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

Rootkit

Can an admin please attend to Rootkit which either needs to be a redirect to Root kit or, according to the consensus, Root kit needs moving to rootkit. At the moment there is a speedy deletion on Rootkit, and a note rather than a redirect, which while it would allow a non admin to sort out the problem, isn't of any use to the readers who will come along looking for Rootkit (as Root kit is a mistake) and get this horrendous page, worse than a double redirect, SqueakBox 16:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Radiojon is now revert moving the live talk page Talk:Rootkit to Talk:Rootkit/archive here and [here which is blanking my comments. He is also removing the redirect I have put opn Rootkit to replace it with a message top accompany his spurious speedy notice. He is making a mess of wikipedia content and disrupting a debate for reasons I don't conmprehend, SqueakBox 17:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• I hope you don't mind, I fixed your typo--[[User:Hello fromSPACE| 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Do something about it, please

Rex071404 (talk · contribs), it's a persistant troll, that seems to be testing the system to see how far it can push without being blocked, it's already required an article to be locked to protect it from him--IKnowWho^{(Gee, I'm a sockpuppet, how unexpected)} 00:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• At least it's being mature[1] about it--IKnowWho^{(Gee, I'm a sockpuppet, how unexpected)} 00:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking no. If whoever is behind has a genuine complaint, RFC is that-a-way.Geni 00:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

He has had a previous RFAr agains him, though, for the same problem... Titoxd^(?!?) 00:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Return of the stupid vandalbot

I want to inform you guys that the "SUPER COOL" vandalbot has been messing with the sandbox! (preceding unsigned comment by 63.19.157.34 (talk • contribs) )

• Curps immedately is on the case. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Curps forgot about it, so someone block his IP range for a looooooooong time!!!!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.19.157.34 (talk • contribs)

Well, at least he's only interested in the sandbox for now. A vandal-bot attacking the sandbox is much better than a vandal-bot attacking more important pages. --Ixfd64 22:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

He will tomorrow unless you block his IP range. In the other attack, he started with the sandbox and then went on to more important pages the next day.

• Is it just me or is 63.19.157.34 (talk · contribs) acting suspiciously? Nearly all its edits are to the sandbox, but it seems to know a lot about IP ranges, blocking, ANI etc. Radiant_>|< 01:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

See below, under "Remington and the Rattlesnakes." 63.19.xxx.xxx is the "North Carolina Vandal." Antandrus (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yuber2

Clarification/action requested regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber. Yuber (talk · contribs) engages in WP:EW in Anti-Arabism: inserts suspicious and provocative image and inflammatory POV quotes. [2]. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The above is a false accusation. The quotes were here long before I arrived at Wikipedia, and all I have done is add a well-sourced image that shows anti-Arab graffiti written by Israeli settlers in the Palestinian city of Hebron. Yuber^(talk) 22:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Found on a suspicious (not my words) website doesn't mean "well-sourced". See WP:V. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

To any admins reading this. These two BOTH push POV. In this context it is rank hypocracy for Yuber to be singled out over his conduct on this article. You need to see the context before making a call on this one. Unbehagen 13:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Another vandalbot on sandbox

Now it's "Deny Aleshia".

:P I'm a vandalbot, am I? Heh, well, whatever. But why is your "Tosha Trash" content more worthy than "Deny Aleshia."? Explain. :) 24.224.153.40 02:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It is because you are extremely persistent, and that will not be allowed on the sandbox!63.19.216.158 02:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not? The sandbox is for experimenting and I'm.. get this -- experimenting. I wish Sandbot would come back, he was fun to experiment with. :'( <-- sad 24.224.153.40 02:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

In fact, my content is more friendly than your "Ashley Asshole" content. Deny Aleshia demands placement. >:( 24.224.153.40 02:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Resolved

Block question

Would it be beyond bounds to block a user indef for repeated uploading of images marked fair use with no source? Said user has been on wikipedia since November 2004, told repeatedly to list with a source, and yet continues to upload no sourced fair use images, on the order of more than 100 images since coming here. User in question is Kevinsnow  ALKIVAR™ 05:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Indefinitely? Yeah, that would be beyond bounds. I'd give another three warnings and then just delete any further images he posts without a license on sight; but then, that's proabably just me. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thats basically what I've been doing. Just frustrated at going through a long backlog of his images.  ALKIVAR™ 05:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I think following the wikipedia disspute resolution process would be logical in this case.Geni 05:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I'll do that although I dont think that will get a result, as comments posted to his talk page remain unanswered.  ALKIVAR™ 05:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Indefinite blocking surely is out of bounds, but I don't see why short blocks for something which is clearly a violation of policy (of which he was repeatedly informed) should be any problem. I'd support a 24 hour block, when he repeats when unblocked increase the length to 48, etc. And keep telling what he should be doing to fix things. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• There are precidents for indef blocks (not perma-blocks) by admins in such instances. If a user is continuously engaged in a problematic action -e.g. mass creating non-vandalism but speediable articles, or, in the instance I recall, uploading massive amounts of orphan images with no obvious use. And if the editor is unresponsive to questions or requests to desist. I've seen admins block indef, not as a punishment but 'to get their attention', with a clear message on the user page that the block will be immediately lifted if the user either promises to desist, OR enters into a dialogue about the appropriateness of his actions. Such blocks do not seem to be policy, but they seem useful and rational - when we are met with continued problematic behaviour and a refusal to discuss (DR is pointless with a silent party). Doc ^ask? 11:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thus spake Jimbo. Also, examine the (seemingly similar) case of User:Scottfisher. android79 12:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion closure question

A couple of users have come to me saying that my decisions on three Articles For Deletion debates were a little off-base. The debates in question are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Diary, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fisker, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naming Substituted Benzene Isomers. I would like opinions from other administrators regarding this matter. Thank you.  Denelson83  07:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, you are the closer of the debate, and if you choose to stand by your decision anyone protesting should bring it to WP:DRV. After looking a bit superficially at the three I would have deleted The Diary, simply because all the keep votes appear to be anonymously made. The two others look like good and reasonable calls though, on Fisker new info arose on the AFD debate which you acknowledged, on Naming Substituted Benzene Isomers there is 2d-1r so calling it a redirect is certainly within reasonable bounds. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There's not pressure form me for these decisions to be reversed, just discussed. For my benefit as much as anything. Although I also notice notice now that the talk pages are empty, too.
    brenneman^(t)(c) 07:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd say it's a good call on all three of them. The Fisker deletion debate seems to have consensus for delete, but the rewritten version doesn't resemble (and is far better than) the stub that was nominated, so this was a good catch for the cleaner-upper. Radiant_>|< 12:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll second that. Diary- consensus delete (don't count the socks), Fisker- good catch on a cleanup, and NSBI- 66% (consensus, though it's borderline) delete. Good work.--Scïmïłar ^parley 14:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • On Fisker, would extending the discussion or pinging the participants not have been a bit safer? (I've changed the title of this section as this was never a dispute per say. We should be able to talk about this stuff without it being a dispute.)
        brenneman^(t)(c) 01:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• I think you should have closed the Fisker AfD with a no consensus rather than a keep outcome, but given that the action in each case is the same, it's a technicality. --- Charles Stewart 22:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the outcome is keep where there is no consensus, it's probably misleading to distinguish keep from no consensus--it falsely implies that there's a material difference between decision to keep and absence of decision to delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe it's misleading not to make that distinction. A "no consensus" should not be disguised as a consensus of any kind. Maybe there's little practical value in making the distinction, altho to me, a "keep" means the article probably shouldn't be Afd'd again, while "no consensus" does not mean that. Friday (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion dispute: "So called Moldovan language" and romanian

As recommended by Jtkiefer in [[3]]

I would like in the most polite manner to have a look on the Moldovan_language where I have added some edits on the talk page [[4]]

The truth is that "Moldovan" doesn't exist. It's about romanian with a different name. The fact is that is identical with romanian. Romanian is a latin language like french, italian, spanish, portuguese. The Soviet propaganda and the russians experts since 1812 tried to make a difference on political reasons. Even internationally at the most official level is recognized that "so called moldovan" is nothing else but romanian. [[5]] Please feel free to express your opinion!  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

PS. Somebody is still deleting an important section of the page; the deleted section demonstrates the identity between "so called Moldovan" and romanian. I've seen that once or twice you have reverted these edits, maybe you could do that again and if the problem persists what can be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonaparte (talk • contribs) 08:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

IheartWWF and Emico

(This has been moved from WP:AN by LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)})

This user above likes to personally attack Lbmixpro and myself just for telling him to stop trying to insult others intelligence. Here are some examples of his bad deeds:

1. His signature - First off his signature is offensive. His signiture is :

IheartWWF^{wwf (wrestling for gays)}.

2. First Conflict - He first insults Lbmixpro as an anon user on the talk page of the Iglesia ni Cristo article claiming of his low intelligance level and his knowledge of nothing. Which just isn't true. He is a great and respected user.

3. My response to this conflict - His IP address is 168.243.84.113. See his talk page for the message I left the IP address. I got involved here because Lbmixpro was gaining stress because of him and I was trying to help out a bit.

4. Second Conflict with Lbmixpro and me - Now I'm no genius but it looks like the anon user above created the IheartWWF account also. He left a very rude message to Lbmixpro on his talk page.

I am just now reporting this to someone. He obviously created this account just to vandalize and/or make personal attacks to other users. IheartWWf and 168.243.84.113 should both have a permanent block. There is no room on Wikipedia for a person that just likes to make a fuss. Please can anyone do anything about this? User:SWD316 I also just recently discovered his editing to the Iglesia ni Cristo as another anon, 213.55.89.8. He should also be blocked as well.

I feel that this has a connection to User:Emico, who has been banned from editing the Iglesia ni Cristo until August 2006 as per ruling by the ArbCom. Although this user's attitude is more aggressive and defiant than Emico's, his edit pattern is very similar. If this is the same person, I belive he has returned the the same editing attitude as he had when he first joined Wikipedia. I have sent notifications to User:TheoClarke, who has been the sysop covering the issues at the article, as well as posted my feelings at WP:EA's stress page, which brought SWD316 into the situation. I suggest those interested in this see Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo which documents the argument and potential edit-war we're facing. Until I can prove this isn't Emico or someone acting for him, I cannot RFC him. I suggest the sysops pay close attention to this article, and possibly issue a WP:RFAr/AER. Theo only posts to WP on a sporatic basis. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 08:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

TheoClarke just returned from a long wiki-break, and is now limiting his level of contribution. It's entirely possible he won't have time to handle the situation, which is unfortunate, as he's a first-rate sysop.--Scïmïłar ^parley 17:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand that, but things have escalated since I wrote this. I've been talking to both User:Fred Bauder and User:Woohookitty about them and Woohookitty told me to post the situation on WP:ANI. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 10:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocking of third party

It appears that Ansbachdragoner may have been blocked accidentally. I wonder if anyone with better knowledge of IP addresses, could look into it. Best,--Wiglaf 11:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Die Lustige Witwe again

Further removal of cleanup tag from Die Lustige Witwe. Also removal of "confusing" tag from a secton tehreon, which includes, among other problem text, "a 1958 Glocken Verlag LTD, London". Andy Mabbett 12:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Is there any reason you can't perform the cleanup such that the cleanup tag would no longer be necessary? android79 12:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. Andy Mabbett 12:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • And the reason is...? android79 12:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not sufficiently familiar with either the technology required to do so, nor the subject. Is this really the place to discuss such matters, though? Andy Mabbett 12:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
        • No, the appropriate place to talk about this is Talk:Die Lustige Witwe, but you brought the matter here in the first place. Unfortunately, your behavior there is just as baffling as it is here. android79 13:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

User: Blasphemous

User: Blasphemous was blocked a long time ago for a) using an offensive username and b) for being allegedly a sock puppet of a User Noah Peters who in turn had several Arb Comm cases for things I do not remember. I was the last one admin involved in blocking that particular sock puppet.

I initially protected the talk page documenting this, then blanked it at a "noahp"'s request and protected it again. I keep though getting increasingly annoying emails by said "noahp" who wants me to unprotect the (now blanked) talk page. I do not want to enter a dialogue as I prefer to keep my email address private, but I am also rather clueless now just what would be the rigt thing to do - and I am nowadays so infrequent on WIkipedia that I have no time (or even starting point) to figure what polices might apply. My bottomline is that the user Blasphemous was banned for good and his talk+user page should either be deleted (dt offensive username) quite irrespective of any going-ons of Noah Peters and sockpuppetry or not, but this might be a wrong understanding. Any advise by fellow admin's is welcome. Refdoc 15:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Considering both Noah Peters (talk · contribs) and Blasphemous (talk · contribs) are permablocked, I'd say add him to your spamfilter and keep the userpage as is (or delete and protect, which would have roughly the same effect). Radiant_>|< 16:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I just wanted to note that I added template:indefblockeduser to both users' pages while they were protected since that's standard policy for users who have been indef. blocked. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

TreyHollandIsBack

TreyHollandIsBack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), previously as TreyHolland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has being vandalising Spanish Language and other articles. I made a short block on it, but my question is: Is it ok to indefinitely block a sockpuppet user that has been created only for the porpoise of vandalism? I think it is, but wanted to hear some opinions before acting. Mariano(t/c) 16:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yup. Go for it. android79 16:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Absolutely. Using a sock to evade a block is 3vil. Radiant_>|< 16:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Mariano(t/c) 16:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• By the way what's with the porpoise? :) Radiant_>|< 16:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Those porpoises, they're always vandalizing! :-) android79 17:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Dammed this cetaceans; it's not the first time, they are always getting on my way! They look all nice and funny, but they are actually blood-thirsty creatures. Be aware, you are warned. Mariano(t/c) 17:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Changing my username

I am editing using the name Samivel. I would like to block my previous names but also credit my previous edits to Samivel (there are too many to lose). I understand I need to ask the administrators to block the earlier names so I will not be accused of sockpuppetry. But I also see that the procedure for changing one's username seems to be disabled. Is it possible to do what I'm asking?

First I was anonymous: 66.114.86.135 Then I was Arnold_Perey Then I was Aperey Aperey Finally I am now Samivel so my username isn't too close to my real name.

Thank you for any assistance you can give. --Samivel 16:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Turned User:Aperey (and talk) and User:Arnold Perey (and talk) into protected redirects to your current user/talk page. This should be good enough for your purposes.  ALKIVAR™ 19:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

shouldn't these requests be signed with the old account as a minimal security measure? dab (ᛏ) 11:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Overlong block of 169.139.224.10

This shared school IP was blocked for one month by Infrogmation: It is in the IP range of the Broward County public schools district and blocks legitimate editor Luigi30. Can an admin please revise this block to expire soon so the user can edit? In any case, it's my understanding that shared IPs like this should not be blocked for longer than 24 hours at most. Thanks! Demi ^T/_C 19:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• I've reduced the block to expire in 15 minutes. --Scïmïłar ^parley 19:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Broward County? I'm in Manatee County. I think it's the main BESS proxy for Florida or something. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 21:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Request block on Ryan Delaney for violating page protection policy

Ryan Delaney admits he purposely reverted this article when applying page protection, even though it wasn't a vandalism case. He has made all kinds of excuses which still add up to a violation of the rules more serious than a 3RR for instance, because he is an admin. See his talk page, my talk page, and the unprotection requests for detail.--Silverback 18:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

m:The Wrong Version. Ral315 (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This page is already the subject of a request for arbitration. Protecting the page may spare us the need to enter a temporary injunction in that case. It's quite clear (to me) that the major warring parties are not making any real progress toward a consensus version of the article. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I would very much prefer a temp. injunction to protection. It's like the choice between 3RR blocks and protection in an edit war. In my mind, blocks are always better, as they target the offender, and leave the article open to editing instead. We are a wiki, and protection is harmful to everyone, even the ones being good. It is much more harmful than an injunction which only targets the ones acting up. Dmcdevit·t 03:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It's my impression that this case is nearly fully cooked and should be ready to go to voting soon; trying to put in an injunction may just delay resolution of the case. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Martin beat me to it. This article is subject to arbitration, so Silverback coming here was um, not really the brightest idea ever. Is the AMA still active at all? Having advocates around for this kind of procedural thing would save people a LOT of embarresment. Kim Bruning 03:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, were still around. Sam Spade 03:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:AMA Advocates accepting inquiries. What interest did reverting the article prior to protection serve? Sam Spade 03:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ensuring protection on m:The Wrong Version, most likely. --Carnildo 04:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Delaney violated policy by deciding which was the right version and reverting to it. This is the type of policy violation which gives the impression of abuse of powers, probably because it is an actual abuse of powers. Carnildo thinks he is clever by citing the dismissive and mocking "The Wrong Version", but this is just the type of abusive behavior that "The Wrong Version" implies doesn't really exist or is just a matter of point of view. Ryan's behavior is an outright violation of policy, that I doubt "The Wrong Version" intended to take lightly. His behavior is an embarrassment. I tried to find the archive of his adminship vote, to see if he pledged not to abuse his powers. Hubris and adminship do not mix well.--Silverback 09:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

We are not going to entertain a demand to desysop an admin for one purported violation of the protection policy where the violation in question appears to have been in good faith. Let's check the outrage at the door and discuss this reasonably, ok? Hyperbolic screaming does not benefit your cause. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I never requested desysop'ing, and don't mistake persistance in pointing out hypocrisy and abuse for screaming. I wouldn't think more than a block for a couple days would be in order even if he refuses to correct his abuse. Protecting the article was a judgement call, I think it was unnecessary, but I can accept differences in such judgement calls. However, his revert was completely in violation of protection policy and was a POV prejudgement of the ARBCOM result. I'd be satisfied if he would put the article back in the version that he should have left it in. If he refuses to do so, then another admin should either perform the revert to the version that was in place at the time of the protection, or remove the protection completely and block Delaney, perhaps for 48 hours (this is more serious than a 3RR). Although if the admin just took the proper action in regard to the article, and did not block Delaney unless he put up a fuss. That would at least correct the violation that has been done. The only reason I can see for demanding more severe action is if Ryan resists attempts to correct his mistake in judgement, or if he himself stated when he was soliciting votes for his adminship that he would hold himself to a higher standard, such as never abuse his powers. While Ryan's actions represent an abuse of the powers entrusted to him, this does not approach the extent and severity of abuses that resulted in 172's last arbcom case for instance. What is really disappointing is the deference and failure to correct his actions not only by him, but by the admin community as a whole.--Silverback 13:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The article was reverted back and forth between the two versions 6 times in the 24 hours prior to protection. As such, I do not believe it was in the least bit relevant which particular version happened to be on top at the precise moment of protection. Delaney could have simply waited a few more hours until the next inevitable revert. Or he could have tossed a coin to decide which version to protect. For all we know, maybe he did. I am no fan of protection myself, but your request that Delaney must "put the article back in the version that he should have left it in" seems little more than a thinly veiled demand to see the article protected with The Right Version on top. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it shouldn't have mattered which version was on top, but it did to Delaney, so he should not have been the one to impose protection, and he should not have reverted to the version he wanted. He abused his powers. I take it from what you say, that you would have no problem if the page was reverted to the version that he should have left in place at the time he imposed protection.--Silverback 22:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocking is preventative, not punitive. Requesting a block for an isolated instance of behavior of this type is a non-starter, especially since so much time has passed. android79 22:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if this warrants a response, but just so it's perfectly clear to anyone who may be confused, here's why Silverback's objection about my violation of the blocking policy is entirely baseless. Silverback charges that I violated the blocking policy by reverting away from User:Ultramarine's preferred version in a content dispute over Criticisms of communism. This is the relevant point of the Wikipedia:Blocking policy:

• Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with (involvement includes making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page). Admin powers are not editor privileges—admins should only act as servants to the user community at large.

