Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1,509: Line 1,509:


:I agree that there was no ethnic ''slur''- I don't believe I ever said there was. However, complaints directed at a particular ethnic group are ''still inappropriate here''. To me, if someone uses the word "nigger" ''or'' says something like "The blacks are causing trouble here" these are in the same ballpark and either remark is undesirable and unhelpful to the project. Also, I have to say, I don't believe this was a knee-jerk block on my part. I took some time- but, I admit, perrhaps it was only 10 minutes- to look things over. I saw a history of civility problems, and, what to me looked like a solid indicator of a current, ongoing problem. If someone has a problem with the behavior of a particular editor, or even a group of editors, it's ok to name them and criticize their edits. But remarks aimed at an ethnic group can serve no useful purpose, and do much harm. I appreciate any and all feedback, but so far I still stand by my block. The minute I personally thought it was a mistake, I'd undo it myself. I continue to invite any other admin to change the block if they feel it's appropriate. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 02:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:I agree that there was no ethnic ''slur''- I don't believe I ever said there was. However, complaints directed at a particular ethnic group are ''still inappropriate here''. To me, if someone uses the word "nigger" ''or'' says something like "The blacks are causing trouble here" these are in the same ballpark and either remark is undesirable and unhelpful to the project. Also, I have to say, I don't believe this was a knee-jerk block on my part. I took some time- but, I admit, perrhaps it was only 10 minutes- to look things over. I saw a history of civility problems, and, what to me looked like a solid indicator of a current, ongoing problem. If someone has a problem with the behavior of a particular editor, or even a group of editors, it's ok to name them and criticize their edits. But remarks aimed at an ethnic group can serve no useful purpose, and do much harm. I appreciate any and all feedback, but so far I still stand by my block. The minute I personally thought it was a mistake, I'd undo it myself. I continue to invite any other admin to change the block if they feel it's appropriate. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 02:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

:Grouping editors by nationality is of course no basis for a criticism, and certainly not a block. But calling such a group with demeaning names (fanatics, etc.) is, and this is what Ghirla is guilty of. I am not currently involved with any content dispute with user Ghirlandajo, and so Irpen suggestion that I try to gain something by this block is a sad example of bad faith on the part of an otherwise reasonable contributor (and please note it was not me who reported this issue here, but another user who felt offendend, and if I count correctly there are at least four users so far who stated here they are offended by Ghirla, all of them in good standing). The link to archived discussions Irpen provides is interesting, but you seem to miss some key points: not all editors offences are equal, and Ghirla deserved his block, while other editors we talked about didn't. Lumping them together weakens your argument. That said, I ask that reviewing admins make sure that carefuly review the situation, especially the evidence of many repeated offences provided of Ghirlandajo provided at the talk of this thread, and the way Ghirlandajo attempted to defend himself (in essence telling all administrators to f... off, as referenced above). If this defence convinces you that the block is unwarranted, and Ghirlandajo should not be discouraged from breaking WP:CIV and related policies, so be it - but it will send a sad message throught community, one saying that we don't care about WP:CIV and it is impossible to do anything to users habitually breaking this policy.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|&nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&nbsp;]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</font>]]</span></sub> 03:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


== [[User|Potters house]] spamming slanderous attacks against me ==
== [[User|Potters house]] spamming slanderous attacks against me ==

Revision as of 03:26, 28 July 2006

Template:Headermessage

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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



    Visual archive cue: 123


    User RJ evading ban

    Warning: Due to the complexity of this case the following entry is not concise. My apologies.

    Background Information

    This notice concerns RJII, a user who has been banned indefinately for a series of wiki violations and his own eventual admission of intent to abuse. Vision Thing is a user whose first edit occured on March 19, 2006. Because his first edit was to immediately initiate a discussion on a topic which had recently been the focus of user RJII, he was soon accused by user AaronS of being a sockpuppet. User Infinity0 also suspected Vision Thing of being a sockpuppet, and requested a checkuser. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the RJ "project", as user Logical2u said on the checkuser page, "all accounts by the RJII "team" will likely be undectable and un-check-user-verifiable, due to "home" computers, etc."

    Due to lack of evidence from usercheck, the case appears to have been dropped. However, I believe that subsequent edits by user Vision Thing have more than demonstrated, via circumstantial evidence, his intimate connection to RJII. Unfortunately this is the only kind of evidence that could be applied to this case. I have compiled an extensive list of identical edits made by user RJII and Vision Thing. Please note that in my time searching dozens of articles edited by these two accounts I never found a single instance in which either editor reverted or even openly disagreed with one another, despite a tendency by both accounts to engage in edit wars and reverts. When I eventually became certain of Vision Thing being a sockpuppet I attempted to inform twice. Despite making several other edits on his talk page in the meantime, both my attempts remain ignored.

    Evidence of Vision Thing and RJ being the same user

    As evidence I would first like to note RJII's repeated insistance on indicating that the writers of the anarchist FAQ are "social anarchists". This is the very topic that Vision Thing first used as a subject of his first edit. The similarity of their edits can be seen from these examples by RJ,

    which can be compared with this edit by Vision Thing after RJ was banned: 9 July

    Such instances are not isolated. For example, RJ and Vision Thing inserted the same edits concerning David Friedman on medieval Iceland:

    Vision Thing has made many of the same edits that RJ was formally known for inserting since RJ's ban. Benjamin Tucker's "capitalism is at least tolerable" is a quote originally introduced into several articles by RJ:

    After RJ's ban it has been inserted into articles by Vision Thing in his place: 15 July

    Individualist anarchism "reborn", is another quote originally inserted by RJ into the anarchism article:

    has since been championed by Vision thing after RJs ban:

