedo Bee - I'm blaming you for trying to disrupt Wikipedia, not anyone else, but yourself. It's you who is being a vandal, not Catholics. Other Catholics, while holding their contrasting opinions, choose to respect other people's differing opinions and still edit in a fair, balanced and objective manner. I welcome such Catholic editors, and hope they continue to participate in Wikipedia. Your bias paints Catholics in a negative light, which is wrong of you - perhaps you can take your anti-LGBT agenda elsewhere - this is an encyclopaedia and is meant to respect both sides of the coin. LuciferMorgan 12:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Notice that Eedo's final userbox says "This user is against LGBT issues and Queer Theory," which is a strong indicator that he is acting for POV reasons.-FisherQueen (Talk) 12:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• I have now reverted seven of his edits, and notice he is returning to the pages and taking the tags off (at least one so far0 again. This is getting tiresome, and I politely but firmly request administrative intervention. I should also add that Eedo seems like a new editor. His contribution history only goes back to Jan. 2. Perhaps he is not aware that Wikipedia is run by consensus. I invite you, Edo, to review the policies here before you continue editing like this. Jeffpw 12:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'd also like to know what Eedo Bee means by "you people" when speaking at [[91]] this talk page. Care to explain Eedo Bee? LuciferMorgan 12:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And could Eedo also explain his libelous personal attack on Lucifer's talk page? Jeffpw 12:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he misinterpeted my opinions - I was trying to explain that his Catholic views may be a reason why he dislikes LGBT issues etc. This isn't to say all Catholics dislike LGBT issues or anything of that nature may I add. I'd like to also say that the issue is Eedo Bee, and not Catholic editors - Catholic editors have and will continue to play a valid, important role in Wikipedia, and I respect their differing opinions. LuciferMorgan 13:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have asked Eedo Bee to stop unilaterally removing the LGBT Studies tag from article talk pages, since this appears to me to be potentially disruptive and point of view-driven. The example of Aversion therapy is clearly within the legitimate scope of the project. I would also ask all participants to step back and remain civil. There is no need to further escalate this dispute, and name calling is certainly not warranted by anyone involved. Thanks, Gwernol 13:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You people keep editing, so it is difficult to reply. I have already tried 3 times now. I will jus sum up. It does not say I am Catholic anywhere. You people just assumed. You people is the same people that was meant when it was stated "We" Billy Tipton did not have a sexual relation ship with a woman. This is a lie. Those libel attacks are a response to attacks against myself and my beliefs. I will continue to revent non LGBT articles to LGBT banner free articles. Eedo Bee 13:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you continue, you will be blocked. Please read Wiki policies before you continue on this path. You've already gotten a vandalism warning on your page for this, and an admin has asked you to stop. Jeffpw 13:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

First: Jeffpw please note that Eedo Bee's edits are clearly 'not vandalism. Labeling them as such is exactly the sort of escalation of this legitimate content dispute that I asked all participants to avoid. Second: Eedo Bee, please do not continue to remove these tags without first reaching a consensus on the article's talk pages. I have warned you that taking unilateral action of this kind is disruptive. It is not the way that Wikipedia works and if you persist you can be blocked from editing at all. Finally to everyone involved I again appeal for calmness here. Eedo Bee is correct that the issue of whether he is Catholic is not germane to this at all. Please concentrate on the user's editing actions, not their background. Everyone should read our policy on personal attacks. Thanks Gwernol 13:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've not said a word about Eedo's religion. That is not an issue to me. I do, however, see his actions as vandalism, and highly disruptive to both the LGBT Project and Wikipedia. And I note he is continuing his ill-advised campaign despite several people warning him against it. Jeffpw 13:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an issue to me either, and I clarified my stance in an earlier comment left here. Perhaps Eedo Bee can also not concentrate on "background" when commenting on people's talk pages. I'm sorry, but this is vandalism which as far as I am concerned - I disagree with the above which Gwernol said, and suggest Gwernol please note I was accused of being anti-Catholic, and the LGBT Project was referred to as "you people" on someone's talk page. I have made no "personal attacks", but I call a spade a spade. Vandalism is vandalism - I don't call it an alleged "content dispute", I call it what it actually is. This is my opinion and I have nothing further to say on the subject. LuciferMorgan 13:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I note that this user is relatively new and may not have fully understood what project tagging means. He may have assumed it gives project members special rights to edit articles. I have left a note explaining that this is not the case, per WP:OWN and an explantion of why projects tag pages. Hopefully this may calm things somewhat. WJBscribe 15:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