Silverback is perfectly correct in his assertion that admins should not use protection to preserve their preferred versions of articles in content disputes. However, I did not revert away from Ultramarine's version because I preferred the content in the other version: because I have not read either version. I have no idea which version has the better content, nor do I particularly care to. I have never edited that article for content and I haven't the slightest interest in doing so. It is quite literally impossible for this page protection to be anything but an effort to end a stale revert war of epic proportions. This brings us to the second point.

Silverback makes a more substantive claim, which is that I ignored this part of the blocking policy:

• In addition, admins should avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless one version is vandalism.

To this, I plead guilty as charged; I did willfully ignore that part of the protection policy, and I ignored it because I felt the situation called for me to do so. Rather than revert while protecting, I could have waited for someone else to revert, and then protect the article, and in so doing avoid all appearance of impropriety: but I feel that would not have been necessary. Ultramarine is one of the most stubborn, persistent, and arrogant Wikipedia editors I have encountered. I found no justification for protecting his preferred version simply because it was the version that happened to be up at the time. If another administrator feels that I was in the wrong about this, I welcome them to revert to Ultramarine's version, but I strongly urge you to leave the article protected. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, my RFA was here. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• You admit your abuse of the community trust, yet still refuse to make amends. You are one of the most persistant, stubborn and arrogant wikipedia admins, I have encountered. I have see worse abuses, but based on the culture of tolerance here, you will be given a chance to abuse again and again. Hubris.--Silverback 08:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Silverback, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. When you bait adminitrators and editors as "persistant, stubborn and arrogant," you are only undermining your cause by providing more negative evidence for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Silverback. 172 | Talk 09:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanx 172, you make my point. Note, that the words you pick out as a personal attack, were mirroring the same words Ryan had used in the passage above. If Delaney keeps this up he may rival an abusive ex-admin in those qualities. And you're right, the situation is very similar to that precipitated the RfC and arbitration case. I try not to let abusive behavior pass without notice. Just as in my response to your abuse, I have made several attempts to resolve this dispute with Delaney. And just as in your case, instead of a mature acknowledgement and retraction, he has tried to spin his behavior, justifying his abusive means, in order to achieve his ends. --Silverback 09:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Shhhh! Please be quiet, you are begining to look quite ridiculous.Doc (?) 10:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you make a cogent case for your characterization? Are you familiar with the facts at all? If not, why should I consider your comment to have any validity. If I were motivated by trying to please the crowd, I too would chime it at the end with a dismissive comment. Why don't you consider the merits, and then figure out what you really stand for when you take the position you just did.--Silverback 10:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Ryan Delaney has brazenly and unapologetically repeated his violation of page protection policy on Criticisms of communism. A block is definitely in order this time, since it is clear that he will engage in a revert and protect war if the article is unprotected again. This block would be preventative.--Silverback 17:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

What might be needed as a preventative is an injunction in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Silverback preventing you from starting a new disruptive discussion thread like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alleged admin culture of abuse and tolerance of abuse just about every day calling for one administrator or another to be banned. Don't bother replying to this comment. It will be my last one under a heading that clearly disregards Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. 172 | Talk 17:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

If you believe that you should address that on the arbitration page, instead of making a distracting WP:Point here.--Silverback 23:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

In accordance with page policy and practice, I have merged Silverback's second "Ryan Delaney" thread with the first one, which is on the exact same subject, renamed the result so as to have the heading be matter-of-fact rather than a slur, and moved the result down to the bottom of the page, where it should have been posted in the first place. --Bishonen | talk 00:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not the exact same subject. You should look at the page. Tony Sidaway unprotected the page and then was attacked by Ryan Delaney and 172 for his lack of deference. Ryan Delaney then reverted and protected the page again, in violation of the policy again. In the previous discussion, it was noted that blocking is preventative, not punative. Now with Delaney's apparent commitment to continual reverting and protecting, it is obvious that the a block will be preventative.--Silverback 00:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Should someone perhaps block Silverback for repeat violations of WP:DICK? --Carnildo 00:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should block you for violating Wikipedia:Civility --Silverback 00:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

(I'm trying to respond to Silverback's penultimate comment—Silverback, your moving Carnildo's post out of chronology isn't making it easier to keep this tidy.) Oh, c'mon, why do you want two threads? What's the attraction? The heading of the second one was ridiculous. Please note that even the shortened heading I've retained remains the longest heading on this page. And please note that you posted both your threads immediately underneath the edit mode exhortation: "New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here." I thought you'd be pleased I cleaned up a bit. Bishonen | talk 01:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Silverback's in arbitration I believe, so just sit back and watch. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't move Carnildo's post, I had an edit conflict with him when responding to your post, and so I moved my post and maintained the cronology via indents as is my practice. The attraction is to make sure admins know that this is a second violation. I looked at the intro and didn't see any instructions on where to add it, and since some pages instruct to add at the top, that is what I did. I admit I was confused about that. --Silverback 03:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Page deletion

I have deleted the page Brandy January. It appeared to be a lengthy diatribe directed against a Georgia high school teacher, levelling various accusations of deceit and inappropriate behaviour. I deleted the page because the content was defamatory and posted by anonymous editors, and because the individual in question appears not to be particularly noteworthy. Although I could probably stretch CSD A7 to cover this article, I've left a notice of my action here for review. (As far as I know no one has complained about it.) I'd prefer not to drag the woman's name through the mud on every mirror and Google search for the next week. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Attack pieces are speedies, whether by policy or by plain common sense. You did right. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Any chance of an address check?

When user:Winnermario was blocked from editing, user:Hollow Wilerding popped up, making the same edits, with the same style of edit summaries and interactions with other editors (compare, for example, Hollow Wilerding's "As there was a vote to keep cover songs separate" and "Since no consensus has been met at the WikiMusic discussion, charts will not be reformatted" with Winnermario's "Reverted edits -- the discussion has not been passed, and therefore the charts cannot be reformatted" and "this article will not be merged with its remake"). He claims that they're friends, and that he's a female English teacher (though as his English has the same ungrammatical qualities and peculiar vocabulary as Winnermario, that seems unlikely). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

IP check is inconclusive. Kelly Martin (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Jens Stoltenberg

Please keep a watch on this article. The Norwegian tabloid press Dagbladet [6], VG [7] and TV2 Nettavisen [8] made a big deal out of the article on Norway's new PM containing a vandalism on him being a convicted paedophile, and I fear that those newspaper articles may explain some of the recent "copycat" vandalism we have been seeing on that article the last hours. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

User:TerrorMaker

If there's an admin around at the moment, could he/she please take a look at TerrorMaker (talk · contribs) This may relate to a recent incident which I reported here As a result of that, User:Oldstylecharm was blocked indefinitely, and the two probably sockpupets were also blocked indefinitely. Oldstylecharm was, I understand, unblocked at the request of Jimbo. I don't know if he has anything to do with it, but this new account certainly seems to have been created for the purpose of harrassing me, and the message is identical to one that sockpuppet Trever (talk · contribs) sent me [9]. It could be someone new, copying an old message sent be a previous abuser, or it could be the same person. As far as I know, the reason Oldstylecharm was unblocked was because he apologized nicely. I've no problem with that.

I can live with a silly but non-threatening message on my talk page, and I don't really want to waste my own energy and Wikipedia server space by edit warring. But could an admin take a look at that account please? Thanks.

And on an unrelated matter, how about taking a look at No no (talk · contribs) (hint, Jarlaxle?) as well? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Ann, I've blocked TerrorMaker indefinitely. I'll take a look at No no too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Slim. No no has returned as Abigail Williams (talk · contribs). Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Abigail's blocked too, as is Anney, a reincarnation of TerrorMaker. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Now he's rocking Tgb, ≤w00t≥ and ≤woot≥jfg284 12:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I had actually blocked these earlier before the creation of the Terrormaker account (on the basis of vandalism nearly identical to that listed above, and impostor usernames), but just for the record, User:Psychoanalyst, User:Psychobeak, and User:Linuxnaut appear to have been more of the same. This diff from 71.107.172.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) also seems connected. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 13:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

User:64.83.156.26

This anon vandalized a bunch of articles and blanked Ivan III of Russia [10]. Needs to be blocked. --Ghirlandajo 13:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

AOL questions

I blocked User:172.198.168.71 for 24 hours due to vandalism to a number of userpages, then I checked http://www.arin.net/whois/ and saw it was an AOL IP. I have now unblocked it. I have also e-mailed AOLs abuse office to report this, since this does not look like the random activity of a newbie. Now for my questions:

1. Geobytes says that this IP is not a proxy. If it is AOL, can that be so?
2. I see that this particular IP has no prior editting history before the vandalism rampage, while many AOL accounts have long histories of contributions, both good and bad. Why is this?

Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I've found that AOL, especially when using IP 172.......etc. that whenever they log in and out, they get a new IP...and it is not unlikely that that User:172.198.168.71 has had a series of vandalisms with an almost unlimited supply of random IP's available to them. That IP originates from Sterling, VA I believe so there could also be many thousands of users that log in anon with AOL and also get the IP starting 172.--MONGO 01:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

As one who sometimes edits via AOL, I can tell you that you get a new IP not just every time you log in or out, but with every separate URL you visit. Viewing two differetn pages uses two different IPs, and editing one of them will use yet another IP -- always the same IP for the same URL during a session, AFAICT, although this assocation seems to change after one loggs off AoL and logs back on. DES ^(talk) 01:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalbot

If the SUPER COOL vandalbot continues to vandalize, than lets immediately contact @ his ISP so we can stop him forever! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.19.198.0 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree with anon. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

And if that doesn't work, we should tell the cops.

Michael Jackson / Street walker

As I have now reached the three-revert threshold, I don't wish to dig myself any holes, so I'm going to avoid reverting. However, Street walker (talk · contribs) appears not to be familiar with NPOV policy and has begun attempting to whitewash the Michael Jackson article of any mention of controversy, under the guise of making the article shorter and "[the article being] about his musical career". User has also created the POV fork article Michael Jackson's personal life and controversies (which I have nominated for deletion). There is some discussion ongoing at Talk:Michael Jackson, but so far two admins and myself seem to be united in our opposition to these wholesale changes.--chris.lawson 07:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

ISP contact info

What is the "SUPER COOL" vandalbot's ISP contacting information?

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

• Ah, thank you SPUI. Can we impeach him for that? Radiant_>|< 22:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Pat Robertson

Mirror Vax (talk · contribs) is in violation of WP:POINT and, with one more revert, will be in violation of WP:3RR. I have attempted to dialogue with the user on the article's Talk page without success; user continues to remove a category from the page despite giving no reason for doing so. Could use some admin help over there.--chris.lawson 22:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Clawson is in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:AGF, and with one more revert, will be in violation of WP:3RR. User says that a category is a "policy" and that removing an article that was placed incorrectly is subverting the imagined "policy". User can't or won't stay on topic and demands that I discuss unrelated articles. Mirror Vax 22:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

This dispute should stay on the article talk page, or go to mediation. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master banned from Race and intelligence

User:Zen-master is banned from editing the article namespace of Race and intelligence for two weeks, expiring on November 26, 2005 {UTC). If he edits this article during that time, any administrator should block him for up to 48 hours. For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master and Wikipedia:Probation. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I formally dispute this. All I did was add {npov} or {totallydisputed} headers to the article, a quick look at the top and middle sections of the talk page will show the race and intelligence article is fundamentally disputed. Ryan, feel free to disagree with my interpretation of the article but what you are doing here is blatant mischaracterization of the controversy. Also, you and your buddies have repeatedly denied the existance of controversy and fundamental criticisms in the article. zen master T 02:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The arbcom's finding includes the statement "Zen-master (talk · contribs) … may be banned from any article which relates to race and intelligence if in the opinion of any administrator his editing is disruptive." Clearly, the page Race and intelligence relates to race and intelligence; Ryan Delaney is an administrator. Case closed. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Uhh, you've missed a spot. How is adding a {npov} header disruptive? A quick glance at the top and middle of the talk page will show the article is fundamentally disputed on numerous points. So you have to actually establish how I was "disruptive" specifically? zen master T 02:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. It's enough that in his opinion, your actions were disruptive. Furthermore, a review of the recent history of the article shows that a reasonable person could reasonably characterize your actions as disruptive; therefore, Ryan's determination is not an abuse of adminstrative discretion. The ban is validly imposed. That said: administrators banning for disruption under probation terms should offer somewhat more than a conclusive statement that the editor being banned was being disruptive; such statements need not be extensive or detailed, however. Kelly Martin (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

But he has to at least say how I was disruptive? The race and intelligence article is fundamentally disputed, know that. zen master T 16:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I had a brief look at the article history and I would not be inclined to overturn his conclusion that your editing was disruptive. If you want to take this matter to the full ArbCom, feel free, but I suspect that you would not enjoy the outcome. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Whether your edit was disruptive is not the point here. If you are banned from editing an article by an arbitration decision you shouldn't edit it for ANY reason. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No, you misinterpret, I am on probation, there is no edit restriction against me from arbcom currently. zen master T 17:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

He is permitted under Wikipedia:Probation to responsibly edit the article. Fred Bauder 18:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

So an admin would have to establish exactly where the "disruption" is before article banning would be appropriate, right? If there is an in good faith dispute I dare say {npov} headers are appropriate, the article and larger area of research are fundamentally disputed. zen master T 18:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems you were disrupting the article. If any administrator determines you were you may be indefinitely banned from the article. He only banned you for two weeks. Please be less aggressive. Fred Bauder 21:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned here that Ryan Delaney is an admin involved in conflict with Zen-master, and did the banning himself, without even asking anyone else. After I raised this question on his talk page, he quickly archived it and then emailed me in private. After a total of eight emails, I'm still rather unimpressed by his actions, and disappointed by his response (which was basically nothing, and that it doesn't matter if he is involved, and that he was going to stop reading my emails). I just want to point out that Ryan was the one that was reverting Zen-master here, and has a history of reverting him, so him doing the banning is improper. Myself, I would have been less harsh for just the petty placing of a POV tag. Could someone else uninvolved take more than a quick look and see what you think? Dmcdevit·t 19:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you chose to frame it in this way. As long as you want to bring private conversation out into the open (I hate doing this), I stopped reading your emails at the point that you stopped being civil ("I feel like I am talking to a brick wall"). I think WP:FAITH would apply here, and I'm puzzled why you are so convinced that I am in some way punishing Zen-master for being in a conflict with me that does not exist. That I reverted his disruptive edits is only natural. I'm not sure if you would expect the banning administrator to leave the disruptive edits in in the article or not. As for archiving my talk page, I'm curious that you interpret this as a coverup attempt since if I were trying to cover this up I would not have posted it here on WP:AN/I, on the talk page of the article, and on Wikipedia:Mentorship committee. Again, WP:FAITH applies.