    Way back in January of 2005 RJ started posting many edits about the "U.S. Postal Service monopoly"

    not surpirsingly, after RJ was banned nearly identical edits started coming from Vision Thing

    And yet another instance, before his ban RJ inserted the following edit into Anti-capitalism: 15 June After RJs ban Vision Thing once again inserted an identical edit: 25 June

    These articles and edits are only a small sample, constrained due to my limits on time. Here is a partial list of more articles that each has contributed to, often making the same or very similar edits. Please feel free to look through them to get an idea of the similarity in tone, style, and point of view: An Anarchist FAQ, Economics of fascism, Anarcho-capitalism, Bryan Caplan, Laissez-faire, Capitalism, Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, Anarchism in the United States, Template:Socialism, Criticisms of socialism, Talk:Wage labour, Collectivism, Anti-capitalism, Corporatism, Friedrich Hayek, United States Postal Service, Mixed economy, Free market, Property, Altruism, Natural rights, Negative and positive rights, List of anarchists.

    In fact, the total number of edits to pages they hold in common is far greater than those to pages they do not. Yet, despite the fact that these two seem to have identical interests, edits, and political viewpoints, they have never engaged in so much as a "hello", with their only contact being to support one another on arbitration issues or deny that they were the same person.

    Evidence of violation of wiki policy by Vision Thing beyond circumventing ban

    To my knowledge use of a sockpuppet to circumvent a ban is a violation of wiki policy in itself, however I believe there is plenty of evidence that this sockpuppet is also a violation of the rules on:

    RJs explicit intentions now carried on in Vision Thing account

    It is important to note that when faced with a ban RJ eventually admitted what had previously been obvious to many, that his intent was to use "...advanced techniques of psychological warfare... most importantly, most of our edits were not done through the RJII account but through multiple "sockpuppets" (from a seperate IP(s) for increased security against detection). Hence, the RJII account served largely to wear particular individuals down, pyschologically, who were judged to be enemies."

    In admits again to having multiple sockpuppets already prepared and engaged in wikipedia, "In the meantime, the "sockpuppets," who evinced a somewhat amiable personality did not engage in personal attacks and other such disagreeable behavior that may have risked blocks by adminstrators, went about editing the encyclopedia... It is safe now for us to divulge that some of the sockpuppets will continue editing Wikipedia until at least the end of the year."

    The edits of RJ and Vision Thing are so nearly identical, and so obviously from the same narrow POV, that it can't helped but be felt that RJIIs intent to be "successful in driving several individuals off of Wikipedia, or away from particular articles, who through their hands up in disgust (probably literally)" is being carried on via the account of Vision Thing. Circumstantial evidence is never certain, but I believe this is as much evidence as one could provide given the difficulty in tracking down all the sock puppets employed by RJIIs account. In the unlikely case that the circumstantial evidence I have compiled does not remove doubt that Vision Thing is a sock puppet of RJ he is at least a Meat Puppet (perhaps in the form of banned user Hogeye who worked closely with RJ in the past). Regardless, Vision Thing is clearly carrying out RJs explicitly stated goals of disrupting wikipedia and gaming the system. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 05:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting analysis. I would tend to concur with you. However as you said, this cannot be proven. I suspect the only thing that can be done in this case is to go through the dispute resolution process and get a similar result to that which was meted out to RJII. You could use the previous two ArbCom judgements against RJII as precedent. - FrancisTyers · 15:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I should point out that in any case, RJII also appears to be using a series of throwaway accounts to avoid detection. Accounts like User:Antitrust and User:C-Liberal which were registered since he vanished, made a couple of edits (only two in Antitrust's case) to keep his preferred versions in place, and then promptly disappeared seem like classic socks to me. --Aquillion 17:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree with the assumption, but nothing can be proven. If his words are any indication, RJII would thrive on this kind of speculation. I'd rather not give him that satisfaction. He can play with this until he's 80 years old, for all I care. I might suggest some professional help, though. --AaronS 01:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add to the above: CapitalistAnarchist (talk · contribs), who, somewhat comically, was blindly reverted by Lingeron (talk · contribs) in this edit, where Lingeron reverted three days of edits by ten different people to revert to a version by Vision Thing. Even if we don't assume that Antitrust (talk · contribs), C-Liberal (talk · contribs), and CapitalistAnarchist (talk · contribs) are RJII, it can probably be taken as a given based on usernames and contributions that those three are all one user... and I cannot think of any compelling reason why a user would run through three accounts in such a short time unless they were trying to avoid detection. --Aquillion 17:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also TheIndividualist (talk · contribs). The Ungovernable Force 22:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    comment by Lingeron

    Just as an addition to this witch hunt for RJll sockpuppets, that is an obvious attempt at getting rid of Vision Thing, these editors, User:Blahblahblahblahblahblah and User:The Ungovernable Force, along with others, are currently working at destroying the featured article anarcho-capitalism. Their clear attempts at destabalizing this article are viscous and I wonder how much of it is being done out of petty jealousy. I find all this sickening, both the witch hunt for a good conscientious editor and what they are doing to this article, which they have brought up for featured status review, Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Anarcho-capitalism, after having inserted blatant POV into it, and often made multiple edits to it all in the same day. The need to endlessly dominate articles and insert their own slant can be seen in the several anarchist related articles they tend to edit. Particularly here anarchism. Francis Tyers, also, is hardly in a position to complain as he, on 7/23/06 made 9 edits to this same article. I would suggest that those that seek to run Vision Thing off of Wikipedia take a look at their own actions instead. Shannonduck talk 21:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kelly Martin/?