CopyToWiktionaryBot

It seems like CopyToWiktionaryBot (talk · contribs) is doing a mass tagging of article with {{TWCleanup}} and their discussion page with {{transwikied to Wiktionary}} without any discussion on the article's talk page. There are some long heavily edited articles that are also heavily wikilinked that have been tagged by this robot. The robot's user page says to bring up any issues with the robot on this page.--- Safemariner 12:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can you give an example of a heavily edited article that got transwikied? BTW, this bot has been approved to do such mass tagging. - 131.211.210.11 13:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• CopyToWiktionaryBot (talk · contribs) only responds when editors have tagged pages with {{copy to Wiktionary}} in the first place. It doesn't touch articles that someone else hasn't already applied a notice to. If there's mass tagging occurring, it is the editors who are mass tagging with the initial {{copy to Wiktionary}} notice that you need to look to, not the 'bot. Uncle G 22:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:194.63.141.110

I don't quite understand what this user is doing, but I think someone ought to take a look, in case it's not good. 194.63.141.110 (talk · contribs) – Qxz 13:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Serial spammers like this guy can be reported at WP:AIV if they have the appropriate warnings. PTO 13:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That particular serial spammer was blocked by me for a month. Syrthiss 13:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone with a good idea what this is? re User talk:HELLO, WORLD!/Sandbox

Something on the zh wiki. User talk:HELLO, WORLD!/Sandbox. I noticed it since the user keeps requesting to have the Feb 4'th selected anniversaries template unprotected. Syrthiss 13:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith. Those pages on zh.wikipedia do not exist yet. What you are seeing when you click on those links is the "This page does not exist" error message on there. There is also nothing on the deletion log there saying that those pages were deleted. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume good faith until someone does something to make me suspicious, like adding requests to RFPP multiple times for templates used on the main page to be unprotected...and ignoring suggestions to use {{editprotected}} instead. I realize now looking at their contributions that there may be language issues between this editor and I. Syrthiss 16:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#New_way_to_fight_spambots_that_make_pages_with_nonsense_titles

Updated discussion above. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:207.61.144.42

This user keeps vandalizing the Nova Scotia page. The Contribs page shows that this has been an ongoing problem, despite the fact that the IP address has been blocked in the past. Please help! Burnley 13:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I realize that this is posted in the wrong place. Sorry. Burnley 13:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Block review

• Cindery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk • contribs) 14:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