I don't feel that I am in any way a disputant in this article. I simply perceived what I felt was disruptive editing by Zen-master and so I warned him. When he ignored my talk page warnings and continued the disruptive behavior, I banned him from the article. Since Kelly Martin confirmed that this ban was appropriately applied, I don't know what further purpose would be served by discussion, especially when when the discussion is already taking such an accusatory tone. It might do you some good to try to understand what happened before you decide that abuse occurred.

Still, as I posted on the talkpage for the Wikipedia:Mentorship committee, if they decide to take his case I will abdicate and allow them to handle it however they see fit. For the time being, this ban stands. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, I'm not putting anyone on trial here, and this attitude is exactly why I was so exasperated. I went to your talk page first and expressed my concerns as a fellow (uninvolved) admin. You deleted it hours later; I don't know why, but it gave me the distinct impression not to post there again. I'm not saying you were wrong, which is what you keep defending. But your action was improper. How can you deny being involved when you were the one that reverted him? Actually, if you want to misquote me (not that I can see why you bring it up), after four emails where you said nothing new, and refused to concede even asking another admin's opinion when you are involved, I said "My God, I feel like I'm talking to a wall." That would be my response to this comment as well. You were involved, and regardless of the rightness of Zen-master's banning, the only thing I've been trying to get you to do is to ask another admin or here first, rather than make unilaterl pronouncements when you are involved. I expect administratos to be better at taking criticism. Dmcdevit·t 21:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"Involved" is too broad a term, and I think the source of this disagreement. I do not believe I am a disputant in a content disagreement with Zen-master. I am only "involved" in an administrational capacity. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 21:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"If they edit an article in those subject areas in a disruptive or objectional way, any administrator who is not involved in the conflict may ban them from the article." So was he involved in the conflict? Fred Bauder 21:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

A review of the edit history shows occasional edits which involve the disputed tag. So I'd say he was involved in the conflict. Should have asked someone else to do it. Fred Bauder 21:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I guess I haven't been so specific on this page. think he was, because if you take a look at his last four edits to race and intelligence, all of them were reverting Zen-master [11], [12], [13], [14]. The last one was a revert of Zen-master's content change, the other's all reverts of the tag that Ryan banned him for. And it has been going on for weeks [15]. So to me his is sufficiently involved that it made me worry when I saw this on ANI. But I'm interested what others think, since Ryan seems to think I'm taking it too far. Dmcdevit·t 21:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it. Are you guys saying I should not have reverted the disruptive edits? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I dispute your interpretation that my edits were disruptive, the only way that could be true is if there is not an in good faith dispute over the article. A quick look at the top and middle sections of talk page will show the article is fundamentally disputed. To summarize just some of the controversies: there is a dispute over the word "score" being potentially loaded, and charges of fundamentally unscientific methodologies and exponentially biasing presentation. Can an uninvolved admin or someone take a look at the race and intelligence article and note the fundamental criticisms at the top and middle of the talk page and decide whether {npov} or {totallydisputed} is warranted in this case? thx. zen master T 02:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Nothing wrong with reverting Zen-master's notice. What was wrong was banning him when you were involved in editing the article. I don't think you should lift the ban or that you should be sanctioned. Just try not to get involved with an article then ban someone who is on probation. Fred Bauder 02:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Huh? It most certainly was wrong, the race and intelligence article is fundamentally disputed, when such a situation arises the {npov} template is added to an article. This is basic NPOV policy here. Please take a look at the fundamental criticisms of the article on the talk page for more info on the controversy. There is currently a vote of 2 to 1 to rename "score" to "results", Ryan Delaney hasn't voted or commented which I find suspiciously odd given the fact that he reverted my first attempt at rewritting the intro to change "score" to "result". So clearly there is a dispute, and clearly Ryan is involved, and clearly {npov} should be added (or the article should be substantially rewritten and retitled to adhere to NPOV). zen master T 02:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not involved in editing the article for content. I'm puzzled about why people think I am. I reverted Zen-master because I thought his edits were disruptive. Looking at the edit history, that's about the extent of the editing I've done. Why do people think I am involved in this article? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You reverted my rewritting of the intro for NPOV (replacing the loaded word "score" with "results") which is precisely one among many fundamentally disputed points, so how can you possibly claim both that {npov} is "disruptive" and that you weren't involved in the article? In my interpretation this situation is repeated censorship of fundamental criticisms by a coordinated clan of editors. The race and intelligence article is apparently racism inducing and is exponentially unscientific, why aren't more editors concerned and investigating this? zen master T 08:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Look at the diffs I cited. Specifically this, which is what Zen-master is referring to. That is a content revert. Your continued puzzlement is why I was frustrated with you. Like Fred said, I'm not asking for sanctions or anything, but was trying to tell you you made a mistake so you could make sure not to do it again. Dmcdevit·t 08:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that edit was disruptive, since it's a radical change that is controversial with the other editors and he implemented it with full knowledge of this fact. I did not revert it because I personally disagree with it, but because Zen-master, true to style, was implementing changes as he saw fit without any regard to the approval of other editors. That is precisely the kind of edit that landed him in RFAr. I appreciate that this edit appears to make me party to a content dispute, but I am sure that it does not. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 09:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Deep breath now, Ryan. Take it for the moment that nobody apart from zen master disagrees with you that the edits were disruptive (not a judgement, just a premise). The point at dispute then is: was it wise for you, holding this view so strongly that you got to the point where you got yourself involved in reverting the edits, to do the banning yourself? Would it not have been wiser to ask an uninvolved admin to make that call? Beyond that, you might ask yourself were your responses to being called on your actions, both privately and here, the best way to go? My own view is that it would have been wiser to adopt different approaches and that you should now walk away from this whole situation and file under learning experiences. Filiocht | The kettle's on 15:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It would have been wiser of the arbcom to ask for an uninvolved admin to make the call. As it is, it amounts pretty much to a blanket ban. But there you are, if you get yourself under probation by the arbcom, you are very probably have wikiquette issues that are unlikely to go away overnight. Filiocht has wisely put that no admin is forced to block zm, and it would be a sign of maturity to let someone uninvolved make the call. dab (ᛏ) 16:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I should add here that I don't think that Ryan Delaney's call here was incorrect; it appears to me that zen-master is being disruptive and therefore the ban is validly imposed. That said, Ryan Delaney should, as should all admins, refrain from exercising administrative authority in any dispute in which he is a participant. There are hundreds of administrators on Wikipedia; administrators who get involved in editorial disputes should ask a noninvolved admin to intercede. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Kelly and Ryan's argument doesn't make much sense to me. Ryan admits he disagreed with my "radical" intro change of "scores" to "results" which is ok to disagree, but when an article is fundamentally disputed the {npov} template is added to it. This is basic NPOV policy, if an in good faith dispute exists a simple template is added to an article to signify this fact. Feel free to disagree with my interpretation as always but please don't deny the existence of controversy. zen master T 17:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Would it be correct to state that if Ryan thought zen master was being disruptive, he could either, a) become involved simply by reverting the disruptive edits, and ask another admin to ban him, or b) stay uninvolved by leaving the edits as is, place the ban himself, and ask another admin to revert the edits? Mind you, I'm not making a judgment call here, I'm just curious to know if reverting a disruptive edit automatically makes one involved. Thanks. --Kbdank71 18:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You have to actually establish how any edits of mine were "disruptive", my most recent 4 edits in question consisted of 1 edit reverted by Ryan where I rewrote the intro to remove the loaded word "score" to change it to "results", then three edits reverted by Ryan and others where I tried to add {totallydisputed} or {npov} to the article. So this is a situation where an admin is trying to deny the existence of controversy. Aren't {npov} headers added to an article when an in good faith dispute exists? For an admin to deny the existence of criticism and controversy strikes me as censorship, make no mistake: the race and intelligence article is fundamentally disputed yet Ryan and others systematically deny wikipedia NPOV policy. zen master T 19:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Some questions

Honestly, I am not upset or trying to be defensive, but I really want to understand this but can't. I am not involved in any content disputes with him. My involvement in the article is strictly administrational. I would really like to understand what people are saying here and make it a "learning experience" and so on, but I just don't see how I did anything wrong. Let me try to break this down so we can find the source of the disagreement:

• I cannot comprehend how it is that it could be okay for me to ban him from the article for disruptive editing, but NOT okay to revert the edits I banned him for.
• That would mean that the people claiming I was "involved" in the dispute think that I should have banned him from the article, but left the disruptive edits in the article.
• Instead, I reverted the disruptive edits and offered to explain to him that I was reverting because his editing was disruptive. I warned him that I would have to ban him from the article if he kept it up. I regret using admin rollback for my reverts; it should have been in the edit summaries that I was reverting because I thought the edits were disruptive.
• He did not heed my warnings, and continued implementing his edits despite them. Hence the ban.

As I see it, if I am "involved" in this dispute, then I am just as involved as any admin who could ever ban him under any possible circumstances.

Some questions, given that no one but Zen-master is disputing that the edits were disruptive:

1. Would it have been better if I had left the disruptive edits in the article, and simply banned him, to avoid the appearance of "involvement"?
2. What specifically did I do that made me "involved" and hence inappropriate to apply a ban?
   • If the answer is "reverted Zen-master", then you would have to answer "Yes" to the first question. This is a sticking point for me.
3. What purpose would be served in asking another admin to apply the ban, given that any other admin has made the same number of content edits that I have, but has not been following the dispute as closely or for as long?

I appreciate most of your patience in discussing this. I have a strong feeling that there may have been a miscommunication somewhere about my level of involvement in this article, and I hope to get it cleared up. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The only way adding a {npov} template to an article is "disruptive" is if there is not an in good faith dispute, a quick look at the top and middle sections of the talk page will show numerous points are fundamentally disputed. zen master T 20:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I am still waiting for Ryan Delaney or someone to explain how adding a {npov} header to a disputed article is "disruptive"? zen master T 19:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You continue to engage in a heated dispute; that is what is disruptive. What I would like to see you do is explore some alternatives like the other ways the question can be looked at: Intelligence and nutrition, Intelligence and education or Intelligence and culture. Fred Bauder 23:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid I can't simply ignore glarring NPOV violations and what appears to be a racism inducing method of presentation in race and intelligence. I am still waiting for someone to respond to my challenge to explain why the issue should be presented so unscientifically. zen master T 02:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Formally dispute my ban

I'd like to formally dispute my ban from race and intelligence, under what criteria was I "disruptive"? It is standard wikipedia neutral point of view policy that the {npov} template is added when an article (and area of research) are fundamentally disputed on numerous points. Denying the existence of controversy when an in good faith dispute exists is exponentially more "disruptive" and strikes me as censorship. zen master T 22:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that zen master has a point. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zen-master is badly written and does not give clear examples of disruption. I cannot find anything - it seems to me that he was acting out of good faith. I think a "personal attack parole" may have been more appropriate. Rex^(talk) 22:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I have not researched this excessively indepth, but he does appear to have been disruptive there. And then it spills over into such places as here and the NPOV talk page... I think the ban is fine. --Phroziac^(talk) 22:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree - this kind of thing is what results in articles being POV. IMO a personal attack parole would have solved the main problem, and if he was disruptive, it would have solved that as well. Rex^(talk) 22:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Formally disputing an ArbCom decision is done on User talk:Jimmy Wales, not here. Radiant_>|< 23:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

No, Radiant!, in this case this is the place. Ryan Delaney instituted the article specific ban on this noticeboard, not the arbcom. The arbcom just gave us the ability to ban him from it. Though the ban has been backed up by several people, including myself. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

It is intended that defining disruption and deciding when there should be a ban is up to any administrator who is on top of the situation. An appeal to Jimmy Wales would be an appeal of the decision allowing a ban, not of a specific instance of imposing it. Fred Bauder 23:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, I wrote that a bit too hastily, but according to Zen's RFAR, he may be banned if "in the opinion of any administrator his editing is disruptive". He asks, "under what criteria was I disruptive", and the answer is that the opinion of an administrator is the criterion. Whether other users agree is irrelevant; according to the RFAR, any admin's opinion suffices. Hence the ban was appropriate and cannot be appealed here, without appealing the outcome of his arbitration. Seems to me it's a pretty clear-cut case. Radiant_>|< 23:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • So you are saying that any reason, including admin malice, is proper according to the "RFAR"? Surely implicit in "opinion" is that the opinion be reasoned. That doesn't mean that everyone has to agree, only that the opinion be a reasoned one. Mirror Vax 00:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As with any other administrator action, it can be overturned by other administrators. If I were to declare him banned from an article he has never even edited, I have faith that other admins would point this out and veto my ban. Zen is trying to get this to happen here. That said, I believe the ban should stand. Phil Sandifer 23:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. And how will an administrator determine whether certain behaviour is disruptive? I believe that this could be controversial and/or open to misuse. Limits need to be set. Of course administrators would probably disagree as that would limit the influence of their discretion. However, zen's question has not been answered; he asked under what criteria was he disruptive. Not what will be judged disruptive. Rex^(talk) 23:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Please assume good faith - administrators are not some voting bloc interested in their own power above all else. Phil Sandifer 01:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall the admin ever giving an opinion as to why zen's tagging was disruptive. Surely we don't want to say that any reason at all, including malice, is a proper reason? I don't think

See Wikipedia:Probation, "A ban may be imposed only for good cause which shall be documented in a section set aside for that purpose in the arbitration case. Banning without good cause or in bad faith shall be grounds for censure, restriction, or removal of administrative access." Fred Bauder 01:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Bluebot

Bluebot is on 1 week block, due to operating out of specified parameters as proposed at: Wikipedia talk:Bots. Objection has been made by also one particular user, Noisy. Administrators should be aware that Bluebot is not to continue to operate until all unresolved questions and objections have been cleared. --AllyUnion (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Bluebot is unblocked, Noisy is unambiguously wrong, he wanted me to demonstrate concensus on a formatting issue, a guidline was shown to him but he chose to ignore it. there are no grounds to block the bot, I am however going to wait for Noisy to respond before continuing out of politness. Martin 14:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I have reinstated the block. Without reference to whether the block is right or wrong, Bluemoose, I think it is inappropriate for you to remove your own block in this case. Please contact another administrator and have them review this issue. If they remove the block, I will have no objection. Nandesuka 16:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You are blocking me as well via autoblock, so please don't do it again. Martin 16:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I have unblocked Bluebot. Martin agreed to stop doing 1911 changes and Noisy said on Wikipedia talk:Bots that is the only thing to which he is objecting. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It is generally asked that any operation outside of a bot's original specifications must have at least have a passing mention at Wikipedia talk:Bots. This is to assert that the operation that is going to be implemented has some community approval, or at least no community disapproval. --AllyUnion (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Lit316 and User:Lit312

Lit316 (talk · contribs) Lit312 (talk · contribs)

These accounts seem to be intended for creating forked versions of articles on authors and poets. A bunch of forked articles were copied in mid-August (see Special:Contributions/Lit316) and most of the copies remain untouched, however User:Lit316/Amy Clampitt was extensively modified but the changes were never copied into the original article Amy Clampitt and we now have two forked articles. As of yesterday and today, the account has now copied a couple more articles. Perhaps it's a role account for a class? -- Curps 16:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I think your right, it appears to me to be forked pages for a class to edit.  ALKIVAR™ 21:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this really all that harmful? Kelly Martin (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Atari Forums

Can someone else please consider watching and/or protecting this page? I have now reverted it three times today; the same user who keeps adding the same nonsense has been reverted at least six times in the last three hours. It's a proxy IP so no chance of just blocking the user. -- Francs2000 02:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

{{vprotected}} --Bishonen | talk 02:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected (didn't mean to leave it this long, sorry). --Bishonen|talk 02:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Possible Admin Phishing

I just received the following email:

Subject: Wikipedia e-mail

From: Zouhair <zouhairy@XXXXX.XXX>

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 11:25:46 GMT

To: Allen3

Hi

I send this message to you because I can't send it to Curps who blocked my IP address : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist?action=search&limit=50&ip=82.232.3.83

I used to use tor as a server but it seems that someone used it for vandalism  :(

And now I'm stuck, I stopped my tor service and I hope that you will unblock my IP address : 82.232.3.83

best regards

zouhair

When I try to double check some background on this information I find that Zouhair has only made five edits in the two-and-a-half years since the account was created, and that the block log shows the IP address has been blocked for a couple of months because it is an open proxy. Is this just a case of social engineering at work, or is there something else going on? --Allen3 ^talk 12:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It's something else going on. A quick google search gave me [16], which shows 82.232.3.83 was in fact a tor outproxy. The most interesting part is the name of the server:

router zouhair 82.232.3.83 443 0 80

It's called "zouhair", the same name as the Wikipedia account requesting the unblock. Given that, I'd say it's a legitimate request. Since the official directory of tor nodes doesn't have any entry for it anymore, I'm unblocking right now. --cesarb 14:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Advanet

User:Advanet recently made an edit to Intelligent design which was reverted. It was bad, but not so bad that it was clear whether it was vandalism. So I went to his contribs to see if he were engaging in actual vandalism. He'd made some edits after the one to ID, so I checked them and found a non-wikified copyvio. I cleaned it up and posted about it on his talk page, and added his talk page to my watch in case he replied to me there. When I saw edits by him on his talk page, I found something disturbing. There were no posts by Advonet, and when I checked the history I found he had made 3 edits to a post by User:Lucky_6.9, changing content, heading (title) and date stamp. I notified Lucky_6.9 via email, but have not received a response. I am posting about this here so an admin can determine how best to handle this, and keep an eye on this user. KillerChihuahua 12:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the change and warned the user against editing other people's comments to make them appears to say something other than what was originally intended. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks much, this had me concerned. KillerChihuahua 13:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