    User:Kelly Martin/B

    This list User:Kelly Martin/B is of a concern to me. It appears to be a list of a group of users who have little in common other than that, as far as I can tell, all of us found ourselves in opposition to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sean Black 2 for one reason or another. That the administrator largely responsible for the creation of this page stated that its purpose was "It is used by myself and certain others to benefit our decision-making processes" [3], so I can only conclude that its sole purpose is to harass and/or intimidate those with whom this administrator disagreed about the RFA in question. BigDT 21:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, I have now listed this page at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Please feel free to help build a consensus there as appropriate. BigDT 21:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hahaha, nice guess, but it actually has nothing to do with Sean Black's RFA. That's an interesting correlation you pointed out, though ... Cyde↔Weys 22:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    LOL nevermind, it got a lot bigger since the last time I looked at it :-P Check the page's history though, it's been around since before Sean Black's RFA. --Cyde↔Weys 22:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And it just got a lot smaller since I last looked, Cyde just deleted it. Meh. the wub "?!" 22:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit conflict: I was also going to post that the page has now been deleted by Cyde. I would still like to know what the intentions were. Refusing to say what it is for and deleting it as soon as anyone outside of your clique finds out about it hampers my ability to assume good faith. -BigDT 22:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't like the fact that people are poking around in my userspace. The purpose of that page is to benefit my ability to make decisions in the best interest of Wikipedia. Just a way of keeping track of people that's more reliable than my memory -- there's a lot of Wikipedians these days and I find that I can no longer manage everything in my head. All it takes to get on there is doing anything that makes you stand out to me -- good or bad, it doesn't matter; being included there doesn't mean I think you're a bad person or anything; it's just a list. I deliberately created it in my user space and at an out of the way location so that it wouldn't be disruptive, but of course someone had to go and make trouble about it. Nice show, people. I suppose I'll move it to my own wiki (which is closed, and I don't give out passwords to many people) where I don't have to worry about people messing with it. Even better, I can put it in a special locked namespace where none of you can see it, either. You should have stopped while you were ahead..... Kelly Martin (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Kelly why not just recreate it? There was no basis for the deletion of it and it can be easily restored through proper channels. I'm confused as to why it was deleted in the first place. Having a list of users isn't against any rule. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Recreating it will just disrupt Wikipedia further. If I maintain this list off-wiki, I won't have to deal with the howling -- or at least can ignore it more readily. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the explanation you gave for it on IRC. I don't think this after the fact misrepresentation of what the list was for is really helpful. --W.marsh 22:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief. I can't believe we're even having this conversation. You created a list of names that apparantly was based on people you and others had disagreed with. You refused to say what it was for - simply giving a reasonable explanation would have sufficed. When you get caught, somehow it's our fault for "poking around in your user space", whatever that means. Still, rather than provide an explanation, Cyde removes the list. Calling it a list of people that stand out good, bad, or indifferent sounds dubious considering that (1) there were multiple substantial contributors to the list and (2) you added a large block of names from Sean's RFA. Now, you play the "drama queen" card of taking your football and going to your own secret wiki. Honestly, this behavior disturbs me. If everything you were doing was above board, then you would not at all be upset at discussing your actions. BigDT 22:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No cookies for you this year at Christmas. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just as well ... I need to cut down anyway ... BigDT 23:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're all entitled to know what this is all about. I see other admins adding names to this secret list in user space, then deleting the list (including User:Cyde with the summary "Kill everything"?), and then see my name on it. What is going on? -- Samir धर्म 08:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, so secret that she put it in her userspace. HenryFlower 08:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. 23:11, 21 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) (+1)
    2. 18:09, 21 July 2006 . . Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) (Kill MFD)
    3. 18:09, 21 July 2006 . . Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) (rm. another self-add)
    4. 18:08, 21 July 2006 . . Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) (Nope, you need to earn it.)
    5. 18:06, 21 July 2006 . . W.marsh (Talk | contribs | block) (I want in!)
    6. 17:51, 21 July 2006 . . BigDT (Talk | contribs | block) (+mfd1)
    7. 17:45, 21 July 2006 . . The wub (Talk | contribs | block) (seems like a nice bunch, I want in)
    8. 13:54, 21 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (add many)
    9. 15:04, 20 July 2006 . . SPUI (Talk | contribs | block) (apparently I can help by expanding it?)
    10. 14:20, 20 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (+2)
    11. 12:11, 20 July 2006 . . Gurch (Talk | contribs | block) (oh, that. So what? I'm entitled to my opinion, no?)
    12. 10:17, 20 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (why)
    13. 08:16, 20 July 2006 . . Gurch (Talk | contribs | block) (ehh... what did I do?)
    14. 18:39, 17 July 2006 . . Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) (Add one)
    15. 12:45, 14 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (+)
    16. 22:57, 12 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) (1)
    17. 13:25, 12 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) (-rfaf, +humor)
    18. 11:49, 12 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (+)
    19. 09:58, 6 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (+)
    20. 09:57, 6 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (add)
    21. 10:38, 5 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) (+1)
    22. 12:41, 3 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (add)
    23. 11:30, 3 July 2006 . . Sean Black (Talk | contribs | block) (yeah...)
    24. 11:17, 3 July 2006 . . Phil Boswell (Talk | contribs | block) (Example user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)…or should we use User-multi error: no username detected (help).?)
    25. 11:12, 3 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block)
    26. 02:03, 3 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block)