I have blocked Cindery indefinitely for stalking User:Samir (The Scope) in real life and his edits by nominating one of the articles he created for deletion which was clean and plain disruption. It has come to my notice that this user has been spending considerable time being uncivil, disruptive and stirring controversies on Wikipedia and by editing Encyclopedia Dramatica and harrassing, stalking Samir by creating articles on him under the pseudonym "SlimWhore" <http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=SlimWhore> along with a banned user. I see similarity in edits and summaries and especially the usage of the double hyphens "--" when I compared them with Cindery's edits. She has also contributed to articles on User:JzG, User:JoshuaZ, User:Azer Red and made defamatory remarks against another fellow administrator User:SlimVirgin. The same user here had had less than pleasant interactions with some of the above administrators. This user does not wish to contribute to the encyclopedia and is not helping it in any way </euphemism> I propose a community ban. Please discuss peacefully and allow Samir to leave comments here. Yours faithfully, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I will not be losing any sleep over this. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• I have seen Cindery a number of times on Wikipedia and I think she should be banned for stalking and for being disruptive. Cindery's conduct cannot be condoned and we have tolerated enough of such trolling. The personal attacks against the admins will not be tolerated and the ban is necessary. Terence Ong 15:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Nick, are you able to provide diffs relating to this user's conduct / misconduct on Wikipedia? Unless they have also broached rules in a similar way on-Wiki (or made actions off-Wiki that may directly impact upon Wikipedia, such as making legal threats or revealing privileged information), their actions on another website are explicitly irrelevant. Even some categoric proof that it's the same person, other than basing this on some prior disagreements and the use of double hyphens would be useful. I agree that Cindery has been a problem user, but I am uneasy with a community ban for entirely off-Wiki actions. Also, can you provide a diff of this user stating they do not wish to contribute to Wikipedia, or is this just your opinion? Proto::► 15:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest we wait for Samir's inputs here. Users have been blocked before for their off-wiki conduct. Samir has been stalked in real-life and he would be the right person to explain it all to you. Also, you might want to have a look at the similarities in edits which I have pointed out. It wouldn't take more than a cursory glance over the user's on-wiki edits and whom they have been working in collusion with. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse block and ban. -- Steel 15:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Basically endorse the block (upon reviewing contribs), but I would want the evidence and Samir's testimony to be listed first and foremost in such a report and request for endorsement of an indef-block. There needs to be a firmer basis for such a block, but I'm confident that Samir's explanation may provide it. Rama's arrow 15:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with Rama's arrow, essentially I trust Samir and provided there is a reasonable explanation, I would support this community ban. Usually, of course, I would expect slightly more in the way of justification. However, in this case, per Terence Ong, my experience with Cindery was the user was engaged in trolling and disruption. Addhoc 15:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Not here to be constructive, block log indicates 4 blocks since 12/22 not counting this one, so definitely has exhausted the community's patience.--MONGO 16:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• I would endorse and support both the block and a community ban. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Just by way of my two pence: I generally agree with Rama's comments, and as pointed out by MONGO the user has perhaps exhausted community's patience. Moreover, implicit in "contributing" [I am just giving my interpretation in view of Proto's comments :)] is value addition to wikipedia and not just disruptive edits or editing for the sake of editing/ trolling/ stalking, etc. Coupled with all these negative points, real life threats (if proved explicitly or implicitly) are really serious issues. I would request User:Samir (The Scope) to please offer his comments as regards the real life problems created by this user. The block imposed appears to be fine unless sufficient evidences are available to challenge the same. At the same time, in my opinion too, the actions on another website are explicitly irrelevant. I may add that with wikipedia's system to deal with useless users becoming stronger, such useless users shall surely find the life miserable here and fly to other sites to make noise and enjoy the game of self-befooling process by deriding and maligning the genuine users and administrators and other functionaries of wikipedia. None cares for such funny creatures of the digital cosmos! --Bhadani 17:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse this, echoing Rama. IronDuke 17:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Isn't Cindery Little Miss "Stop Wikistalking Me With Your Stalking Abilities, Stalker"? JuJube 17:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• From my interactions with her at the Barrington Hall article I would support this ban. She behaves in a very disruptive way and refuses to co-operate with the community.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• I see myself as likely to endorse, but I'll wait for some telling diffs (the "one glance" didn't do it for me, Mimsy, sorry) and/or input from Samir about RL events. Cindery's block log is damning, yes—4 blocks in six weeks, for disruption, sockpuppetry, edit warring, harassment, etc. Wow. But the same log is also mysterious, in that the user has previously been here for nearly a year without getting blocked even once. I don't quite like endorsing something that nigglingly odd, so I'll wait a bit. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
• If she really is SlimWhore she appears to have lost it completely. There may be users here who can tell the difference between ED and Wikipedia but evidently she isn't one of them. MartinDK 20:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Werdna's RfA

Please see the latest question posted at the RfA. I've asked User:Konstable for a specific diff or diffs. --Dweller 15:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Diffs? The question's about IRC. yandman 15:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I (now) presume the question is about the top result on the Google page he linked to... --Dweller 16:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed. The ArbCom decision clearly says no links to ED are allowed. In this case Konstable was simply using Google as a link echo. Anyone who thinks they can trust the authenticity of logs published on ED is out of their mind. --Cyde Weys 16:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you blank the entire question? I've reverted it, removing the link and explaining why. It's unfair to censor a legitimate (and serious) question just because of the link provided. yandman 16:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

With all invalid evidence removed, the entire question is just defamation with no support whatsoever. It's clearly not acceptable. Yardman, let's say you go through an RFB and I ask you the question of whether you've stopped beating your wife ... should I honestly expect the question to stand? --Cyde Weys 16:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, there's no need for straw men here. The "Are you still beating your wife?" question only works as intended when the response is limited to one word, "Yes" or "No". In fact, a response of "I've never beat my wife. Do you have any evidence or is this completely baseless" will cause it to backfire in short order. Werdna can respond however he wants to this question, so I see little need to remove it. ChazBeckett 17:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's still a damaging question though, and it will put doubt into some people's minds regardless of what the answer is. "Wow, they're asking him if he's beating his wife now, I don't think I like this guy ..." --Cyde Weys 20:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Konstable didn't ask Werda why he made these comments; he asked him if he made them. Therefore, your analogy is inapplicable. —David Levy 21:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No, because it has no relevance to being a good bureaucrat. Anyway, it isn't defamation: Konstable makes it clear that he does not trust the logs 100% ("Is that really you?"). Let Werna reply: you must admit that if it is a fake, it's a very good one: the tone and technical expertise are spot on. yandman 17:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't revert the question. Any oversighters in the house? :-) --Kim Bruning 16:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would an "oversighter" be needed? ChazBeckett 17:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