This bears watching. Advanet Australia is a Search Engine Optimization company. Watch for spam and advertising contributions: case in point, Lyprinol. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, this looks like spam for snake oil. lyprinol only gets a handful of unique Google hits. android79 14:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

note: New user:Neogp recreated Advanet, which I just {{db}}'d. The edits of both users, and probably anyone else who shares articles in common with those editors, should probably be checked. BlankVerse 14:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Neogp (talk · contribs) and also Drwnjp (talk · contribs) are both almost certainly the same editor as Advanet (talk · contribs). Kelly Martin (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Gosh! etc. I've blocked the lot indefinitely as SEO linkspammers. See block log. Trouble is that Advanet appears to be a role account - I see edits from several Sydney universities. Expect this blight to run and run - David Gerard 16:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I just got an email from advanet@gmail.com asking what links they can keep. (This is called Missing The Point.) I've pointed them here - David Gerard 13:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Rokeaj

User:Rokeaj keeps blanking his talk page, where I had written a warning after he vandalised Microsoft by moving it into Microsuck. He has since stopped his vandalism to the Microsoft article, but keeps removing the warning from his talk page, and when I revert his blanking, he accuses me of abusing my AdministrativePower®. Although the vandalism warning is no longer acute, I feel it should remain on his talk page, so that everyone on Wikipedia would be able to see what experience others have had with Rokeaj in the past. Removing comments from one's talk page (without archiving them) is, in my point of view, an attempt of altering history, and is thus tantamount to forgery or cheating. At the moment we're locked in a revert war. This can't continue forever, so I ask other admins' opinion here. Perhaps one of us should file an RfC on the other? — JIP | Talk 15:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'd say just leave it be and keep his user page on your watchlist. If anyone else has a problem with him, then you can step in. android79 16:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. It's best to assume that this user just wants a fresh start without a vandalism warning on his talk page. It's in the history. |Thats good enough. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I also agree, it's his user talk page, he can do whatever he wants. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
      • That I disagree with. He certainly can't do anything he wants. What if he were to edit and falsify my comments, such as make them read "Your move from Microsoft to Microsuck was awesome! That will show those M$ bastards! Keep up the good work!"? There's been precedent of such actions being reverted and counted as vandalism. — JIP | Talk 07:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Rokeaj has since moved my comments to User talk:Rokeaj/Trolls, where he calls me and User:Sean Black trolls. The reason why he calls me a troll is because I reverted his blanking of his talk page after he received my warning and stopped vandalising. The reason why he calls Sean Black a troll is simply because he also reverted Rokeaj's blanking. (I reverted the page four times - Sean Black reverted it once, and yet he also gets called a troll.) I am not very happy with this but am accepting it for the time being. — JIP | Talk 18:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Meh, he's just out to get your goat. Don't feed the troll. He hasn't made any article-space edits since the last vandalism; I'm guessing he'll move on since he knows he's being watched. android79 19:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Spellchecker & User:Spellcheck8

User:SlimVirgin has already blocked User:Spellchecker for blindly converting American English to British English. Now User:Spellcheck8 has started to do the same thing. I'm signing off, so someone else will have to clean up the mess. BlankVerse 18:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

This user has actually created about a dozen sockpuppets to continue his war on American English spellings: Atlanty (talk · contribs), Xipos (talk · contribs), Za-resident (talk · contribs), Koala45 (talk · contribs), Effoff (talk · contribs), Rusy (talk · contribs), Fryend (talk · contribs), Imperiul (talk · contribs), Fruggy (talk · contribs), and Por.pl (talk · contribs) were all created in a one hour period from the same IP address as Spellchecker (talk · contribs) and the Spellcheck8 (talk · contribs) sock already mentioned. Several of these sockpuppets have been sighted "correcting" American English spellings. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Add four more socks to that list: RT34 (talk · contribs), Refreac (talk · contribs), Juka (talk · contribs), Sujafu (talk · contribs). Kelly Martin (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Checkuser abuse! [[Sam Korn]] 20:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Kelly's spoiling my fun! (Do please continue.) - David Gerard 22:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No, actually, check user abuse. Radiant_>|< 22:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Possible Scottfisher socks

160.91.231.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a potential sockpuppet of Scottfisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have blocked for 1 week accordingly. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Verified. I'm also blocking his other IP sock. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Editing again as 160.91.231.73. Andy Mabbett 22:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

User:24.183.224.210 (part fo a block registered to Charter Communications, 24.176.0.0 - 24.183.255.255, has mostly edited pages previsouly edited by Scottfisher; note removal of cleanup tag (despite no cleaning up); addition of image, another image addition and abusive comment. Andy Mabbett

Tmayes1999 blocked

Per an email to Helpdesk-l, Tmayes1999 is currently blocked from editing. Looking at his talk page, it appears he's been caught in a block before because his IP was the same as a vandals. His username doens't appear in the block log. Could someone take a look for him please? Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 03:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

202.50.90.10

This user appears to be vandalising again, after a previous block, though it could be construed as a test.

Page in question [17] Barefootguru 04:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• I've added 3 suspicious page creations by this user. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • To AFD I mean. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Archived, and subpage proposal

Archived a bunch once more. Would people agree that it's a good idea to use subpages for each issue on ANI, because this page is constantly over 100 kb in size. Radiant_>|< 17:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Isn't ANI already a subpage itself? --cesarb 17:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• What I mean is WP:AN/Possible Scottfisher sock, WP:AN/Tmayes1999 blocked, WP:AN/202.50.90.10, etc. Then transclude those into the main page(s) AN and ANI. That way, it's easier to edit and to archive (which this page is always in need of) and you can watchlist particular issues. Radiant_>|< 18:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  Correction: and you would have to watchlist every single particular issue. It would lose the great effectiveness of watchlisting the single main page and seeing everything that's going on. --cesarb 18:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The downside with transclusion is that you'd have to watchlist the subpages to see any changes. Right now, all I have to watchlist is AN, AN/I and AN/3RR in order to see any changes. If I'm offline for a while, I can check the history of any of those pages with one click and see what section was edited. I'm also concerned about newbies have difficulty posting a new issue. Carbonite | Talk 18:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Just archive more frequently. Move excessively long discussions to subpages if there is no strong objection from those involved to doing so. Transclusion for every issue would make watching ANI difficult. android79 19:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, that is a good point. How would it be to have one subpage per day (listing all issues that started that day) transcluded all on the main page? We could even employ a bot to automatically unlist any day page that hasn't been edited in, say, a week. As a aside point I have never watchlisted ANI, I just assume it sees a heck of a lot of changes and visit it frequently. Radiant_>|< 23:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  Still bad, but less bad. How about one per week? --cesarb 23:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid that would defy the point (and you can't move the whole page to an archive once per week, because at any point there's discussions still ongoing - only you can hardly see which ones). Radiant_>|< 00:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• I don't want to have to be rewatchlisting this page all the time. Please tread carefully. Frankly I think this page is fine as is. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As do I. — Dan | Talk 01:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Nixer

I have blocked Nixer (talk · contribs) for twenty-four hours for violating the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:3RR (four reverts in 27 hours, which I call gaming the system) at Proto-Indo-European language, where I am also an editor. He has previously been blocked several times for 3RR on this and other pages. dab suggested I bring this block to the attention of other admins, because 3RR was not technically violated, and because I'm one of the participants. If anyone feels I blocked Nixer unjustly, please feel free to unblock him. --User:Angr/talk 18:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Four reverts in 24 hours would be a violation. I assume you mean 25? android79 18:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You should not block people for 3RR violations on articles which you are also editing. Next time, ask another admin to place the block for you. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

That said, I endorse this block. Four reverts in 25 hours is gaming the system, and abusive edit summaries don't help. android79 18:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You will note that I haven't gone running to unblock him either.  :) Kelly Martin (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

it was four in just over 24 hours. Not a 3RRvio. Since Angr brought the matter here, any admin reading this is free to unblock Nixer, no questions asked. If none does so, we can reasonably say the block has community support. Note that Nixer has a long history of trolling IE pages. Anyway, if you go ahead and unblock, neither Angr or I will reblock him. I didn't do the block myself because I have a strong inhibition of blocking where I'm involved, and I couldn't be bothered to run to an uninvolved admin. But I do think the block is justified as a slap on the wrist for consistent unwikilike stubbornness (aka disruption). dab (ᛏ) 19:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to express my opinion that when one has not violated any rules, and administrators are not explicitly authorised to "invent" rules of their own after the "transgression" has been committed, a retrospective penalty cannot and should not be imposed. This resembles a case of abuse of power, a tactic of someone who is in dispute with someone and in order to get them out of the way, invented a rule, imposed a retrospective penalty and lo and behold, once the opponent is "out of the way", the page was reverted back to the blocking administrator's version. I would like to express my confidence in the system and the integrity of our administrators :-) Rex^(talk) 23:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

look at the talkpage. he was just reverting even though he knew he would just be reverted back. It's not like we needed to block him in order to win an edit war. We could just have kept rolling him back, avoiding public scrutiny here. My hope is that the block will teach him better behaviour. Yes, it is not perfectly clean, Angr being involved, that's why we brought it here! If any uninvolved admin would like to unblock then reblock him, feel free. And again, if any admin at all feels that Angr was acting wrongfully, feel free to unblock him too. This is what this noticeboard is for, after all, to have your judgement calls reviewed. dab (ᛏ) 23:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I see; I just wasn't aware that administrators are not bound by Wikipedia's policies and possess a right of discretionary blocking to be used against users who have not violated any rules. I was just pointing out how neatly everything fell into place: Nixer was blocked at 15:22 and would ya look at that! The same administrator reverted the article at 15:24 (two minutes later) back to the version that the said administrator approved. Who woulda thunk it! Rex^(talk) 23:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:3RR – This can also apply to those that try to "game" the rule on a regular basis, such as by making fourth reversions just outside of the 24-hour time period. The only rule "violated" here was that of an involved admin doing the block, alleviated by its discussion here. android79 23:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, do forgive me. Could you please define "just outside"? I mean I have reverted 3 times on one article and then five weeks later I reverted it again. Does the rule apply? Of course it may if I were in disagreement with an administrator over that article. The administrator, acting out of the purest of motives would have reluctantly blocked me, not because he had anything to gain for himself, just because he was implementing policy. I'm just curious to the real reason behind the block; who benefited from it? Why the blocking administrator of course. How convenient :-) Rex^(talk) 23:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• I would call anything up to 1 (perhaps 2 hours) after the original 24 hour period "just outside". Anything over 24 hours after the original period can not be called "just outside", so reverting 5 weeks after the fact is perfectly legitimate, unless you repeatedly revert without any explanation. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucratic mess of rules to be blindly followed. I don't care about the rules as much as the intent of the rules when they were made. It's not admin abuse, even though he shouldn't of blocked while involved. I was just talking about stuff like this at my talk page, and here's what I said:

[...]Wikipedia has rules like IAR to ignore bureaucracy, and to let us know that it's not the rules, its the reason behind the rules' creation. [...]

Redwolf24 (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you clarify that a bit? Why wasn't it admin abuse? I realise that you are condemning Wikilawyering, however you haven't explained why it wasn't admin abuse. It looks and sounds like admin abuse: an admin blocking someone and the result was a benefit to the selfsame admin and a detriment to his opponent who stricto sensu had not violated the rule. Perhaps it's impossible! Anyway, it's not for a humble mortal such as myself to comment on what motives individual admins had while acting, heavens forbid *smirk*! It's just so intriguing the way that the admin in question managed to arrive at such an... um... "impartial" conclusion. He would have deserved a round of applauds had he chosen merely to caution the potential offender as to the rule. That didn't happen though, did it? Using his administrative discretion, he arrived at the fairest of conclusions and then I have the sauce of accusing him of feathering his own nest. Naughty naughty me... I'm merely describing things as they appear to the objective outsider. I know neither the administrator/perpetrator, nor the offender/victim. I must admit that Nixer appears (from his edit history) to be a relatively infuriating individual, however it seems very fishy that his opponent in the edit war was able to utilise the "safety hatch" of the 3RR to such an effect. Rex^(talk) 00:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Forget the 3RRvio, I'd have blocked him for violating WP:CIVIL. Profanity in edit summaries is uncalled-for. That being said, he didn't. Everyone here has endorsed his actions, so Rex, I suggest you accept defeat and move on. We've already come to the conclusion it would have been better if Angr had asked somebody else to block Nixer, but the effect would have been the same. Hermione1980 00:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

We can't block for personal attacks.Geni 08:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

we can block for consistently being a pita. It's not like the guy was blocked for a week, or a month. The block is well within policy, except for the fact that Angr was involved with the article. I tend to strongly discourage "involved blocking" myself, but I think this is more wikiquette than strict policy. After Angr posted the case here, he is in the clear, as far as I'm concerned. This is not a content dispute. It is a simple case of a persistent user refusing to pay the most rudimentary regard to NOR and CITE. dab (ᛏ) 13:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

only if they raise it to the level of disspurting wikipedia.Geni 13:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Block wars

I've no idea who is in the right or wrong here. fiBut, this [18] dies not look good. --Doc ^ask? 00:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, that certainly puts the previous issue in perspective, doesn't it? I wonder what the admin abuse was? Probably unblocking himself *snigger*. Rex^(talk) 00:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it, I can't find what he did. On his talk page he is being acccused of admin abuse, but no one is telling him what he did. Rex^(talk) 00:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Seems to be the gdanskzig dispute. Ouch. Wasn't there an Arb case on this? (Molobo is accused of removing double names, and was blocked for breaking WP:V; Wiglaf is accused of admin abuse by blocking Molobo). Radiant_>|< 00:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

While having no idea who's in the right, or the wrong, note that Piotrus unblocked Molobo a total of 4 separate times, removing blocks by 2 different admins. Ral315 (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The original block appears to have been in error, since administrators do not have the privilege of blocking editors with whom they are personally in conflict. I think this is getting to be a repeating theme of recent: All administrators really do need to keep in mind that their access is for specific and limited purposes only. It isn't to allow them to seize control of articles. It isn't even to settle disputes by fiat -- even though it might seem like a good idea at the time, administrative fiat is not part of dispute resolution here.

An administrator who gets into a dispute with another editor and then misuses administrator powers to "settle" that dispute thereby cedes the moral and intellectual high ground, by choosing to stifle the discussion rather than seek consensus. We need to recognize that. Whenever an administrator blocks someone they're in conflict with, or reverts and protects an article that they've been edit-warring on, that action is in itself an admission of being wrong. It's saying, "I can't argue the point or get others to agree with me, so I'm going to stop you from speaking."

And that's unacceptable conduct for any Wikipedia editor.

Come on, people. It's not hard, when you get into a conflict with someone whom you think is breaking the rules, to call for an outside opinion. Rather than reaching for the block button when you get fed up with someone, bring others in to take a less-biased look at the situation. If someone you're arguing with violates 3RR, that'll be clear to anyone else who looks at the situation: you don't need to break the rules yourself by blocking someone you're in conflict with. --FOo 03:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This is so basic that is getting increasingly difficult to assume good faith in admins who don't ask for an outside opinion. The janitors need to have clean hands and to be seen to have clean hands. There are ways and means to get things sorted out, blocking someone you're in dispute with or protecting pages you're involved with are not among them. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This is utterly uninspiring. And as far as I can tell, this was the first time this has been brought up, after 4 unblocks. I can't imagine any reason why anyone who would use their admin powers with such disregard would deserve our confidence. I'm going to ask Piotrus and Chris73 to comment in case they don't know about this thread. Dmcdevit·t 09:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Most accusations of "involvement" on the part of the administrator are frivolous. It's often the only way the party that didn't get their way can dispute the decision. Frequently, and I'm not just talking about myself here, an admin will get accused of involvement merely on the basis that he or she performed an administrative action at all -- because "if you weren't taking sides with the evildoers, why would you act againtst my clearly correct position"? That said, admin revert wars are very bad for the Wiki and should not be engaged in under any circumstances. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I find just silently reverting each other's [un]blocks without entering a discussion is rather undignified for both sides. With "both sides" I mean Piotrus and Wiglaf. Molobo is clearly a nationalist troll. I find it very disconcerting that we have an admin going around, reverting blocks of other admins (Chris 73, Wiglaf), apparently because he is in league with the user in a content dispute. While the 'disruption' block may have been arguable, Piotrus' revert of Wiglaf's 3RRvio block is highly questionable. We should strongly encourage both parties to bring matters regarding Molobo to the attention of uninvolved admins in the future. Warring admins are poison for the community. dab (ᛏ) 13:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

As FOo mentioned, my unblocking was due to the fact that I think Wiglaf (supported by admins Shauri and Nightbeast) abused his admin powers by 1) violating the Blocking Policy (Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute) in blocking Molobo (not for the first time) as they were involved in the content dispute (not a naming dispute!) with him, and 2) not stating any reasons for their block on his user page (at least not until I asked him to explain his actions). Btw, is there a clear rule that a user should be notified with reasons for his block? I thought that it was but cannot find it today :/

In addition, the sides involve admins on one side and non-admins on the other (at least until I stepped in, which I do very rarely, since I don't like to get involved in nationality-based disputed, as most of involved parties should know), so this presents additonal problem. The first case I used my admin powers to unblock Molobo, about half month ago, involved the German_4th_Panzer_Division#War_Crimes section in this article and after lenghty discussion Wiglaf and his side conceded that Molobo was right (or at least stopped reverting his additions, allowing the section to remain in the article, which I think is the same as admiting he was right). The block reason Wilglaf used in that case was listed as 'disruption of Wikipedia', a reason described on our Blocking Policy as controversial, and Wiglaf failed to present evidence of Molobo's disruption other then Molobo disagreeing with their side. See User_talk:Wiglaf_archive_7#Abuse_of_blocking_rights, User_talk:Piotrus#Blocking, Talk:German 4th Panzer Division and User_talk:Wiglaf#German_4th_Panzer_Division for more information on this case.