    That's very intimidating intimate, and yet ever so participatory! I'm honoured to grace the list. I think! *Kisses* El_C 09:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am told I was listed on here, don't I have a right to know what it is? Computerjoe's talk 12:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Damn, that's creepy. I appeared on 6 of July, apparently after my vote on User:Mboverload's RfA. User:Gurch who voted "per me" was added shortly thereafter. I definitely don't like the smell of it.  Grue  13:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi everyone! Friendly Assume Good Faith reminder! Contributors to this mysterious subpage should not assume objectors are "making trouble" and that hiding it in some other place somehow hampers the objectors. They should also realize that people like to see who is linking to their user pages, that such curiosity is perfectly normal, and that an unannotated and apparently random list would obviously stand out as a curiosity. Objectors should accept the contributors' explanations at face value unless evidence to the contrary is presented. The idea that this list is just a list of "people of interest" is at least plausible. =) Powers 13:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is that no explanation has been given. If Kelly, Cyde, and others would give an explanation, I would be willing to accept it. BigDT 15:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it hard to WP:AGF when one administrator suggests using a {{vandal}} template for the people on the list AND another uses the words "kill everything" in the summary to delete the list. -- Samir धर्म 04:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If this list really is no big deal, why can't it just be explained? Clearly, we're all itching to know. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 08:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Kelly Martin, I see you are proposing to move this list to your own server. If this is based in the UK, it may be subject to the Data Protection Act; and if in the EU, various directives limiting the use of personal information. Personally, I will assume good faith. If the reason I am on the list is because someone disapproves (or approves for that matter) of something I said, they are welcome to comment on my talk page. Everyone is open to reason, if you catch the right moment. Stephen B Streater 09:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh for fuck's sakes. Really. This is way past the threshold of ridiculous and is now firmly in the territory of the absurd. You're quoting British laws at her?! Ahahahahahaha. --Cyde↔Weys 15:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems you have misconstrued the purpose of my comment. Stephen B Streater 22:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, having such a list of users is very poor taste. I can't think of any "decision-making processes" using current mechanisms which would necessitate lists of users by certain criteria. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this all blew up and blew away over the weekend, and I opposed Sean Black's RfA and am curious, could someone tell me if I was/am/will be on this list? -- nae'blis (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nevermind, thanks, someone filled me in that I was/am. I'm disappointed in Kelly's choice to take this "off-wiki" and refusal to answer simple questions about the intent of such a list. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the list before it was deleted. I am on it, as are several other admins who opposed SB's RfA. I am appalled. Jonathunder 16:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    <list snipped, it makes ANI much longer and is totally unnecessary, it's already reproduced elsewhere in userspace> --Cyde↔Weys 17:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I put the list back (above). It belongs here as it is the entire point of discussion. Also, if it is reproduced somewhere else already, please provide a link. Just cutting it from here, not showing where it is reproduced, and fully knowing that nonadmins can't see deleted text appears to me as something to hide, or either way, not a good idea. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I disagree. I'm on the list and the only way I found out about this was be my periodic check of "what links here". I would not have found out about the AN/I otherwise. --A. B. 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking through the history of this list, I see that most names, including mine, were added after we Sean Black's RFA. Is this an "enemies list" of people to settle scores with? Jonathunder 17:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm on the list and no one seems to have settled a score with me yet (then again maybe I'm already in trouble and just clueless -- it wouldn't be the first time!). BTW, I never heard of Kelly Martin before this ANI or Sean Black before his RfA. --A. B. 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't particularly care what this list was for, but I think it was shockingly clueless of the people involved in making it to put such an unexplained list of editors on-Wiki, delete it when it attracts attention, and then refuse to really talk about its purpose, unless their goal is to create drama. If that was the intent, well-done, otherwise, that was dumb as hell, guys. If this was an "in-joke", or whatever, it was bungled and turned into a disruption by serious cluelessness on the part of those "in" on the joke. Sometimes, Kelly impresses me with her good judgement. This isn't one of those. On the other hand, her reaction of clamming up when the drama starts, instead of defusing it with candid openness, reminds me of Kelly in early January, so I guess that's not surprising. Why not try a different approach to controversy, Kelly? You like drama? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, now there's a new version at User:Kelly Martin/Q and if this keeps up, I will seriously reconsider whether I want to stay involved around here. Jonathunder 18:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That's your prerogative, but I can't help but think that everything is being seriously overblown. I wish we had an article on Social panic, but we do not, so I'll have to reference Moral panic. When some things have the appearance of secrecy people tend to be inclined to think the absolute worst, no matter how far off the truth that may be. --Cyde↔Weys 18:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why it's pretty much a lot smarter to maintain an impression of openness instead. At some point, you can't control the fact that people tend to react in certain ways, but you can refrain from provoking them. I don't blame people for being people, but I'm disappointed in you Cyde, and Kelly, for not knowing what people are like. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, Cyde, that attempted secrecy causes suspicion. Wouldn't it be best if someone just gave a clear explanation of the purpose of this list? The thing has cabal written all over it, it's no wonder that the listed users are concerned. Canderson7 (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That page is now merely a mild insult to the reader, and has no edit history. Was it always this way, or has Oversight been used to hide something here? --Philosophus T 06:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Or maybe I should think for a moment, and ask whether it was deleted and then recreated. --Philosophus T 06:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with Oleg above. This showed poor judgment from all the people involved in keeping that list. The day wikipedians are voting according to what will make them look good among a click of wikipedia-veterans is a sad day for the community. Just the very notion that someone are keeping lists of "good" and "bad" wikipedians based on how they act and vote on RFA is very destructive to this community, a community based on everyone acting in good faith and according to what they believe will make this encyclopedia better. If I wanted to oppose an rfa because I didn't see the candidate fit as an admin, I should be able to make that oppose vote without any fear of ending up on some list that would haunt me later. Kelly seemed surprised that the existence of this userpage list became known. I think it would be more surprising if it didn't get known, and I bet many people knew about it long before it got blown up here. I just hope nobody made it influence their voting on Sean Black's rfa. But I'm afraid it might have. And that it might influence people in the future. That is not good, and Kelly should realize this. Shanes 18:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed.Voice-of-All 18:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What is interesting to observe is the tortuous lengths Cyde and Kelly will go to to insist that this was a good, helpful, right, healthy thing to do, and that any upset is definitely not anything whatsoever at all to do with their angelic, prayerful selves, and that it is all everyone else's fault. That this was a stupendous error of judgement (of all those who compiled the original list), whatever its original intent, is plainly obvious; being unable to see that, especially when it is laid out for you in such painful detail, is an elegant corroboration of the judgement error already made. It also has the overtones of those days from primary school when you'd be passing a secret note around under the desks, and the teacher would say "What have you got there, Splash?" and you'd say "Nothing, Sir." as you screwed it into a ball and hid it under your chair. Then, at breaktime, you'd all huddle around the table in the back at the corner, and giggle, guiltily looking over your shoulders to see if any teachers were walking by and, when they caught you, you'd act all righteously indignant in hope you might bluster them into giving up. -Splash - tk 19:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, what's really interesting, to me, is the response. A list like this (and, please note, that I've never approved of it) has as much value as people place in it. Anyone who would let a list like that guide their judgement has already made up their mind. Or, more appropriately, has decided to let that list do their thinking for them. That's abominable. At the same time, anyone on a list who thinks that said list has any relevance to their actions clearly has no idea how a wiki functions. I'm saddened that anyone has placed any stock in this ridiculous affair. That goes for both the people who made the list and the people who ended up on it. The best response from the people on the list would have been to call it idiotic (which it was) and carry on with their lives (which I hope they do). This has been a tawdry affair, both silly and unnecesary, and to exacerbate it further would do very little good and probably a great deal of harm. I suppose if anyone hasn't finished expressing their moral outrage at list compilation they should do it now. Mackensen (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I couldn't care less about my name being on the list, but you must see that this situation is now self-exacerbating. Even if people stop commenting on it (which they won't), there are several things going on that make them feel worse than they already do for being placed on the list. First their oppose votes are roundly dismissed as ridiculous, then the RFA is closed somewhat unconventionally (again devaluing their concerns), and now we have RFA votes like this from Kelly Martin, which barring any other explanation look like a "because you're on my list" vote. This whole thing was built up wrong from the beginning, and it has been beset by unknowns. That clearly has brought out a lot of suspicion and unease in serious editors, amd I don't think it is going to go away readily. Now we just have a list of people have not had their concerns validated, but who ARE having their suspicions validated. --Aguerriero (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    RfA is broken.
    1. An increasing number of people are voting based on popularity and not based on weather or not candidate will be able to use admin tools responsibly. If there are people who dislike you (for various reasons such as not sharing the same pov etc).
    2. Incivility on rfas is begining to be a norm even by established users who should known better. An increasing number of RfAs contain evidence of trolling.
    3. Rfas are failing to serve their purpose. Often oppose votes have nothing to do with the local wikis policies etc which the candidate is expected to enforce.
    --Cat out 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This whole discussion is utter nonsense. I can't believe it's going on and attracting so much attention. What Kelly is doing is not strange at all. Wikipedia is a work environment growing larger, more complex, and cumbersome by the day. For veteran Wikipedia editors, it is an increasingly daunting challenge each day to keep track of our peers. If a longtime, active editor such as Kelly Martin finds the need to create some sort of list of users-- a list which makes sense to no one else but helps him/her keep things straight in his/her own head-- no harm is done whatsoever. Similarly, I've found a need to keep a list of editors-- mainly users who edit my subjects of interest-- on my own userpage. It makes no difference if Kelly keeps her list in her user namespace, or in private on a database or document off Wikipedia. I suggest that everyone move past this contentious discussion, and let Kelly get back to working on her sole objective on Wikipedia, which is making the site a more reliable encyclopedia-- paranoid conspiracy theories aside. 172 | Talk 05:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That I can easily agree to. This debate and my argument above has nothing to do with the list. The list can stay no problem.
    Voting on afds based on a "hatelist" however is disruptive. Adminship does not require people to love you. Its just a mop, a tool just like the ability to edit. It must not be made a big deal.
    --Cat out 16:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Aw, I didn't make the list. Damn. ;P —Nightstallion (?) 10:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kelly Martin/R