How's this? It seems pointless to make a fuss over it, and obviously with that censor language people will know where to go to get them, so I blurred it a bit more. And those logs are legit by the way, I was there. Milto LOL pia 17:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Assuming these are real, what's to say they aren't taken out of context? Werdna obviously didn't do any of these things allegedly being said by him, so what is the big deal? I've idly speculated on the best way to make a vandalbot myself. It's an interesting topic. But it would be a terrible thing if those logs somehow materialized here and were read by people who didn't realize I'd never actually do those things, and suddenly, things on-wiki are being unduly influenced. --Cyde Weys 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We don’t like legal threats either. Even when anyone actually never do take legal action. --Van helsing 21:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the question again. Comments on IRC (by themselves) are not cause for on-wiki action (which is why we don't post IRC logs on the wiki), and throwing around unsubstantiated accusations is just trolling, and sullies the entire RFA process. Philwelch 21:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And I restored it again. This is not an accusation; it's a question asked in good faith. Your personal opinion that it's irrelevant doesn't give you the right to make that decision on behalf of the community.

Incidentally, your use of the administrative rollback function to revert my edit (as though I'd committed vandalism) was highly inappropriate. —David Levy 22:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is an accusation in the form of a question, and an attempt to introduce suspect evidence into consideration. With the evidence rightly removed, it is just an unsubstantiated accusation. Anyone who restores the question again will be blocked. Philwelch 22:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Under what policy would that be acceptable? Heimstern Läufer 22:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

To eliminate the appearance of bias, I've recused my vote in support of Werdna. Philwelch 21:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

How does that eliminate the appearance of bias? We already know where you stand on the issue. —David Levy 22:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to remove your !vote, and I'd urge you to reinstate it. There can be disagreement about including the question or not, but that doesn't affect anyone's right (and I'd say obligation if he or she has a strong view) to express an opinion on an RfA. Newyorkbrad 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Per User talk:Philwelch. I see that Steel has now blocked Philwelch for 3 hours for "disrupting Werdna's RfA." I do not know that this is going to have a calming effect on the situation. Newyorkbrad 22:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

He unblocked David Levy as well. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I had not seen that Philwelch had blocked David Levy—for 24 hours for "trolling," no less. I see no justification, either in policy or pragmatically, for either block. Newyorkbrad 22:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Philwelch had reverted that page four times, and thus Steel's block could presumably be justified under 3RR. Whether or not it was a good idea is a bit more suspect, I'll admit, but it looks to me like it fits policy. Heimstern Läufer 22:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, though don't object to unblocking if Philwelch agrees to stop blocking and using rollback on other editors he's fighting with. -- Steel 22:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Noted, although 3RR was not mentioned in the block summary. But when a contested matter is under active discussion here, I see no need for anyone to be acting unilaterally, much less blocking other admins. I find Philwelch's block of David Levy much more troublesome, although I think both sides have valid points on the merits of the underlying dispute. Newyorkbrad 22:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your concerns are the same ones underlying my remark about "whether or not it was a good idea". Heimstern Läufer 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Phil should definitely have not blocked the user he was warring with does not negate the fact that David Levy, an experienced user, racked up three reverts himself and should have known better. I'm uncomfortable with blocking one and not the other as if only the one was wrong. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have a simple solution: unblock both users and leave the question off the RfA page. Let's bury this controversy; we don't need another argument. — Deckiller 22:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely do not unblock Philwelch, regardless of the end result of the question. JS rollback on a legitimate edit is an absolutely unacceptable action, especially in a dispute. -- Renesis (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh, and I see he also blocked the user he was in conflict with. I would have gone for a longer block than 3 hours. -- Renesis (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have been reaching to block anyone, but of course Philwelch did it first in this instance, and this isn't his first controversial block. Newyorkbrad 22:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This question reads to me like a distasteful attempt at poisoning the well, and an abuse of the RfA system. RfA exists solely for the community to come to the best decision about a candidate. It is not a place to get your kicks in. To that end, if you disagree with someone, make a dispassionate remark to that effect. If you truly have a question that you need answered before you can know whether you will support, ask it reasonably. If it's a damning supposition that you found with a Google search, but you still, for some reason, feel you must ask it, use some tact and ask by email or talk page. Posting unqualified speculation at the top of an RFA i the kind of thing you do if you want to derail an RFA, not decide where you stand, and it's the tacit acceptance of such behavior because commenters should be free to say or ask whatever hurtful things they want without challenging that's kind thing that makes RfA such an unnecessarily stressful and nasty place sometimes. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