In the last unblocking I admit I didn't look sufficiently at Molobo's edit history and I assumed the block was related to the Kulturkampf content edit war that those parties are involved again (note I did not unblock Space Cadet, who is a common and clear case of revert warrior). See where again references provided by Molobo are targeted and note that Molobo seems to use talk pages extensively, unlike many of his opponents (Talk:Kulturkampf). However, after studing the history of this recent conflict (block war) I see that it relates to Molobo removal of comments at Talk:Zygmunt Bauman, which indeed means Molobo acted both in a clearly disruptive way and broke the 3RR rule, and that Wilglaf was right in blocking him this time. This might have been avoided if Wilgaf posted info why he blocked Molobo on his user page. I still think that if an admin is involved with a user in dispute A, and dispute B, and the user breaks a 3RR rule on B, but makes good case for A, that the admin should ask somebody else to enforce the block (conflict of interests here). This said, I apologise here to Wilgaf for accusing him of abuse of admin rights, which - this time - was not the case (I thought Molobo was blocked for edits on Kulturkampf).

I have advocated to both parties and will repeat it here that since they cannot reach an agreement and their conflicts are repeated again and again, that they should use RfC or even RfA. So far my advice seem to be ignored and various revert wars continue - please consider it now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"Molobo seems to use talk pages extensively, unlike many of his opponents." One thing needs pointing out: he uses talk pages to badger, to argue and for the purpose of emotional pleading. His participation here is one of constant friction with dozens of editors (check his talk). His four reverts were repeatedly calling a talk post a personal attack, which is a favourite tactic of his. The other I always like is when he calls you a bigot or xenophobe for no reason. The user is a troll and I can only assume he's avoided an RFC or RFArb to this point because people are so tired of dealing with him. Sorry if this seems like an out of nowhere comment, but it needs pointing out. Marskell 16:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Please Marskell give links to me calling somebody xenophobe or bigot. If they are any I will gladly erase them out of hand, although I do not recall calling people such names. --Molobo 00:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The way I see it, there are no reasonable grounds for blocking Molobo, or if there are, Wiglaf is concealing them very well. I can't find any policy which Molobo has violated (I may be wrong of course). Therefore, the block must have been based upon "administrative discretion", which is all very well if a good reason for the block is found. So far, Wiglaf has not even attempted to justify it (as far as I can see). Does anyone know if Wiglaf has been at odds with Molobo, because if he has, then I'd presume admin abuse. If there isn't, but Wiglaf still can't produce a valid reason for blocking Molobo, then I'd presume incompetence and seriously flawed judgement. Rex^(talk) 17:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

As stated by Piotrus, the 4 reverts were on Talk:Zygmunt Bauman. User:Nightbeast placed a notice and Wiglaf obviously noticed. Seems a valid block. Marskell 18:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Right, so the only thing that went wrong here was Wiglaf's failure to place a formal notice of the existence, duration and reasons for the block. No wonder I couldn't find anything on Molobo's talk page. My sincere apologies to Wiglaf for implying that he was acting unfairly. Rex^(talk) 18:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If you disagree with someone's block, the proper way to deal with that is not to instantly unblock, but to bring it to the community's attention. Talk to the admin, come here, file an RFC, but certainly don't unblock when you yourself are involved, that's just as bad. And not four times. I still fail to see how you can have unblockede first without full investigation (there was a valid 3RR filed). I think whether or not Molobo is a good person is tangential to the issue. Repeated unblocks when involved, without bringing it to the community's attention, and without full investigation are always wrong. Blocking people you are personally involved with, without asking another admin's aid or bringing it to the community's attention first is always wrong. Nothing Piotrus has said explains away those facts, nor will anything the other admins involved say. As far as I'm concerned, this is childish behavior from people we expect to know better. Dmcdevit·t 18:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

1) It was four times over the period of a month. 2) I was justified in my first two unblockings, and I think that Rex description of Wilgaf misdoings is applicable to them. 3) I was not correct in my last unblocking, but my mistake was caused by the lack of explanation for Wiglaf action on Molobo's talk page (i.e. I looked at Molobo's contribs on the day of the blocking, not earlier, since I didn't now I had to look that far back). I will definetly bring this to the community next time to avoid any confusion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This is simple: Do not unblock without notifying the blocking administrator on his/her talk page AND notifying the rest of us here. The only way to stop block wars is for people to talk about the problem. I am officially disappointed in the administrators involved. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll remember that. I had so far very little experience with either blocking or unblocking. But it may be good to expand the blocking policy to clearly state how to unblock a user and where to post the info.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added an appropriate sentence to Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I was just about to add something different to BP, and it's how I'd respond to Piotrus here. You said "where to post the info." I'm afraid to me that's entirely the wong mindset. You should bring the disputed block to the community's attention beforehand, and in almost all cases, only unblock with the consent of other administrators. We have to remember these are admins we are talking about. That's not to say they are always virtuous, but we give them discretion with blocking and a little button to use all by themselves for a reason. If you think they did something wrong, you better be prepared to ask around first, present evidence, and even follow through with an RFC or whatever is called for. Administrative abuse is not to be taken lightly, but also not to be concluded so easily, from a trusted member of our community, to (nearly) ever warrant a unilateral unblock without discussion beforehand. Dmcdevit·t 22:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know if Wiglaf has been at odds with Molobo, because if he has, then I'd presume admin abuse

Sadly, this is the case. Wiglaf has been very emotional about my contributions to Wiki, including reverting them without any reasons. He did block me before and he couldn't point to any Wiki policy for doing so[19].This was during his attempts to stop putting information on war crimes comitted by German units in WW2[20]. The problem is that certain users on Wiki are very emotional towards mentioning war crimes made by German units or persecution of ethnic minorities by German state, and oppose such informations very aggressively, often calling editors who contribute such information as nationalists, trolls,liers etc. I am always ready to discuss my edits on talk pages, and serve with sources backing me up. --Molobo 21:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Honestly Molobo, I don't recall many editors (if any at all) who are more "emotional" than you. At the same time, "emotional" seems to be your favorite invective against the many editors you have alienated so far. But even if you were right in all of the disputes you have been involved in, the fact remains that we are discussing a clear 3RR violation here. Also, the case in question had *nothing* to do with German war crimes. You reverted another user's longish reply to your question on the dubious account of a "personal attack". He restored, asked you not to do this, you deleted the entire statement again. Another user restored, you reverted 4 times, always repeating the "personal attack" accusation. This *may* be slander, it almost certainly is bad manners, and it is a 3RR violation without any doubt. No lamenting about WP's pro-German bias can change this. Your sentence "I am always ready to discuss my edits on talk pages" sounds great but at least in the present case you were *not* ready to discuss: [21]. 80.145.37.35 22:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Gee, yet another mysterious anon. That IP address belongs to Deutsche Telekom AG. Hmmm... Rex^(talk) 23:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You are taking my words out of context, please don't do that. In addition to my previous statement, I also said: I can't find any policy which Molobo has violated. My statement which you quoted was on the understanding that there was no valid reason for Wiglaf blocking you. Now I know that you had violated the "Three Revert Rule". It is common knowledge that four or more reverts within the same twenty four hour period automatically carries a twenty four hour block. Therefore Wiglaf had a valid reason for blocking you. Whether he was in the mental condition of the "gleeful hangman" or not is irrelevant. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time! Rex^(talk) 21:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's not confuse two cases. Molobo has now violated the 3RR and was blocked for it, I don't dispute that and I admit I unblocked him wrongly. But previously (about 3 weeks ago) Molobo was blocked unfairly, and he refers to that case. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, if an administrator blocks someone for no apparent reason and when prompted to explain himself, fails to do so and it emerges that the administrator in question has something personal against whoever he is blocking, then one may, without violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith, draw the reasonable inference that this is a case of abuse of power and should be dealt with accordingly. Let's not jump to conclusions though, let's give Wiglaf a chance to explain himself; Wikipedia:Assume good faith always applies. Rex^(talk) 22:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Your sentence "I am always ready to discuss my edits on talk pages" sounds great but at least in the present case you were *not* ready to discuss: [22] I am ready to discuss edits at talk pages.What I am not ready to do is to discuss my personal life, person or merits of my personality on talk pages, as such things are irrelevant to the articles edited.--Molobo 23:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC) 'Whether he was in the mental condition of the "gleeful hangman" or not is irrelevant.' What I was pointing out was that the admin in question is in dispute with me and I thought this is violation of policy on neutral admins enforcing blocks. --Molobo 23:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

While there's no specific policy or rule against an administrator blocking someone who he/she is in dispute with, it is generally considered inappropriate. As I've said, if there is no good reason for him blocking you in every instance, then there's a good chance of "admin abuse". Rex^(talk) 23:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

There most certainly is specific written policy against blocking someone you're in dispute with. (And even if there weren't, I think the above discussion shows that it is widely considered wrong -- and Wikipedia policy stems from consensus such as this.)

Wikipedia:Blocking: "Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute ... [is] specifically prohibited"

Wikipedia:Administrators: "[A]dministrators do not have any special power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users." That is to say, admins don't get to "resolve" their personal disputes by using admin powers; in a dispute, an admin is constrained to act as just another editor.

For other examples of the general underlying principle -- that administrators must not use their various powers to advance their own edits or point of view -- see, e.g., Wikipedia:Protection policy: "Admins must not protect pages they are engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." (Emphasis in original.)

There are only a handful of defensible reasons for blocking. Any of them is cast into doubt when the blocker and the blockee have been at odds. --FOo 04:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

As to the page that I was blocked for reverting-I deleted the comment because it didn't answer my question and contained several remarks about me which I considered a personall attacks, and seeing them as such I thought they aren't under the 3RR rule: This included remarks such as : [23] '? Of course, this may mean that you'll have to pick up a book instead of having Google do your "work" for you, which probably isn't quite up your street. Worse, you might even need to visit an archive. No pain, no gain!' --Molobo 23:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, I suspect Molobo of using a variety of sockpuppets to impersonate me (e.g., User:Ярославль). Can somebody check this user's IP and compare it with his? For several days I couldn't contribute a single new article, trying to fend off Molobo's attacks. I'm quite bewildered at Piotrus' persevering to resuscitate this odious troll. --Ghirlandajo 10:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian Ghirlandajo. Why do you call me a troll ? Is it because I changed the name of three Soviet leaders from East Slavic leaders to Soviet leaders[24] or is it that i questioned an opinion that there is some conspiracy against Orthodox believers by the western media[25] ? ;) Cheers.--Molobo 10:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This accusation appears to be spurious, and as far as I can tell without foundation. Please don't ask for sock checks without some evidence that suggests that a sock check is necessary. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Although Wilgaf has yet to find time to reply to the concerns raised here, he has used this incident to label me a part of 'network of admins pushing a nationalist POV, with the power of unblocking each other and Molobo'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I must say (from my possibly ill-informed point of view), that Wiglaf seems to be spending too much time making accusations and not producing enough evidence. According to the famous (some would say infamous) Kate's tool Molobo has made c. 765 edits to articles and c. 819 edits to talk pages (both article and user). By selecting a random talk page and a random edit, you can see that Molobo is clearly not trolling like Wiglaf has suggested. Wiglaf has been calling for Molobo to be banned and has made a personal attack against Molobo and some other Polish users. Quote: Unfortunately he receives support from some Polish users who appear to use him like a kind of pet troll. My first message to Wiglaf would be There is no cabal, and I would suggest caution before making a RFAr. Arbitration is another of those discretionary processes, where whoever makes the best impression "wins". The old equitable maxim that used to guide the Court of Chancery was: he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. As far as I can see, there are serious allegations of Wiglaf blocking Molobo for no apparent reason. The Arb. case, if accepted may reach an unfavourable conclusion from your point of view as well. If they take the view that you have abused your administrative privileges, you may even be "defrocked". IMHO, Arbitration should be put off for as long as possible, make a RFC against him if you must. What I want to know is: do you have any evidence over your claims about Molobo and did you have a good reason every time you blocked him (which I think should have been left to another admin)? Rex^(talk) 16:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand that I may have been too personally involved in this issue and I will henceforth let other administrators deal with him. Note that I have asked Dbachmann to look into the issue, instead of me. I deeply apologize for any mishandling of this case, and I have learnt something for the future.--Wiglaf 18:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not have the time to "look into" extended trolling over months and dozens of articles just like that. If Molobo is so bad, why hasn't there been a WP:RFC about him? Does no one follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution any more? I am concerned enough by the reaction of Wiglaf and others to the user to be prepared to give it some attention: both Wiglaf and Ghirlandajo are very good and respected users, but apart from that they hardly form a tag team. If they agree that a user is an "odious troll", I am inclined to take that seriously. But I'd really need one of the involved parties to collect evidence. Since the problem doesn't seem to go away by itself, now would be a good time to start a clean RFC. I realize this is what Rex just said: I tend to skip his comments, because I consider him a troll (and as opposed to Molobo, I do have some previous experience with Rex). So fwiiw, I am prepared to believe Molobo is a serious problem user, but I really cannot wade through his history myself. dab (ᛏ) 08:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Now isn't that apt, you tend to skip my comments because you think I'm a troll. Well I've got news for you Dbachmann, it doesn't make any difference what you think. If you're one of these users who think that they are head and shoulders above everybody else, should inform you that you are sadly mistaken. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, the two basic requirements are: knowledge of English and Internet access. In other words, you will have to put up and listen to everyone who fulfils those requirements, so stop making personal attacks. Rex^(talk) 08:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not an admin here (I just play one on TV:) but Piotrus and Wiglaf have asked me, as someone with a knowledge of English and internet access, my opinion on this dispute. So for what it's worth (inserts 5 cents): Both acted according to what they felt was fair (in the case of Piotrus) and right (in the case of Wiglaf) in their role as admins. Both were mistaken. Both have admitted to and apologized for their mistakes and called in other parties to help resolve this dispute. In this they have both acted properly and honorably. Now all that is left for them to do is to shake hands, like the true gentlemen, scholars and great Wikipedians they both are, and let this dispute pass. Next, we need to decide what needs to be done about Molobo.

Rex, you are not helping matters. Mistakes were made, caught, and addressed. Calling for a longtime and highly respected admin and contributor to be DEFROCKED is, if not trolling, then blowing things WAAAAY out of proportion. Admins are HUMAN afterall, dammit. If we defrocked everyone for every little mistake there would be none left. It would be anarchy..dogs and cats living together...or much worse, vandals and trolls roaming freely about and ruining the entire project.:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex, I have yet to see anything useful contributed by you. I am not obliged to read what I consider trolling, and I am entitled to have varying amounts of respect for different editors. As RDH says, you are not helping matters one little bit, and this isn't even about you, and the Molobo case would be difficult enough without your little asides. I realize you can edit wikipedia just because you have internet access and could find the edit button, so what? You will earn respect by doing work, not by spreading rants wherever you go.