    I have blocked Kelly Martin for 24 hours for recreating of the above list, which I speedy deleted, as per my clear warning on her talk page. El_C 02:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am extremely concerned that El C chose to block while he was involved in a conflict with Kelly Martin over this issue. In addition to taking a threatening and confrontational tone, I note that he was one of the individuals listed on Kelly's page. Regardless of whether or not it was appropriate for Kelly to keep such a list, it was definitely not El C's place to threaten and block here. I'm tempted to block El C for wheel warring (deleting and blocking while the issue was being discussed further up this page) and immediately unblock Kelly Martin, but I'm aware of the irony that would lace such a course of action.
    I would encourage a rapid sampling of opinion here and if there is a general agreement Kelly should be unblocked so that she can at least participate in this discussion—and continue to work on Wikipedia, where she has been bloody useful for the last two years. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am pleased to see that El C has reconsidered this block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I reject that involvement and charges of wheel warring, and I only reverted myself because of you threats to block me. Now I will let you deal with her disruptive conduct and lists. You are contributing to KM's continued abuse of Wikipedia with these list games. El_C 02:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On wheel warring—what do you call it when two admins delete and undelete (or delete and recreate) pages, then start blocking? I didn't threaten to block you – nor did I reverse your action – precisely because I didn't feel like getting dragged into a wheel war and firestorm. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I took it as a threat. I deleted the lists in multiple pages; there was no wheel warring over a specific page, and if there was, it was in error. As mentioned, I acted to prevent conflict because no one seemed prepared to stand up to these orchestraded games, but I should not be expected to waste my time on the intricate detail of these. End of story. El_C 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps Kelly would, in her profound wisdom and infinite munificence, be willing to grant a boon to the lowly peons and offer some few words of explanation as to the purpose of the lists?
    (I'll point out that "he was one of the individuals listed on Kelly's page" does not necessarily disqualify El_C from enacting blocks; this goes back to that whole hypothetical "If a user picks a fight with every admin, does that mean nobody can block him?" thing.) Kirill Lokshin 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They're pretty much just being created to annoy people at this point. Somehow this is seen as perfectly acceptable behavior... yeah it's pretty silly. I guess it's effective trolling, but it's sad how many people are okay with it. Meh. --W.marsh 02:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The /R list was a list of random users with random colors assigned to them. There was absolutely no meaning to the list that El C deleted. I created it for one express purpose: to see if El C would jerk his knee and attempt to punish me for creating it. Considering that he previously deleted a harmless redirect and a blank page from my user space, I wasn't too surprised that he did. To an extent, this is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, but if the extremely minor disruption that this causes exposes a wildly irresponsible admin for who he is, I consider it worthwhile. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. Fascinating. I admitt I did not expend a great bit of focused concentration for the precise detail of each component of these games. Naturally, they get the bottom end of my time. Now that should have been predicted by her social experiment! El_C 07:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, now that you've accomplished that, can we have an end to the lists? Kirill Lokshin 03:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how you made El C look bad. He (presumably) sought to punish you for disrupting Wikipedia with the creations of these lists. Isn't this, by your own admission, exactly what you did, particularly with this last list? You know people find these lists very annoying and yet you continue to make them. Regardless of the rationale behind these lists, you ought to know better. Maybe you (and others) find them funny, but there are many people who want you to just cut it out and act like the mature admin you should be. I, for one, am one of those people. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit conflict) What the heck? You create a disruption to goad an administrator into blocking you and then you are shocked when they take you up on the offer? That's kinda like the boy who repeatedly pokes the dog with a stick and is surprised when he gets bit. If any of us poor little users who don't have your clout were to make such a list and refuse to say what it is for, and continually recreate it when asked not to, I seriously doubt anyone would bend over backwards to defend us. BigDT 02:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So, basically, Kelly recreated the list in order to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Mangojuicetalk 03:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't recreate anything. Please check your facts. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, Perry Mason, you created the list in order to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Which, of course, makes precisely zero point zero percent difference. --Calton | Talk 11:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting lists. I wonder if they're one of those classic "secret list" social experiments. Kim Bruning 02:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC) (And once again, I'm not on them. Argh, no respect these days)[reply]