New MyWikiBiz sock

I'm wondering if User:Samsara is a sockpuppet of User:MyWikiBiz? Check this out. --72.94.166.89 15:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Samsara didn't write that, MuscleJaw_SobSki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did (who is now blocked). Not sure whether it should have been restored, though. —bbatsell ¿? 15:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to fill out the back story, MuscleJaw_SobSki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an indef blocked sockpuppet of MyWikiBiz. Given the IP's only two edits, I'd say there was a reasonably strong possibility that this is MyWikiBiz back to harass editors and push his agenda again. Gwernol 16:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just getting pathetic. Doesn't Gregory Kohs realize that he is clearly unwanted here? What corporation in their right mind would pay him money to write an article knowing that if it's discovered it will probably be deleted and their reputation besmirched? They're basically paying a saboteur to try to sneak in and do something against the wishes of the vast majority of our community. It just doesn't make for good business at all. --Cyde Weys 16:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If he vandalizes, I concur 100% to block him straight away. But if he or someone else makes constructive edits and gets paid for it, I don't see what the big deal is as long as they're WP:NPOV/WP:V/WP:NOR compliant. To do otherwise is just cutting off our nose to spite our face, and I do not see where the wishes of the vast majority of the community are against him here per Cyde's comment. Just H 19:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

He's a spammer. He's using Wikipedia to spam. He's even spammed Wikipedia editors to solicit business from them directly. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

I do not see where the wishes of the vast majority of the community are against him here per Cyde's comment. Then you're not paying attention. Try here, or most succinctly, the black box here: note the sig. --Calton | Talk 21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed the previous section header here, which was misleading (and inadvertently unfair to an uninvolved editor). Newyorkbrad 16:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Per a motion I made on AN/I a week or so aho, MyWikiBiz/Gregory Kohs is banned by the community from editing Wikipedia, so we keep our eyes peeled for socks. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• You might want to examine all articles which link to his new business, too. They're either by him or his customers, but in any case probably a priori unreliable. --Calton | Talk 20:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest issues on Obligations in Freemasonry and related AfD

A number of self-identified Freemasons and I believe several who have not disclosed their conflict of interest are both edit-warring on the article and lobbying to change keep votes in the AfD. Identified Freemasons include: MSJapan and ALR. Undisclosed Freemasons probably include Blueboar, WegianWarrior, and possibly several others. Could someone look into this? 204.122.16.13 16:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So far their actions have include: claiming on the talk page that quoted text doesn't match the reference given, when in fact it does. Voting in the AfD without disclosing their conflict of interest. Repeated removal of properly cited material claiming it is t "misquote" when it is not, and using other misleading edit summararies to remove or change information that they would prefer not be presented in Wikipedia. 204.122.16.13 16:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in any way involved in this AfD,but a quick cursory check of the text attributed to "Duncan's Masonic Ritual and Monitor" in the article against this seems to indicate the text in the article is completely fabricated... I don't see those quotes anywhere in the online text...--Isotope23 17:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Simply click through to the appropriate chapter for the first three degrees and search for "Peter Gabe". 204.122.16.13 17:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there it is... that's what happens when you do a quick cursory check.--Isotope23 17:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Before anyone gets too trigger happy here, look at the contrib history of 204.122.16.13 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Frater Xyzzy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Frater Xyzzy originally created the entry in question, and is currently blocked for sock puppetry. This single purpose IP editor originates in Seattle, where Frater Xyzzy also lives. Do not enable a user who is evading an indef block to prove a point. - WeniWidiWiki 21:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that he was blocked as a sock of me, even though he is a seperate individual, simply because he edited from behind the same router as I do before he moved. Since I am not in Seattle, and he currently is, that means that he was falsely blocked as a sock, and he is not evading anything. Alternatively, for the sake of argument, if he is me, I am not blocked and therefore he would not be evading a block. I have removed my votes and comments from the AfD, because I have no desire to be blocked again for the actions of another user who has been falsely identified as my sock. Jefferson Anderson 21:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Jefferson Anderson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), the sockpuppeteer, also voted in this AfD. Since this report he is now removing his vote from the AfD, but also other users comments about his sockpuppetry [92]. While Anderson/Xyxxy/204 has the right to strike out his comments, it is unacceptable for him to be deleting the comments of other participants in the AfD. This is the same sort of thing he was doing in the Jeff Rosenbaum AfD . ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't vote. 204.122.16.13 21:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop falsely accusing me a sockpuppetry. There are a lot of assumptions here, and I am trying my best NOT to be confused with someone who is not me. Jefferson Anderson 21:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment

I have been continuously sexually harassed by this User:Woot Hoot the owl aka WOOOOOOT and their sockpuppets for the past day and a half. I find it extremely disturbing that they are targeting me. He now knows how to change his IP address and claims he is going to do this every day. Can someone please put an end to this? Darthgriz⁹⁸ 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Temporary semi-protection of your userpage and talkpage may solve this. Thulium 18:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. I also just now left her a note to this effect. Expiration set for a week (love that new protection-expiry feature). Antandrus (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been following this vandalism and try to block the offensive vandal as soon as possible. I will also keep aneye on page protection and if it is needed again, feel free to notify me. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Teapot Dome Vandalism

The 'Teapot Dome Scandal' page has been vandalized - not severely, but bad language has been used. Could this be cleared off?

89.240.65.214 18:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone already reverted it.--Isotope23 18:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a joke?

There are what, almost 2 thousand administrator's here and no one responds to requests? Does enforcement of Wikipedia policies not exist anymore? --216.153.154.85 18:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would need more information to answer that. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Administrator absence FAQ suggests the following:

• "This administrator is intentionally left blank."
• "All our administrators are busy enforcing policies on other articles, rather than chatting on ANI. Please explain your question in more detail, and an administrator will be with you shortly."
• "All your administrator are belong to us".

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to go out on a limb and say it is related to this...--Isotope23 19:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

BINGO And he's is conducting personal attacks on this very board, no less. --216.153.154.85 19:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems you have need of this lovely hat. Derex 05:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks on the Administrator's notice board, no less.

This anon has removed Derex's comments four times n'counting from Derex' talk page, calling him a 'troll'. If you ask me, the anon's behavior seems far more trollsome [93], [94], [95], [96]. Ho-hum. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're looking for dispute resolution. This situation, from what I can tell, does not require administrative intervention, which is what this noticeboard is for. —bbatsell ¿? 19:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

IP blocked 24h for WP:3RR. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm against the block or anything, but isn't it a little disingenuous to direct him to WP:PAIN? Since it kinda no longer exists, you know. ^_^ JuJube 19:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, how come no one ever tells me these things? :D RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Block IP for one week becuase of legal threat

Due to the following edits. I am going to block this IP for one week. If anyone else has any better ideas, feel free to just do it. :D

Note, I have not done anything yet, the threats were made a few weeks ago. ideas? —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 18:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• [97]
• [98]

Thanks —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 18:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It may make sense to remove the threatening message, or replace with a polite reminder to make sure that all contributions follow our content policies, but I don't think we need do anything else. Jkelly 18:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a static IP -- BESI (a.k.a. "journeyeast) has its server on it (see the domains tools section labeled "server data")-- this means that IP address is probably one of Comcast's business accounts. This is not a shared IP.

See these for additional information:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive175#User talk:71.201.181.10
• User talk:71.201.181.10
  • As you can see, this was one of the more prolific spammers of the year spamming many domains across a range of Wikipedia articles. Several of his sites are Chinese; I don't have the language skills to know if they've been spammed to the Chinese Wikipedia. It took hour to track this stuff down and clean it up.

Thanks for any help you can render. I'm not an admin, so there's not much I can do here other than document and clean up. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

New accounts for Iraqi dinar vandal

He's now editing from The other worldz, The purity worldz, and No problem 1284. He has discovered that if he creates the account and lets it "age" for a few days, he can again vandalize Rafida and Nasibi, despite the semi-protection. He's also started reverting my edits -- though only one other article, so far.