The way we have to go now is to address the Molobo case. He has clearly stirred up tempers more than enough to warrant an RfC. This RfC will probably be a nightmare, but it will be the only way to get this case in the open, and thus assessable by people not directly involved. I encourage involved editors, therefore, to open an RfC page on Molobo, detailing as succinctly as they can the history of Molobo's interactions on Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 10:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If you had taken the time to read what I had actually written, you would notice that I was discouraging a RFAr in favour of a RFC on the basis that Wiglaf may be not that clean himself and their decision may not be what he expected. I am not calling for him to be defrocked or anything, I have emphasised the fact that I may not know everything and I am describing things as they appear to me superficially. There is a little thing called WP:AGF, which I try to abide with, especially considering that I do not know Wiglaf or Molobo. An interesting issue it that your baseless accusations of trolling are in fact personal attacks and you are assuming bad faith. In my post above (which you interpreted as trolling), I am advising against RFAr, which is what Wiglaf proposed on Dbachmann's user talk page. Molobo contacted me about it and I left a post here saying that it may be better to make a RFC as arbitration might be displeased with Wiglaf IF it emerged that he has been abusing admin privileges (they result may be defrocking). As for Molobo, evidence please? This could all be a fairy tale, I cannot find incidents of trolling ANYWHERE in his contributions. You are assuming bad faith and should stop it. Wikipedia:Trolling is a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. No one has done that! IMO Molobo has been POV pushing, NOT trolling. There is a distinction, as trolls don't care about the issues. Rex^(talk) 11:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

As this conversation shows every sign of descending into a kind of namecalling farce, I'd suggest that everybody involved just walk away for 24 hours to gain some perspective. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a good idea Filiocht, I second the emotion...let's all chill childrens:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 01:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Molobo was also blocked by me some time ago twice for disrupting wikipedia. There is a long standing dispute related to the naming of Gdansk, for which i started a major vote regarding the naming of related places Talk:Gdansk/Vote. The outcome was a large majority for double naming. Molobo disputes this vote on technicalities (i.e. anon votes must be counted because there is no rule that says otherwise), and has been removing double naming in literally hundreds of instances. After repeated warnings i finally decided to block him for going against consensus and disrupting wikipedia. While block for disruptions are controversial, I think a more than 70% majority is a pretty strong argument, and ignoring such a majority quickly leads to anarchy. (On other instances, such a block has been confirmed by another admin). Piotrus unblocked him under the mistaken assumption that disruption blocks are not a policy. To my disappointment Piotrus did not leave me a message on my talk page about the unblock. Nevertheless i respect Piotrus and occasionally ask him for feedback by mail. I still strongly believe my blocks were valid. Other than enforcing the vote I have no interest to edit articles related to Poland and its history.
Molobo is in my opinion not a troll, I think he believes he is making a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. However, I find him to be highly POV and consensus-resistant. He has upset a large number of other users and admins, and is frequently involved in revert wars. He also often misrepresents and distorts facts related to Wikipedia policy. Regarding users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in an article editing conflict, i am only enforcing the Gdansk vote, and otherwise have not reverted or blocked Molobo, even though I am suspicious of many of his edits and have been asked by others to block him. Recently, he has followed the double naming vote, and there was no need for me to interact. I hope it stays that way. -- Chris 73 [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 08:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

'Molobo disputes this vote on technicalities (i.e. anon votes must be counted because there is no rule that says otherwise), and has been removing double naming in literally hundreds of instances.' In some cases have been trying to give neutral names(for example latin versions) to avoid POVs.You blocked me during one such attempt, and as I recall it didn't touch the double naming issue as it was latin name not Polish or German.Also as I pointed out the Gdansk vote is flawed as currently it gives possibilty to name all locations in Poland with German versions(just one of the flaws). I do believe that it should be only applied in clear historical contexts(and Olessi-a German contributor whom I do respect shared that opinion[26]) However I decided to disengage from edititng those articles until a correction to the vote will be made(and you know that other admins and contributors are pointing out that it is flawed in its formulation in certain aspects).

'Other than enforcing the vote I have no interest to edit articles related to Poland and its history.'

Chris with respect, your negative comments about Polish culture and people as seen here: [27] in which you asked a contributor to enjoy a hair disorder as example of Polish culture made me look sceptical towards your contributions and disputes with editors from Poland. I hope that clears it a bit. --Molobo 00:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Molobo is an explosive mixture of unshakeable conviction of knowing The Truth (TM), stoic disregard for anything in his way, and an extreme sensitivity of anything that may be interpreted as criticism of his person, or his views about the sanctity of the Polish nation. Imho, he has a fundamental incompatibility for everything related to wikiquette or npov policy. But that doesn't make him a troll, it just makes him a very difficult editor, and, empirically, a liability to the community. There will be nothing but to tread the course of Dispute resolution. The reason this hasn't happened yet is that every involved editor appears to abhor the prospect of trudging through an rfc with Molobo, and hopes that others will take that upon themselves. The problem is not likely to go away, but it is nothing WP cannot deal with. dab (ᛏ) 12:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

WoW takeover

• SuperDude115 has falsely been occused of making a bogus edit on an article whose title is initialed with Willy's initials. Since he would honestly never make an edit like that, and that the article is initialed with Willy's initials; It is likely that Willy has taken over his username hence the creation of my username. Other users may be targets; but beware of him. --Nintendude 03:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Why haven't you changed your password? Dmcdevit·t 03:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Just what the hell are you doing? IP evidence shows that SuperDude115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Nintendude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and SuperLucky 6.915 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are all the same person (SuperDude115 and Nintendude both edited the same article from the same dialup IP within ten minutes of one another, and the same IP address that created Nintendude created Lucky6.915 within a six minute window). SuperDude115 hasn't been used by any IP address that is inconsistent with being used by Nintendude (same ISP, same dialup range, same city). I don't know what shit you're trying to pull here, but I'm reasonably certain it's not something you should be doing. Either your computer has been compromised, in which case GET IT THE HELL OFF THE INTERNET, or you're feeding us a line of BS. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's hear it for CheckUser! Carbonite | Talk 13:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Martin, I am extremely displeased with the tone of your above comment. I feel that that was extremely uncivil, and entirely unbecoming of an Administrator and Arbitrator. Regardless of the actions of other users, there is no reason to lose your cool and use such a hostile tone. As someone holding a trusted and important position on Wikipedia, you of all people should be an example of civility and professionalism. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What's incivil in telling someone with an infected computer to get it off the Internet as quickly as possible? Kelly Martin (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggesting removing a potentially infected computer from the Internet is not incivil, and that is not what I object to, I object to your choice of words. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

He was probably referring to the line of BS comment. Although I may just agree with Kelly over the uselessness of this posting. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I was indeed referring to the "line of BS", and "what the hell are you doing?" and "what shit you're trying to pull here". The facts themselves speak loudly enough in this case, there's no need for such an aggressive word choice. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. If User:RandomUser came to WPANI and made a contribution with that content, they would reap the fire. Let's try and set an example, eh? - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it *was* a line of BS. The most likely interpretation of said user's behavior is user made an illconsidered edit (no big deal, we all have), it was reverted, and then he concocted a big sham to explain how it wasn't really him making that edit, including posting ridiculous nonsense all over the place to "explain" it. I called bullshit. Sorry if you don't like the use of foul language, but frankly I don't care for it when people waste my time investigating spurious, or in this case fabricated, claims that someone is "taking over accounts". I'm not a diplomat; I'm a sysadmin. You wanted a diplomat, you hired the wrong BOFH. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Administrators should be diplomats, or at least be able to conduct themselves diplomatically; they should calm conflicts rather than exacerbate them. We routinely reject administrator candidates for their lack of courtesy, even if it is directed at vandals and trolls. I don't believe the rude language you used above is ever appropriate on Wikipeida. Especially as you are an arbitrator, in my opinion you should be able to conduct yourself with civility. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'm not certian I understand the purpose of the CheckUser investigation. We already knew that Nintendude and SuperDude115 were the same person as he indirectly stated it here and explicitly on his talk page. And I would think it would be obvious from the choice of usernames. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it could be that SuperDude115 (talk · contribs), who is perhaps autistic, has concluded that his account has been taken over (by WoW) after someone makes a comment about WoW to him. He then proceeds to create SuperLucky 6.915 (talk · contribs), which is promptly blocked. Then Nintendude (talk · contribs) is created, and he proceeds to try to warn people about WoW taking over his old account. Someone tells him to post over here [28] to get help, which he then proceeds to do. However, instead of getting helped he gets yelled at. Whatever the case may be- and however misguided he may be- I would think this situation would require more patience than screaming. I don't know if its a regional thing or if I'm just misreading, but most of your posts, Kelly, seem unnecessarily abrasive and patronizing. Sortan 07:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and I find the self-defense bits equally worrying. For instance, I don't like the use of the word bullshit above, not because I care about foul language (I don't) but because I care about WP:CIVIL and WP:AFG. It's not really that admins need to be diplomats, but they need to be considered in their approachs to other users. But it's easier to imply that your critics are censors whose time and energy is clearly less valuable that your own than to actually stop and consider what they have to say and consider if there is anything in your behaviour that would benefit from moderating. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yet another example of the misuse of the "assume good faith" policy. AGF does not require that one continue to continue to assume good faith when there is clear evidence of bad faith; I am tired of people insisting that it does. This editor's actions were clearly in bad faith; he concocted an elaborate and disruptive ruse to cover for his own ill-considered actions. AGF does not require us to stupidly ignore that or pretend that it did not happen. As to the use of CheckUser: if his account had been taken over, as he alleges, then the alleged edit would have originated from an IP different than his usual addresses; this was not the case. I used CheckUser to investigate an alleged security breach and found no evidence to support the allegation. I disagree that patience is called for in this situation. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Being civil with users you respect is so easy as to be, in a sense, trivial. Being civil with those you do not respect is more difficult, but much more important. There are a number of reasons for this. One is that you might just be wrong. Another is that if you are right, it is important not to replicate disruptive behaviour in the name of dealing with it. A building in which the janitors are routinely rude and abrasive will soon become impossible for the rest of the workforce. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What "clear evidence of bad faith" is there? I don't expect you to have a deep understanding of SuperDude's history on Wikipedia, Kelly, but this RfC may be illuminating. In short, SuperDude is autistic and knows well the consequences of sockpuppeteering. I think you are seeing malice where there is only confusion on SuperDude's part. Granted, he could have handled the situation much better, but a bit more civility would have gone a long way here. android79 14:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It is always better to be civil, most especially for admins and arbitrators. Kelly do you really disagree with that? Paul August ☎ 14:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to express my opinion that administrators (and especially arbitrators) are considered experts in Wikipedia policy by the vast majority of the community and they should behave accordingly. That means that petty personal attacks should be avoided when possible (except perhaps under severe provocation). Administrators should set an example. If they are rude, how will the newbies behave? Rex^(talk) 14:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion there are times where a firm hand is necessary. Some people need to be yelled at. This case involved a deliberate attempt at deception. The RfC that Android79 linked to illustrates that this editor has a history of deceptive of this sort, which makes my yelling at him all that more justified. Furthermore, I'm quite tired of speculation as to whether random editors are autistic. If there's an admission by Superdude115 et al. that he's autistic, I haven't seen it (it's not in the linked RFC), and it is high hubris, not to mention extremely rude, for lay people to attempt to diagnose mental illness through the Internet. In any case, autism is no excuse for deception. My actions were not and are not a "petty personal attack". Kelly Martin (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think we've wrung this one out enough. Civility also means knowing when to leave well enough alone. Me, I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Should people in positions of power hold themselves to higher standards? Yes. Could Kelly's language have been gentler? Yes. Am I offended? No. The end result is what's important here, and personally I think both sides' points have been made. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If there's an admission by Superdude115 et al. that he's autistic, I haven't seen it – It's on the RfC's talk page under "IMPORTANT development". SuperDude was roundly criticized for sockpuppetry and more-or-less apologized for it. I would not expect him to attempt such deceptive behavior again, which is why I think assumptions of bad faith are unfounded.

No attempt was made to diagnose anything. Indeed, that's why I wrote up the RfC in the first place, rather than "accusing" SuperDude of autism, which would have indeed been rude and rather stupid. I'm not a psychiatrist and anyone who is ought not to be making remote diagnoses such as this. I agree that autism is no excuse for disruptive behavior, and I don't think you were making personal attacks, but this was not a deliberate attempt at deception, AFAICT.

Of course, there's no way for Kelly to immediately know and understand SuperDude's past history. We can't fault her for that. However, a firm hand does not always require rude words. android79 16:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Here you go [29]. If claims he's autistic, if others find his actions consistent with autism, then perhaps you should extend him the benefit of the doubt? I don't think anyone is faulting you for not knowing the intricate details of each case, only that your "tone" is inappropriate. You may intend to be "firm" and "blunt", but you come across (at least to me) as "patronizing" and "abrasive". Your manner may be entirely appropriate and normal among your peers, but there is a completely different audience here- not all of them are from the same region, and not all speak English very well- so some consideration and tact would be useful. Your form of "bluntness" is more likely to inflame a volatile situation rather than defuse it. Please take this the way it was intended, as a constructive criticism, and not as a personal attack. Sortan 16:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The thing that's bothering me here Kelly is that you do not seem to understand the difference between a strong reprimand and an uncivil one. It's one thing to say to a user: "evidence has demonstrated that your account and this account are from the same IP's, which is strong evidence that you are engaging in sockpuppetry, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. " and something like "what is this shit you are pulling?". You seem to be confusing content with tone. If you spent a lot of time investigating a user which turned out to be a sock, by all means, feel free to state that, but state it calmly and rationally, and not using fierce invective. If the evidence is clear a user is making innapropriate edits, then say the user is making innapropriate edits, but don't cuss them out. There's a way to indicate displeasure and objection to another user's actions without resorting to incivility, and it is extremely important for you to understand that and employ that, as an Administrator and Arbitrator. Your statement "You wanted a diplomat, you hired the wrong BOFH. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)" is particularly disturbing to me, considering the meaning of BOFH, which I just had to look up to even understand. If you feel you can't be diplomatic as an admin and arbitrator, then perhaps you should reconsider holding those positions. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 20:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

An uncivil reprimand would be "You fucking moron! You are such an idiot! I'm going to fucking block you so hard up the ass that you'll need a proctologist to ever edit again! Stupid!" I do know the difference. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that a mountain is being made out of a molehill here. I mean Kelly didn't insult his mother or something. It wasn't that bad! And a bit rudeness never hurt anyone as long as it's not overdone. You cannot say that Nintendude wasn't asking for it. I mean didn't he know that if he brings up the subject 'sockpuppet' then the IP check is certainly on the cards? I sometimes wonder why he even bothered. Rex^(talk) 23:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

KJelly martin I think you should apologize for being so uncivil with all the profanity. it is entirely unbecoming of an adminsitortaor on here and even a member of Arb Committeee. If yuou do not apologize I am serioulsly thinking about doing a Rrequest for comment on this "D.S." and also having you removed from the Arobitratino Com. This is totally wrongWiki brah 04:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Kelly's going to get removed from the Arbcom Committee because a troll like you demands it. Hardly. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Based on my extensive experience with SuperDude, I have every reason to believe that he really is autistic and admitted to being so. He has settles down and has become a valued member of the community. His learning curve may be a bit different than what we may expect, but he eventually comes around. I have learned to assume good faith with him and I'm somewhat flattered that he'd name a sockpuppet after me.  :) That having been said, we may in fact be blowing this out of proportion. As for Kelly Martin's reaction, it's the reaction of someone who cares about the project. While we should try and be civil at all times, there are other times when the gloves have to come off. We all spend a great deal of time and effort improving this site. When someone dumps in the nest, as it were, some firmness tempered with civility may well be called for. - Lucky 6.9 05:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I never even though Wikipedia would ever have a password change feature. Alot of people have contradicted my theory about my other username SD115 making an edit on an article titled with Willy's initials even baffled me. --Nintendude 05:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Apology for vandalism

I want to apologise for all my past vandalisms on Wikipedia. Apologies to Mindspillage, Curps, Android79, every admin on here. I am not going to vandalize Wikipedia EVER again. I am genuinely sorry and won't do this again! Please forgive me. --Sunfazer 10:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Of course, I'm sceptical, but if you really mean this, I'd be glad to accept. I'd be even happier if you decided to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive manner. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No reason to be skeptical Mgm, every vandal gives up eventually, and some even courteously like Sunfazer just did. There are very few vandals who if apologized shouldn't be trusted, in fact I don't think any non-trolls do that (real trolls, not those vandals who think they're trolls) Redwolf24 (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Real trolls? Dmcdevit·t 07:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Nah, those aren't real, that's just a hoax perpetrated by real trolls. Radiant_>|< 12:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Figaro / The Merry Widow

User: Figaro is reverting edits to Die Lustige Witwe, either without edit sumamries; or with spurious accusations of vandalism. See also falacious accusations on Talk:Die Lustige Witwe. Andy Mabbett 12:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Now doing the same on The Merry Widow (ballet). Andy Mabbett 12:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • And again [30], with an abusive edit summary. Andy Mabbett 10:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Ongoing [31] (hence moved to bottom of list). Article is now The Merry Widow. Andy Mabbett 16:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

BelAmp/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BelAmp

BelAmp was nominated for AfD on November 13th. On November 15th, the AfD banner was removed from the BelAmp page by 82.209.241.55. The same user then went to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BelAmp and blanked the page. A few minutes later, Andrew O. Shadoura, the original author of the BelAmp page (and, not coincidentally, the author of the program touted by the BelAmp page) moved Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BelAmp to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/`. This seems like bad mojo, and I figured someone would probably want to know. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 16:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

User Mr Smiley has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:Mr Smiley has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

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

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 18:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice work, bot... now if only we could automate WoW clean-up, we'd be set. - jredmond 19:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, nice work, but too late: two other users had already blocked the target. The bot might need some more tuning ☺. --cesarb 19:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Normally it responds faster, this time it happened to be in the middle of a programmed 3-minute pause due to IO error. Just an unlucky coincidence. -- Curps 19:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I've filed an abuse complaint with the ISP (a hosting company). Kelly Martin (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If it's a hosting company, it's probably a CGI open proxy. --cesarb 20:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what I said in the abuse complaint. I'm also going to block the IP indefinitely, especially since it has never made any other contribution to Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

On wheels? So does this mean WoW hasn't atoned, or is this just a copycat? --Golbez 21:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Probably a copycat. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Or perhaps the original WoW pretending it's a copycat. Or perhaps a copycat pretending to be the origianl WoW pretending to be a copycat. Or perhaps the one who atoned isn't the real WoW after all. --cesarb 23:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Where is this atonement of which you speak? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

See this mailing list entry. I'm not on the mailing list, so I haven't followed the ensuing discussion and so forth. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Unrelated, but perhaps not

What do you think about a recently created user with a single edit which consists only on copying an entire article as his user talk page? Another sleeper account? --cesarb 23:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This reeks of a witch hunt. Becareful where you tread. WoW is undoubtedly dangerous but you cannot make assumptions using such evidence. You'll end up biting too many newbies. TheChief (PowWow) 23:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I've examined the underlying IP for that editor and the other account created by that IP: a handful of edits all within a relatively short time and all of them either lame vandalism or own user space edits. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Heatbag