    Seriously! What does a guy have to do to get on a secret list these days, anyway? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Be careful for what you ask. Sometimes obscurity is a very enviable state. ;-) -- llywrch 03:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kelly Martin is seeking conflict with these lists, and when admins such as myself issue and enforce warnings on these, admins such as TenofallTrades threaten to wheel war and block me, whilst choosing inaction on the KM front. It looks bad. El_C 02:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to be clear, I would have stood my ground (I maintain this was a legitimate WP:NOT/POINT block/deletion - no wheel warrning whatsoever) had it not been for TenofallTrades warning. Unlike some, I have work to do on the namespace. There's war in the old country. El_C 03:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kelly more and more reminds me of Ann Coulter. :) Seriously, her behaviour is clearly silly, but I guess we all need to drop this. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Putting a smiley after a personal attack doesn't make it any less of one. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL, I guess accusing someone of being like Ann Coulter is a personal attack though, huh? --Cyde↔Weys 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    More like libel, as far as I'm concerned. Nonetheless, Kelly Martin's self-admitted WP:POINT violation and chaff-throwing distraction notwithstanding, she has still not offered a hint of a breath of a whisp of an iota of an explanation for the original list. Would she care to do so, or does she have any other bits of distraction gameplaying up her sleeve for our entertainment? --Calton | Talk 04:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've answered this question at least three times that I can think of, including at least once on this page (page up a bit to see it). Stop asking it; asking it makes it look like you're posting without being informed of the full circumstances. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong! you didn't answer the question three times, you gave non-answers three times that gave no actually hint of what they were really for. Saying that they exist only to help you improve wikipedia makes no sense. I do not understand why it is necessary to be so mysterious.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So in other words, you're alleging that my answers were prevarications (or just lies). Do you believe that I am lying? Kelly Martin (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said that they were outright lies, I just said you answered the question without really saying anything. It was a very dodgy sort of answer. How does saying "I'm using the list to help improve wikipedia" explain anything about the actual puropose?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've answered this question at least three times that I can think of, including at least once on this page... Since no such answer appears on this page -- using the definition of "answer" as used by native English speakers -- you'll have to point to the two other locations where you claim to have answered this very simple question. Hint: "Because" is not an actual answer. Oh, and if you don't like being accused of lying -- and you're the one who brought in the possibility, I should point out -- try telling the simple truth instead of working your way through the Big Book of Rhetorical Dodges. --Calton | Talk 11:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a few reminders:

    • Nothing in Wikipedia policy permits the use of blocking, or any other administrative tool, for "punishment". Tools such as blocking are only permitted to be used for narrow specific purposes to prevent harm to the project. They may not permissibly be used to "teach someone a lesson" or the like. Nor is blocking a form of dispute resolution; it is only a tool to stop damage to the project.
    • WP:POINT does not permit blocking except for "egregious disruption". Nothing of the sort occurred here. Also, note that the policy deals with disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and uses examples such as systematic vandalism. Wikipedia was not disrupted here. Not everything you don't like is a disruption of the project.
    • What seems to have occurred here, though, includes a violation of the well-known provision that administrators must not use blocking to gain the upper hand in a dispute. It is generally considered highly suspicious -- or at least in need of detailed and calm explanation -- when an administrator blocks someone they've been in a dispute of any sort with. --FOo 06:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, the blocking function is simply not a toy. This block was wholly inappropriate for a number of reasons outlined above, and also because it appears that hitting the block button is becoming the first action of an admin, and not the last. Steve block Talk 11:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Take the name Kelly Martin out of it. Pretend Kelly Smith takes exactly the same actions (my apologies if there really is someone named Kelly Smith). Kelly Smith, along with some of her friends, creates a list that is apparantly composed mostly of people with whom she disagreed on an RFA. When asked why, she says it is to be used for "decision-making processes". When people express concern at being on the list, she refuses to give a more detailed explanation. After an administrator deletes the list, she recreates it multiple times. After another administrator informs her that she can be blocked for disruption, she creates the list again and then states that her sole purpose in doing so was to goad the administrator into blocking her. Does anyone honestly believe that Kelly Smith would not be blocked for some substantial period of time? This debate is silly - just being an admin doesn't give you the right to troll. BigDT 12:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your statments asbout the pages recreation have factual errors. --Gmaxwell 13:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • One can not ignore the fact that it is Kelly Martin, since the fact that it is Kelly Martin is central to the debate. Many other admins and users have such lists, I see none of them being treated in a similar manner. The bottom line is that this is a page in a user's user space. It's not an attack page, so it's none of my damn business. There's certainly no call to put Kelly on notice as to what she can and cannot do in her user space. Arb-com can do that, maybe an RFC with a near unanimous consensus could do that. Kelly can't be disrupting unless the deleting admins are too. So should I put all of those on notice? Does anyone not believe this is all a waste of people's time. Frankly, I'm gutted I didn't get on the list. As to being a troll, I aim only to do that when reading my children bedtime stories, but please accept an apology for any offence my opinion caused you. Steve block Talk 13:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can you point out any of these other userlists OTHER than the ones that were created in the last couple of days as a satire of this one? As for being an attack page, nobody ever said it was. What it is is at best votestacking, at worst, an attempt to intimidate. BigDT 13:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Robert the Bruce kept a list like this. So did Cool Cat at one point. Neither was ever blocked on account of the practice. El C's actions in purporting to "instruct" Kelly struck me as particularly inappropriate. I'm pleased that he relented from his block when significant opposition materialised. --Tony Sidaway 13:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, Robert the Bruce kept a list ... but so did Nixon. And while we may not have blocked Nixon for it (yet; wait 'til ArbCom are finished, please), we certainly laughed at him a lot, and he's generally considered a very silly sausage indeed. I'd rather our admins didn't carry on like very silly sausages indeed, whether they have a cute little dog or not. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tony has provided examples, I hope they will surfice. I'm baffled as to how an accusation of votestacking can be levelled, and as to intimidation, how can it be intimidation? I'll let you into a secret. There's a list out there on which I get top billing, and I am not bothered one bit. Frankly, I figured I was snooping through someone's user space and contributions and I deserved what I found. I have never worked out what the list is for, but since it has never done me any harm and has been around a year or so, I'm long past thinking about it. I hadn't given it a thought until this debate came up. Steve block Talk 13:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that they weren't blocked doesn't make it right. These lists are unacceptable, and users should be punished for their creation and especially for recreation.  Grue  13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm at a loss to find any criteria these pages fit at WP:CSD, nor any blocking criteria their creation meets. If it ain't an attack page, it ain't actionable, and it's best left alone. How on earth does blocking people make anything any better? Why are these lists unacceptable? Because they exist? I'm still at a loss to understand what the problem here is. Steve block Talk 13:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, about 10 good reasons are that Kelly Martin herself has described them as wilfully disruptive, and basically described them as deliberate attempts to goad. That makes it trolling under any common definition. They count as easy-to-see problems in my book. I recall various verbs being put forward for what one might to do the troll(s), and none of them included giving them a hug and castigating any user who had the temerity to try to dispose of the problem. -Splash - tk 14:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still don't see how they were disruptive. I can't see anywhere that Kelly says they were, and I'm not advocating giving her a hug. If they are attempts to goad, then well done, they worked. Ah, stuff it. You can see why Wikipedia:Common sense never got made a policy or guideline. No-one recognises it. Cheers. Steve block Talk 15:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • [5] (a few posts up from here) is where Kelly self-describes her actions as disruptive and as deliberate attempts to goad people. Rare are the occasions when someone actually confesses to trolling and finds people moaning at those who try to deal with it. And just because it's not an attack page gives it a free pass?? -Splash - tk 15:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tony comments that "Robert the Bruce kept a list like this. So did Cool Cat at one point. ". So what was the nature of their lists. A list of people who opposed their friend. Or a list of people whom have been disruptive while editing certain articles? I think we can all see a valid reason keeping the latter list. We are still waiting for a valid reason for the Kelly's list. As BigDT mentioned above, the only reasoning given to date is for "decision-making processes&amp;quot;. Since I'm on this list I'd like to know a little bit more. As far as I can tell the parody of the lists and WP:POINT is all a distraction to avoid the important question. Smoke and mirrors anyone? David D. (Talk) 16:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Both were what I would characterize as "enemies lists". Robert the Bruce kept a list of anti-circumcision activists. Cool Cat kept a list of various people, color coded in such a manner that one could easily gauge the quality of his relationship with each member. Why are "we" waiting for a valid reason for Kelly's list, by the way? The reason for Kelly's list is her own business. It does seem to have some of the character of an "enemies" list, however. --Tony Sidaway 16:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I will point out that I just noticed an answered to my question below. See this edit. One wonders why she didn't just come out and say it right from the begining. It seems like a perfectly reasonable answer and would not have resulted in this whole argument. I disagree it is her own buisness when it is in her user space. Clearly it could, and was, viewed as antagonistic without some sort of explanation. David D. (Talk) 17:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I created it there partially to work on it and partially to see who would react badly to it.. In other words, it was put there explicitly' to disrupt Wikipedia. Clearly a blockable offense. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Put this on MfD. Computerjoe's talk 19:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, /R should be deleted as a recreation of /B. It's a recreation of deleted content, that simple. /B should have been taken to DRV. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 04:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Stop the madness