I must say, he's certainly challenging the "anyone can edit" policy. Zora 18:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• You probably meant The other worldz (talk · contribs), The purity worldz (talk · contribs), and No problem 1284 (talk · contribs). I'll have a look now. 〈REDVEЯS〉 19:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing really to see here unless I'm missing something fundamental. One has no contributions; one has one vandalism incident and one reversion of someone else's vandalism; one has one good edit and one POV push, soon reverted. By all means monitor them, but so far there's nothing that WP:AGF won't cover. Thanks for letting us know, though! 〈REDVEЯS〉 19:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• My, that is alot of WP:SOCKS. I'd suggest a checkuser, but I think WP:DUCK would be reason enough to indef block a whole bunch of the "z" accounts.--Isotope23 19:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest opening a sock investigation on Angelz of rozez (talk · contribs), Songz of lifz (talk · contribs), The purity worldz (talk · contribs), The other worldz (talk · contribs), Solaariz dayz (talk · contribs)...--Isotope23 19:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Vanaldism from user 216.107.210.140

This user has been making several repeated attempts to vanadlize the Aqua Teen Hunger Force page and his history shows a past of repeated vandalism. [99]

--Skeev 19:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As it says at the top of this page: "To report persistent vandalism or spamming, see WP:AIV" Thanks, Gwernol 20:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like at least 7 of his last 10 edit on Wikipedia were vandalism and he'd been blocked several times before for doing the same. I guess what I'm curious about now is, what consitutes "persistant" vandalism? Not trying to be sarcastic or anything, just trying to understand the system. --Skeev 21:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is persistent vandalism, but it doesn't go here (here being WP:AN/I), it goes on WP:AIV, which is the noticeboard specifically for vandalism. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? 21:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I misread Gwernol's post. Thanks for the correction. --Skeev 22:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User 198.160.250.2

This user vandalised Sasuke Uchiha several times and should be warned (or i possible blocked). The number was 198.160.250.2 Jacce 20:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As it says at the top of this page: "To report persistent vandalism or spamming, see WP:AIV" Thanks, Gwernol 20:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Blizzard man

Someone has set up the article for Blizzard Man and are trying to depict it as a real person instead of a character on Saturday Night Live. I tried to change it, but they seem to like the joke so much they reverted it. Remember 21:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone deleted it before I could smerge it to Andy Samberg. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Blatant acts of vandalisim are taking place on the page for Patrick Macias, a page that should probably be deleted anyways. Gabberone

User:Ed g2s again

I realise that this is likely to do little good, as many (most?) people here seem to think that because user:Ed g2s does good work dealing with images, therefore he can't also behave badly. I'll try though.

Would someone review his over-zealous attitude to image removal from articles, please? His Talk page indicates just how much bad feeling he's stirring up. Instead of the normal process of tagging an image as fair-use that could (in some bizarre Wikipedia use of "could") be replaced by a GDFL image, and placing a tag at articles where it's used, he simply removes the images from teh articles. He does this, indeed, even when warning templates have been placed at articles, with deadlines a week away. There is no advantage in this; Wikipedia is not in imminent danger of being sued for using fair-use images on pages about actors, singers, etc. All that he's doing is getting a lot of people very angry and frustrated.

I'm not suggesting that he stop his no-doubt valuable work in stripping the encyclopædia of images, just that he slow down and try to apply some judgement. Hos activities no longer verge on the obsessive; they've overstepped that line. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

He's crossed the line far too many times, just yesterday he violated 3RR (again!) edit warring over fair use images because he did not believe they are fair use (though consensus says they are) - List of Heroes episodes. Ed refuses to provide rationales generally as to the problem he finds wrong and oversteps the mark when he disrupts pages to make his point. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User Mhstebbi

Mhstebbi (talk • contribs • logs) has been adding images to articles on Icelandic politicians. Not once has an image uploaded by him had any source information. He seems to have copied images from the websites of the Parliament and President of Iceland without permission. Some of the images are of deceased people and it might be possible to put some sort of a fair use claim on them, but other images we are certainly not allowed to use, for example Image:Þorsteinn Pálsson .jpg, Image:Þorsteinpalsson.jpg and Image:Myndpálsson.jpg which are all the same image and he has put into the article on Þorsteinn Pálsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

The reason I am bringing this up here is that he has had repeated warnings about this but ignores them and just reinserts the images. Therefore I think an admin might need to look into this. Thanks, Stefán 22:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)