What is the appropriate response to User:Heatbag contribs. This looks more experienced and premeditated that the average vandal/tester, yet its not particularly malicious and seems somewhat random and pointless. I've reverted the Heat page of course, but there must be a high probablility that the image is a copyvio and the user probably needs a stronger than average warning. -- Solipsist 23:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Continuous unsupported reversion of Elitism by User:Remington and the Rattlesnakes

Remington_and_the_Rattlesnakes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been twice blocked for 3RR at Elitism, the first time by me before I began editing the article myself, the second time by User:Hall Monitor. (I only blocked him initially and began reverting his edits at the behest of another user; I have very little invested in the Elitism article.) He adds the same claim over and over again and refuses to provide any justification for the reverts. He has returned after the second block to continue to make the same reverts. I have reverted once more and intend to block him for a week for disruption if he reverts again; he has been warned. There are some odd edits in his history and very little (if anything) in the way of useful edits. I'm relatively certain he's a reincarnation of a blocked vandal or otherwise disruptive user, which I think justifies this (potential) block. I'd appreciate review of my actions. android79 02:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a week. android79 04:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. "Remington and the Rattlesnakes" is the "North Carolina Vandal". Curps remembers him, Joy Stovall, and probably a number of others too; I've made several posts about him on AN/I as well as ViP since at least June, though he's been active longer than that, and I've blocked innumerable sockpuppets of him. His editing style and target articles give him away. Look at any contribution from a 63.19.xxx.xxx IP on any North Carolina related article (for example, Stokes County, North Carolina: [32] --there's a list of some of his socks on a long vandalism spree), as well as Luxembourg, Mississippi, elitism (this gives it away, but there are hundreds of examples like this [33]), as well as his obsession with "croboys" and so forth, all of which appears in his vandalism history, as well as on his current user page. He is really one of the most prolific vandals in the history of our project, if you count up all the 63.19 vandalism on dozens of articles, many of them places in north central North Carolina and adjacent areas. For a while he just played in the sandbox (look at all the 63.19 edits there in the last several weeks) but now he's come out, and he's trying being a POV warrior rather than a blatant vandal. I can accumulate a small mountain of evidence on him; it's easy, because he says the same things in all his vandalism. Antandrus (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I've heard of the "North Carolina Vandal" in passing as well. I'll change the block to indefinite. android79 05:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparantly also known as the King of the Hill vandal, as documented here and here - the sandbox editting and 63.19 IPs definitely shows that they are the same person. Remington and The Rattlesnakes also vandalized Luann repeatedly, a connection to Luanne Platter, a king of the hill character. It's like a jigsaw puzzle. This person should probably be added/readded to Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/Long_term_alerts. Indium 07:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

I have blocked Ted Wilkes (talk · contribs) for repeatedly inserting text in an area of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration page which is reserved for use by Arbitrators. He has been advised that he may contact members of the Committee by email if he wishes to discuss the matter further. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ain't a one week block a bit too long? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It'll give him time to put together his New! Improved! 50,000-word Request for Arbitration. --Calton | Talk 02:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This seems a hair extreme - considering the general competence shown by Wilkes, I assumed he was just ammending his request and being careless where he put it. Phil Sandifer 02:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

See my and his talk pages; his placement there was deliberate. He knew what he was doing was outside policy and felt that his exceptional circumstances justified it. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, well fuck him then. Phil Sandifer 02:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Regardless of what another user has done, that kind of language is out of line. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Elvis Presley

On a related note, I've unprotected Elvis Presley, where the actions of Ted Wilkes and another warrior had caused a week-long page protection. I propose to block anyone engaged in clearly disruptive editing on this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy Clarkson

Continued removal of NPoV tag from Jeremy Clarkson, with false claim that there is consensus to do so - note bottom three edits on talk page (at time of posting). Andy Mabbett 19:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ongoing. Recent talk-page edits (not mine) include "Still disputing the neutrality of the article" and "... this is a critical point of the NPOV issue ... looking like it's open season for editing and conflicting POV ... The current listing, as it stands, is far too excised". Andy Mabbett 17:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like some input on this. Thanks for bringing it up here, Andy. The constant adding of this tag on the article is quite disruptive, particularly when it is coupled with absolutely no constructive suggestions on what aspects of the article fail to conform with NPOV. I maintain that if the only requirement for an article being tagged with {{npov}} is that there is someone, somewhere, who insists that the article is POV, then eventually every article on Wikipedia will have that tag. If you're going to claim an article is pushing a specific point of view, then I believe you have an affirmative obligation to state what that point of view is and make specific suggestions as to how to improve it.

Relevant to this issue, I believe, is the consensus that repeatedly adding the NPOV tag to articles can be considered disruptive [34]. Furthermore, your high-handed attitude and complete lack of constructive engagement on the talk page seems to me to be consistent with the description of your activities as "trolling" in the recent arbitration case brought against you, and fits in perfectly with the description of your activities in your recent request for comments: "Marking articles with unexplained "tags" as user follows seeming more concerned about being argumentive, more than a concern for Wikipedia." You've shown no willingness to engage the community on those issues, so I can only assume that you agree with those sentiments.

I believe we are making progress on the talk page in improving the article. I also believe that describing the existing issues in the article as being point-of-view disputes is absolutely incorrect; this is simply a discussion of what incidents and how much detail to provide in a biographical article. I welcome the input of other editors and administrators on this article. Nandesuka 18:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Offtopic.com

It's been recreated again.Geni 23:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It was deleted and protected by User:Doc glasgow. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

False Doppler

This page and its associated talk page are continually vandalized by the same user, who uses exceptionally disingenuous and misleading edit summaries (e.g. "minor cleanup", "removing NPOV", "restoring a more technically accurate version", etc) to promulgate an extremely POV-laden article which is highly antagonistic towards the original author of the article.

A brief summary of the history of this page can be found at its recent AfD. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 11:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism is continuing from different IP address despite receiving a final warning from bumm13. Vandal has already egregiously violated 3RR. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 18:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Protected for the time being. The anon claims that the article is original research and was invented by the author of the article. However, it does google (mostly for "false doppler effect" or "false doppler shift"). Radiant_>|< 22:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Leonig Mig

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalizing the Leonig Mig userpage over the past couple of days, and he just vandalized it again less than an hour ago. Can someone block him and/or protect the page? (It was protected from the end of September, up until a week or so ago, but as soon as it was unprotected the vandalism appears to have began again (check the history for User:Leonig Mig). Thanks! --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 10:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I have vandalised nothing. False acusations of vandalism constitute a personal attack. Desist. Andy Mabbett 10:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh... removing content from other peoples userpage, after various people have told you to stop, that's the definition of vandalism. So no, I won't be "desisting" anytime soon. Why don't you desist with the vandalism? --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 10:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

He vandalized User:Leonig Mig's userpage again... --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 13:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• The content which is being removed: "I left because of a user called Pigsonthewing. If he frustrates you too, my heart goes out to you." is clearly not constructive and helps create a hostile atmosphere. IMO there's a good case for removing it, although Pigsonwings probably shouldn't do it himself. - 82.172.14.108 13:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Two administrators have already intervened to stop the removal of that content (one by protected the page for almost two months, the other by reverting it multiple times), so if there were a good case for removing it, you'd think they'd have done it. Personally, if another user drove me off, I'd like to think I could leave a parting note on my user page indicating why I quit... --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 14:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that what POTW is trying to remove from Leonig Mig's userpage is far from a "personal attack". It's a, IMO, rather sad statement saying that he feels bad for others that POTW has harrased. POTW, you'd best just forget about, and move on: it's not that big of a deal.--Sean|Black 18:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, then it should also be noted that it isn't strictly true... Leonig Mig has NOT left, he just changed user names. Another significant fact not mentioned here is that this situation is the mirror image of a previous dispute where Leonig Mig kept removing a statement about himself from Pigsonthewing's user page. Neither action (posting negative comments about another user and removing such comments from someone else's user page) is particularly helpful, but am I the only one finding it odd that in both cases there were official complaints filed about Pigsonthewing's actions... and not Leonig Mig's essentially identical behaviour? --CBDunkerson 09:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps. However, Leonig, is obviously deeply hurt by what's happened. Anyways, everybody involved should remeber what I said: It's not that big of a deal.--Sean|Black 03:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

In what seems related to this, Locke Cole and POTW have been having a revert war on User talk:Pigsonthewing over a vandalism warning left by Locke Cole. I've blocked Locke Cole for 3 hours for disruption; 6+ reverts to someone's talk page is bordering on harrassment. android79 12:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I've also protected User:Leonig Mig. android79 14:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good case for protection of the userpage of Leonard Mig--such unconstructive statements, particularly from departed editors who have decided not to continue contributing, cannot be intended to further the task of writing the encyclopedia. Mr Mig should write his message on his website or blog if he wants to publicise his grievance. Whether the statement should be removed is an editing matter and should be decided by the community. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If Mr. Mig were still about there would be little doubt about him keeping this fairly innocuous statement on his user page. To play the devil's advocate, how long does someone need to be gone before their user page becomes "community" property? We have several active admins who have at one time or another "left the project", I note. - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Leonig Mig is still editing under another username, just so you know. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Linkspamming on Nobel laureates

Some anonymous user has been adding links on Nobel laureates to geocities (or similar) pages mirroring the official Nobel autobiographies or Nobel lectures (which are all available on the http://nobelprize.org site). See for instance 81.28.182.81 (talk · contribs), 81.28.174.222 (talk · contribs), 81.28.188.31 (talk · contribs). The uer comes back and frequently adds several links (linking to the same page or to pages with identical text). I just removed two links to this site added at various occasions to the Tjalling Koopmans page[35], both completely redundant as the same text on the official site was already linked. Tupsharru 17:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I've warned those IPs woth {{spam}}, for now, and I'd like to note that it's a very ineffective spam technique to link to a free website :).--Sean|Black 18:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The spammer is back, now posting as 81.28.182.24 (talk · contribs). It is a Russian ISP.[36] I copied your warning (but with my signature) to that user talkpage. Tupsharru 12:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It's going right on, so I've added a "Last warning", and will block to get the person's attention if that doesn't help either. --Bishonen | talk 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

S/he did stop posting after my warning. Well, stopped posting from 81.28.182.24, that is. Bishonen | talk 01:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems to have been going on since (at least) sometime this summer in short bursts, every time from a different IP in the same 81.28.x.x range (another one is 81.28.188.27 (talk · contribs)). The pages linked to are on at least three different free webspace providers. Tupsharru 09:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom ban evasion

User:Robert Blair, banned by the Arbitration Committee, is back, and (happily) admits it.[37]

He is now User:Reggie Legsmith.

Can someone please block? Jakew 21:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

By your command. Phil Sandifer 21:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Kevin baas - copyvio, deceptive edit summaries

Kevin Baas is revert warring in 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. He refuses to accept other people's changes to the article, he has even reverted spelling corrections, replaced broken links, and re-inserted copyright violations into the article. Kevin's reverts: [38], [39]. The section "Government Accountability Office" is copied word for word from a Wired News article: [40]. The section "GAO confirms election violatility in Ohio" is copied word for word from a Rock River Times article: [41]. Kevin replaced several broken links in the "Third party candidates" section. He also replaces this unsourced text, which appears to be fabricated: 'Numerous Republican members of Congress called ... the objectors "loonies"'. When asked to cite his source for the "loonies" comment, Kevin refused.

He also seems to be pretending that his edits aren't reverts. Both edits almost exactly duplicate the content of Kevin's edit from November 18, 2005: [42]. However these are the deceptive edit summaries he used: "added some info, more direct sources, fixed some wording" and "work towards compromise, keep positive changes, revert loss of info or changes from fact to misleading statements."

I would like it if someone blocked him for repeatedly adding copyrighted text to articles and for using misleading edit summaries. Rhobite 23:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Was Kevin informed of the fact these texts were copyvios? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, and he reverted after being notified. There was also discussion on the talk page, which he decided not to participate in initially. Jtdirl has blocked Kevin for this incident. Rhobite 02:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Supervised/George W. Bush

I've deleted this article, which was an experimental "protected" version of George W. Bush. The premise behind this idea, presumably, was to offer a vandalism-free version of the article to show how it could be done; however, with no page history, it was probably in violation of GFDL, and in any event, violates our policy on forks. I welcome any comments on this. Ral315 (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep it deleted, I already know that is the consensus. I deleted the template as well. Anti-vandal measures always fail, even Semi-protect, I'll just go back to reverting and hoping nobody saw the vandalized version.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 01:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Anon vandal

Can someone urgently block the whole range containing 81.173.238.18 (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log), 81.173.158.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 81.173.156.254 (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log). I don't know how to block the whole range. They are currenly putting penises and orgasms all over Wikipedia. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Jason's socks

Jason Gastrich has been pushing his vanity (see wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Gastrich and wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Christ Saves Ministries.

Anyway, they've been deleted but found their way to user:Jason Gastrich (they're very spammy and do not even approach NPOV but don't violate any rules; they're better there than in the main namespace).

Anyway, as he admits there;

Mr. Gastrich has been a Wikipedia user and contributor for some time. In order to avoid letting his critics discover all of his contributions at once, he often posts under different user names.

which can be found at Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Jason Gastrich.

I don't want to block them since

1. I am one of his "critics"
2. He's not being overly disruptive (nothing we can't handle)

I also don't want to RFC because he won't pay any attention to it.

But I think someone on the outside should consider whether they should be blocked. — Dunc|☺ 13:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich does indeed have several socks he's using; I won't confirm whether Duncharris' list is complete or accurate, however, because I don't see enough evidence of disruption at this time to justify any action. He does not appear to be using multiple accounts to appear to be more than one person for the purpose of swaying policy, and he doesn't appear to be that abusive of an editor. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yet again he made The Skeptic's Annotated Bible point to his "please-don't-edit" User: page. Is this abuse? -- Perfecto  02:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh he has used multiple accounts to sway policy, including what I believe around here is called "meat puppets?" That is, if you take a look over here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Gastrich

"Uncle Davey" is a sycophant of Gastrich's that follows him around various forums on the Internet to do exactly what he did here, back Gastrich up. I see Gastrich also drug John Wolf into this one. And "Vera Six," a long suspected Usenet sock puppet of "Uncle Davey" made an appearance or two (they're at least friends if not the same person). Not to mention, if you go through the edits that were pro-Gastrich, you'll find several IPs that appear solely for the purpose of backing him up and at least one that came through an open proxy (on what appeared to be an exploited machine no less). Gastrich does have a small mailing list, most of the identifiable people who showed up to comment on his page are identifiable as "the usual suspects" if you've been around him a while.

It'd be interesting for someone to compare the IPs he's coming in on. Particularly with his "Big Daddy" sock with which he went to some lengths to refer to himself in third person. Since proxies (a favorite tactic of his, he went after a site I was hosting with one) are largely blocked here, his IP choices are more limited.

In any case, your Wikipedia is under assault from a spammer. He's done this to other sites. And given the attention the Wikipedia is getting these days, he'll be trying just about everything to wedge his links in. It's a fun ride. One many of us on the 'Net have been through. Especially when he doesn't get his way. And only his way, no compromise is acceptable. You'll all be accused of hating him because of Jesus (you devils you!).

Mark K. Bilbo 04:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

We've dealt with this sort of thing before. It's no big deal. --Carnildo 08:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yuber

In accordance with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Procedure_for_banning_in_probation_for_Yuber and Wikipedia:Probation, Yuber has been banned from editing Syria for one month for continuing to remove properly sourced and relevant material. [43] I wrote to him about this on November 16 and November 17, formally warned him on November 19 and gave him a final warning on November 20, but he went ahead and removed it again anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• You clearly and politely stated your point on his talk page User talk:Yuber#Arbitration ruling. I don't see why you need to put this to the scrutiny of your fellow admins. If you checked with the arbcom as you said, there's no way anyone could say you were wrong in doing this. Or is there another reason you are putting this up here? - Mgm|^(talk) 23:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, one of the provisions of Wikipedia:Probation is that a banning should be announced on the ANI for review. Looks fine to me, btw. Dmcdevit·t 23:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks Mgm and McD. It's the first time I've done one of these, so I put it up here just to make sure I'd gone through all the steps correctly. I've also e-mailed Yuber and offered to reduce the ban to a week if he undertakes not to delete that same passage again. No agreement so far. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Bobby Lou

Hi. How do I report a user who keeps on adding material about a person and this person's book on various pages? He never adds HTML links, so I can't call it link-spamming. He has never contributed anything else. I suspect this user and this book author is the same person. Also, what warning can I give? (I'm sorry I didn't make his username a wikilink -- I don't want to be traced so easily.) -- Perfecto  01:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh wait. Bobby Lou is one of Jason's socks (see above). -- Perfecto  02:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism

I don't believe that protecting the article and redirecting (or vice versa, whichever came first) was a correct action. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamofascism does not clearly show that it should have been a redirect. I am not stating anything about the content, incidently. I am only deciding based on what I can see of the AFD. From what I understand, the redirect issue was being hashed out on the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I feel that this was an incorrect admin action, please someone unprotect and remove the redirect. This article went through the AfD process and received 26 votes to keep, 22 votes to redirect, and 8 votes to delete. The closing admin closed it as a Keep. During subsequent talkpage discussions some revert warring took place between leaving the article and changing it to redirect. The article was in its full, non-redirect form when an admin reverted to the redirect and protected the page, saying in his edit summary "There was a clear consensus to redirect". I respect and appreciate that the admin felt strongly that the arguments for redirect were strong; indeed, the admin had voted for redirect himself. However, I don't think a "clear consensus for redirect" can be said to exist if the closing admin ruled to keep the article. So, unless I am missing something, I would much appreciate it if the protection is lifted. Thank you. Babajobu 09:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to note, I unprotected following the request at WP:RFPP. I'd appreciate if there wasn't a revert war until it is discussed, but I think considering the protecting admin also reverted beforehand, he probably shouldn't have protected himself. (Haven't investigated this much deeper though, about to go to sleep.) Dmcdevit·t 09:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I was approached about an edit war resulting from the recreation of Islamofascism after it had been made redirect following consensus on the Talk page (not the AfD, though the participants had also misunderstood that, and were appealing to an incorrect set of voting figures; Babajobu (talk · contribs) is still doing it, I see. the correct breakdown is: Delete: 8, redirect (or delete): 23, keep: 22, sock-puppets, vague, etc.: 6; see User talk:Mel Etitis/Afd-Islamofascism). I explained more than once that I wasn't referring to consensus at the AfD but at the Talk page, but as the AfD seemed to support their position they've continued to ignore me. I think that that intellectual dishonesty says a lot about the sort of debate we have here.

I thought that two things needed doing: first, the earlier consensus should be followed until it was determined whether a new consensus justified reversing it; secondly, the article needed protecting in order to try to cool off the edit war and get people talking sensibly (and perhaps finding a new consensus). Unfortunately the result was the arrival of Klonimus (talk · contribs), with the inevitable hysterics, propaganda, and rehashing of old battles.

I should say that I think that the article is a steaming pile of racist... er, nonsense, but that that's not the issue; if Wikipedia consensus is to reverse the earlier decision to make it a redirect, then OK, but until then we don't normally think that such a consensus be overturnable by just one editor with a different idea, even when subsequently supported by trolls who were active in arguing against the former consensus.

I should stress that I have no quarrel with Ta bu shi da yu, who acted properly according to his understanding of the situation. I just think that he was misled by the tactics of those who desperately want the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The absurd, naked partisanship over this issue has reached a point where I, or any other admitted Muslim, am likely to begin a round of insults and recrimination simply by agreeing with someone else's post. I neverthless want to express my strong support of Mel's position, above. BrandonYusufToropov 13:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

BYT, I don't think that's really the case. No one begrudges you or any other editor (of any religion) the right to have a position or argue a point on this issue. The biggest source of contention recently has not been anything intrinsic to the topic, but rather frustration at what seemed to some of us as the invoking of a nonexistent consensus in order to freeze the page as a redirect. That's not about partisanship, and there's no reason anyone should resent you for it. Babajobu 13:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I share BYT's general impression of "naked partisanship". whatever happened to "writing for the enemy"? The happenings on Islam-related articles over the past months are most unwikilike, and are poison to the community. "good faith" has gone down the drain. "Leagues" have been formed with the sole purpose of pushing political propaganda. It is sometimes hard to remember what wikipedia is about in the face of all this political mudslinging. dab (ᛏ) 13:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"I explained more than once that I wasn't referring to consensus at the AfD but at the Talk page". The talk page is littered with my requests that you explain where "a clear consensus to redirect" was formed. The only response I received were AfD figures slightly revised from those used by the closing admin. Not once did Mel explain that this consensus was formed in a talkpage discussion rather than in the AfD. Had I and the other keep voters been pointed toward that discussion, this process mightn't have been necessary. I'm happy, however, that you are now engaging the issue a bit. Can you please provide a link to the talkpage discussion where a consensus to redirect was formed? Is it on the AfD talkpage? An archived discussion in the Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion talk page? Please provide the link so that I and others can take a look at it. Also, Mel, I would ask that you retire once and for all the accusations of intellectual dishonesty, of our being hate-filled Islamophobes, and so on. By and large I do not think this sort of talk has advanced the conversation much. Regards, Babajobu 10:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Assuming that the numbers reported in the above discussion are accurate, I cannot see how anybody can claim that there is any consensus at all with respect to this article. Even, or nearly even, splits in opinion, as seen above, are indicative of a lack of consensus. Consensus cannot exist when there is substantial dissent and it appears that there is, in fact, substantial dissent here. You don't have consensus here to do anything; continue talking until you reach a compromise solution. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Kelly, just like to point out that I never once claimed that a consensus existed. Mel invoked a "clear consensus to redirect" as justification for changing to redirect and protecting the page. I and other keep voters have been arguing for three days that there is no consensus one way or another. Our only claim was that *the AfD was closed as keep*. Thanks. Babajobu 12:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

There are several points I would like to make here: firstly, categorising Babajou as intellectual dishonest is an unfortunate thing to do, as I feel that this is grossly unfair. I can see several reasons (as pointed out to me by Babajou) why this article should not be redirected. I have read the talk page, and can see that discussion was still progressing. I think that the best point made was by SlimVirgin: "the reason editors are wary of having an Islamofascism page is that the opposing "ideological group," as you put it, will use it as an excuse to attack Islam. I'm fairly certain that, if everyone could be assured that the article would be encyclopedic, and would discuss the origins and use of the term in an intelligent way with good references, then no one would oppose it." I see absolutely no reason why we can't in fact do this. Babajou has pointed out to me that this article is currently quite large and may not fit entirely into an umbrella article on Neofascism and religion. That some folks are using the term in undeniable: I would, personally, would like the opportunity to read a much battled out, working towards NPOV article on such a topic, should the need arise. From my brief understanding, I would agree with Mel that the term itself is a loaded steaming pile of crap, but I also see no reason why we can't document why this might in fact be (with the presumption that we don't hold that position, of course).

One problem I see here is the assumption that Klonimus is a troll. I'm not rightly sure I can agree with Mel on this one. For instance, this comment appears to me to be a perfectly reasonable, rational and reasoned argument:

---

The problem is that the "Islamofascism" became a grab-bag for all sorts of nonsense that had nothing whatsoever to do with fascism and very little to do with Islam as it practised by 99.9 percent of the Muslim world. --Lee Hunter 01:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I know that and agree with you 100%. However as I have explained previously at great length. Our personal opinions about the subject do not matter. If people use the concept, it deserves coverage in wikipedia, even if you think the concept it's self is dumb. I think Juan Cole is dumb, but I support him having a wikipedia article. If you can't contain your revulsion towards this topic, perhaps you ought recuse yourself from editing it.

Islamofascsim is just an extensivly used neologism to describe a totalitarian Islamic ideology that uses violence to further it's goals of replacing western civilization with Islamic Civilization. In that respect it is similar to the behaior of historical fascist movments. It's also promulgates an interpretation of Islam which supports its activities. And it so happens that alot of people are affected/concerned by the 0.1% of muslims who do support Islamofascism. Klonimus 03:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Unless further evidence can be provided, I would hesitate to believe that this article is troll infested. The talk page, as far as I can read, has some very robust discussion underway. I believe this is normal and healthy, and will lead to a decent article. I cannot see consensus to redirect.

Ta bu shi da yu 12:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

this stuff moved from my comment! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The content of the article has precisely nothing to do with whether it should be deleted. This is something peolpe just don't understand about AfD. If the content of the article is bad, fix it! In an AfD, you are voting on whether the article should exist at all in any form whatsoever. Consider whether you would vote to keep a perferct article on the topic, and if you would, then vote keep, mark the article with a {{cleanup}} or disputed tag, and move on. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 16:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"Gee, I could swear I've had this conversation with you before" department: Are we speaking English here? Does the word "fascist" have any discernable meaning beyond "that which right-wing ideologues find objectionable"? Yup. Lo and behold! It does. Please produce a single example of an Islamic activist anywhere on earth promoting corporatism. BrandonYusufToropov 14:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

If it is a term used by others, let's document it and if necessary eviscerate it. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm inlclined ot agree that this will sort itself out. There is a value to having the page as distinct from Neofascism and Religion. What perhaps needs more though is where the religious relationships with classical fascism fit. Fascism and religion rediteccts fto Nazi mysticism, eliding the relationships of the major religions adn their instituions with the fascist parties an their ideologies, and the interplay of those forces in the WWII and pre -WWII West. Rich Farmbrough 13:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I really don't know why this is continuing on and on like this. I'm going to lay out a simple program as I understand it.

1. Islamofascism is neologism used to refer to some abstract "concept".

1. The concept that it is refering are Islamic Ideologoies that seek to replace Western/Secular civilizations with Islamic civiliations and advocate and use violence to futher their goals.

1. Since 9/11 the term has entered the poltical discoruce in the US and western world. Since its use by POTUS in a major political speech it has entered normative political discourse in the United States, and is commonly used in the political blogoshere.

1. Because none of us invented this word, speculations as to use of the term fascism are meaningless because the the concept this word refers to does not have a deep connection with fascism (aside from sharing a totalitarian ideology). People who constantly bring this up are being counter productive because no one claims that than Islamic Civilization under sharia law would share all aspects of a classical fascist society.

Really, all this editwarring is counterproductive and if we could all focus on limiting ourselves to just describing the what Islamofascism means and how it's used in public discourse that would be just fine. Klonimus 19:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Some responses

Babajobu: "Had I and the other keep voters been pointed toward that discussion, this process mightn't have been necessary."

In a message on your own Talk page I pointed out that the discussion at talk:Islamofascism was more important to my actions than the AfD [44]. In my explanation at [[Talk:Islamofascism I not only repeated this, but linked to the relevant archive [45].

To all those who argue that the mere existence of a word is sufficient grounds for an article, I think that a refresher course on basic Wikipedia policy would be useful (as well as a glance at synonym).

To those who object to my reference to intellectual dishonesty, I simply point to the fact that I explained the AfD breakdown (and my actual reliance on the Talk page discussion) on Talk:Islamofascism, that no-one (so far as I can see) rejected or argued against my analysis, but that the original incorrect set of figures were resurrected for the complaints here (together with the claim that I'd not mentioned the real locus of consensus, for which see above). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Mel, on my talk page you simply said that, along with the vote count, talk page discussions and the quality of arguments play a role in closing AfDs. You did not explain that you thought the AfD had simply been superseded by a subsequent talk page discussion. And as for the talkpage archive, you only claimed that this offered "more discussion of the issue"; you did not say that in the linked discussion you had arrived at a consensus to dismiss the results of the AfD. And when I repeatedly asked you to elaborate on your brief comments, there was only silence. In any case, no such consensus exists on the linked talkpage. Editors have been roughly split down the middle on this from the very beginning. If there was a "consensus", it was a uniquely fractious and disputed consensus. Anyway, the article is once again a going concern. I can't stop you from continuing to accuse us of intellectual dishonesty, trolling, Islamophobia, et cetera, but I hope you will also work to improve the article and make it NPOV. Thanks. Babajobu 01:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot. Ryan Delaney points out: "The content of the article has precisely nothing to do with whether it should be deleted. This is something peolpe just don't understand about AfD. If the content of the article is bad, fix it! In an AfD, you are voting on whether the article should exist at all in any form whatsoever." Unfortunately, however, this isn't generally agreed upon (see, for example, the recent fuss when I deleted Contingent work on the basis that it had been deleted after a valid AfD. The argument was that, as the text was different this time, the article shouldn't be affected by the AfD; my view was the same as --Ryan Delaney's. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

More "Robust discussion"

(And again, forgive me for going over the same ground, but there's a quote on my userpage about obvious things and moral obligations...) BrandonYusufToropov 14:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Karmafist's threat on British Sea Power

User:Karmafist uses threat of revert on British Sea Power if he doesn't get his way elsewhere. Andy Mabbett 15:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 16:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. For those of you who don't know POTW's sordid history, please check Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing for more information. He's basically a content bully who's coming here yet again to try and gain some outside sympathy. Karmafist 16:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

What is this doing on the Administrators' noticeboard? "Threat of revert"? We really should get better about removing posts just used as attacks. Will remove this soon if no one else objects. Dmcdevit·t 19:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Have you read the post concerned? Andy Mabbett 22:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Calling If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself! The Ostrich Method (sticking your head in the sand and believing something isn't there so you can say so), isn't working even though you think it is a "threat of revert" is a flat misreading of English. But it does bring up a question for User:Pigsonthewing: And have you even read your own RfC or RfAr? --Calton | Talk 23:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You've only read half of his edit: the wrong half. Try: If you promise to put all your future talk page entries into POTW Archive, i'll (sic) make this my last revert of your interview cruft. Andy Mabbett 23:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I only read the top half. However, your whinging is still bogus, merely for a different reason. Oh, have you read your RfC or RfAr? Perhaps you could make your complaint there. --Calton | Talk 01:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not for AN/I. This is not for AN either. In fact, I'd like it if during the arbcom case you get banned from whining about karmafist, and vice versa. This bickering is getting annoying <_< Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Andy, I went to your RFC page and didn't see the edit you're talking about. Can you comment there and add it? Thanks! Nandesuka 00:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

:Andy has made NO edits (zip, zero, nil, nada) to either his RfC or RfAr, hence Karmafist's "Ostrich Method" comment. --Calton | Talk 01:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

RFAr knows about this now. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer sockpuppetry

Lightbringer (talk · contribs) is using sockpuppets to evade an ArbCom temporary injunction; please see the enforcement request on WP:AER. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologies

My apologies, the image update caused me some problems and caused a blanking there. Thanks to Dunc for pointing this out. Karmafist 19:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

User:R0e1t2s3i4n5a

I recently left {{test4}} on User talk:R0e1t2s3i4n5a. Something to be aware of. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Am watching user's contribs. Hermione1980 20:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Coincidence? Where's The Chosen One when you need him? :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Big Lover, and others

It appears that user:Jason Gastrich is making sockpuppets to push an Christian Evangelical agenda, as seen by this edit summary here where one of the socks says that he is Jason Gastrich. I'm putting a notice to stop using the alternate accounts on Jason's talk page now, and if he continues to use them, an indef block on all of them seems appropriate. Karmafist 21:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This is old news. Jason's harmless because he's not being disruptive and he's not subtle enough to use his half dozen sockpuppets properly. — Dunc|☺ 21:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Endless recreation of Random insanity

Random insanity is constantly being recreated, in spite of its being deleted via AfD. The "article" is apparently being used as a sandbox by multiple users: see edit history for examples. Can someone please delete it and lock it from being recreated, and let me know the magic spell for doing so for future reference? -- The Anome 01:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I've done it for you, but all you have to do is delete, then add {{deletedpage}} and then protect it. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

User:165.21.154.113

Could someone have a quick look at ArunKR. It looks like attack/nonsense to me but as the contributor vandalised my talke page [46] I don't really want it to look like I'm out for revenge. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks like attack / nonsense to me too. User vandalized Jim Wales user page too. Hu 07:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Nixer again

Izehar (talk · contribs) suggested I post this here for review (see User_talk:Dbachmann#Nixer.27s_block, User_talk:Izehar#Nixer) : I blocked Nixer for 48h, for repeat 3RRvio, this time he reverted six times in 24h before being blocked. I do not consider myself involved in a dispute with Nixer: I consider my reverts of Nixer's edits mere cleanup work. He may be editing in 'good faith', but his command of English, and the confused content of his edits, makes it impossible to be sure, so that fapp, his edits are equivalent to those of a troll. Policy may force us to treat Nixer as an "editor in good standing" in spite of his shortcomings, but if this is the case, it is a strong example of Wikipedia's "anti-expertise" and "pro-trolls" bias (what are the minimal cognitive faculties required of an editor to be considered "in good standing" and capable of being in dispute about anything?). In any case, feel free to reset my block to something shorter if you disagree with any of this. dab (ᛏ) 13:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Presidential gaffes

This was speedy deleted. It should have gone through AfD. Have made a note to the admin and I am informing all that I have restored the article. Anyone should feel free to take it to AfD if they want. I'll probably vote keep, but that's beside the point. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Grace Note

Grace Note made several personal attacks against other users on two different RfAs. On Halibutt's RfA he opposed, with the reason "No, he's a fucking arsehole" [47] On Sherurcij's RfA he replied to User:Marskell oppose vote with "I feel you would have found any excuse. Just another arsehole. So it goes." [48]. I blocked him for three hours to cool him off and received this lovely email:

"Why have you blocked my IP, you cunt? It's typical of the way you operate, that you block those who disagree with you. You're not man enough to discuss it, so you hide behind your admin privileges, you fucking arsehole."

For those unfamiliar with Grace Note, he was formerly User:Dr Zen who left the goodbye message of "Fuck Off Cunt Die" Read the contributions up. I'm not asking for anything in particular, but I do think admins should be aware of the behavior of this rather uncivil editor. Carbonite | Talk 14:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I am going to block for one week since obviously if he's continuing this behavior even after being blocked 3 hours is getting off light. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

User:70.94.229.160 bot

70.94.229.160 (talk · contribs) has apparently been running a bot updating referencing[49], however as I am assuming a bot run off an anon ip has not been approved at Wikipedia:Bots, I blocked the IP and left a note asking the user to register and submit the bot there. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparently it's User:SEWilcoBot. I unblocked and left a note asking user to run bot only while logged in. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)