    Okay people, listen up. Two things need to happen: people need to stop making lists, and admins need to stop blocking Kelly Martin. This has passed beyond ridiculous and borders on discrediting everybody with the sysop bit. If there's a real problem we have a dispute resolution process somewheres that we like to parrot. If, however, this is actually the Weekend Edition of Gorilla Theatre, then the joke isn't funny anymore and it's last call. Yours, Mackensen (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's kind of amazing that the people who disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, troll, and wheel war are being judged as no more guilty than the people who try to stop them from disrupting the place. --W.marsh 02:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Surreal. El_C 02:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not rendering a judgement one way or the other. I think the whole business is ridiculous and need to stop. People need to start talking to each other and listening. This can't happen if we're running round deleting things and blocking people. Me, I spent the day dealing with the checkuser backlog and fiddling with the Disraeli article. I come back from dinner and find this mess. Mackensen (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you honestly believe these blocks were done for the reason of trying to "stop disrupting the place"? One good way to inflame a conflict is to turn a stupid dispute over a page's contents (in this case miscellaneous lists) into a much larger conflict by abusing administrator tools. I don't know why El_C and Jonathunder tried these blocks, but they clearly weren't meant to resolve the situation. Maybe they just wanted their names on Kelly Martin's block log, who knows. --Cyde↔Weys 02:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyde, are you condoning what Kelly Martin is doing? I'm not saying a block was necessary, but you make it sound like Kelly Martin was just reading a romance novel peacefully in Central Park and all of a sudden El C and Jonathunder came around with these blocks. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm re-reading my comment and I don't see a condonation anywhere. All I commented on was that I found these two blocks unwarranted and disruptive. --Cyde↔Weys 03:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not aware of the other block. KM needed to cool down as she was engaging in WP:POINT for naught, upsetting editors. El_C 03:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The lists were created to troll for that reaction, this has been admitted. It's sad that people think trolling is healthy, and trying to stop someone from trolling isn't. But... yeah, using admin tools when you're involved in a dispute isn't so great (which is why I haven't done anything admin-ish with this whole mess). Though you yourself said you'd unblock her (presumably using admin tools) if she was blocked again, which seems kind of contradictory there as you're involved too.... --W.marsh 03:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyde, I thought anyone who accuses someone else of violating good faith patently does not understand the good faith policy, as accusing someone else of violating an assumption of good faith is itself a violation of assumption of good faith [6]. The thing you have to understand is that just as you have strong opinions, those who disagree with you believe that their view is the correct one just as much as you believe your's is. --BigDT 03:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you quite understand my comment. That quote refers only to accusing someone of violating WP:AGF (which I find quite stupid). I don't see me accusing anyone of violating WP:AGF anywhere. --Cyde↔Weys 03:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let's try this:
    Namespacehopping? I've kept MY share of this nonsense entirely confined to my user space, except for replying here and on my talk page. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it certainly is namespace-hopping now. Whether or not any particular person is to blame for that is an interesting side point, but not really relevant in a discussion of how best to stop the conflict, I think. Kirill Lokshin 03:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How is namespace-hopping even relevant to this? It's not like this is spilling out into the encyclopedic namespaces or anything. Lots of things move between userspace and wikipediaspace ... big deal. --Cyde↔Weys 03:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough; forget the namespace bit then. The page-hopping is problematic in of itself. Kirill Lokshin 03:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see that, either. So far the "disruption" has been limited to two sections of this page, my talk page, and perhaps a couple of other people's talk pages. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And MFD and several places on RFA... ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's not MY doing. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, I'm not trying to assign blame here. Could you perhaps not make any more unexplained lists of users? It would really make things a lot calmer all around, I think. Kirill Lokshin 03:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    <Snicker> I seem to recall a sociological experiment which deliberately created a similar situation. People went utterly nuts! If someone with more time than I do would care to look it up, that'd be great. Perhaps someday this story will be added to the textbooks as another example! :-) Kim Bruning 09:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As a bystander who just happens to be on the list, with no real knowledge of how the upper-clique of admins work, I'd like to point out that when Kelly Martin says "not MY fault" doesn't seem to fit with her statement that this is exactly what she expected to happen. [7] Themindset 21:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you are referring to eon8. --cesarb 16:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW I think Mackensen has an excellent suggestion there. Kelly: yes, it's been in your userspace. Regardless, some people have a problem with that. I assume you wouldn't be here defending yourself if people weren't perpetuating the issue, but it's like a battle, there needs to be a cease fire. The way to do that is to move on to other things and don't exacerbate the situation by creating more of these lists. Okay? El C & others: yes, I think you may have a point, Kelly Martin was being contentious, possibly disruptive, blah blah blah. It's not World War III. Why don't we just move on, forget about it for a day, and if it still bothers you, go through the full dispute resolution thing. Then we can get back to building a great encyclopedia. Mangojuicetalk 03:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Are we building a great encyclopedia here? I don't think there are enough good Wikipedians around to actually build a good -- let alone great -- encyclopedia. See the report on my behavior above, for example. Out of the entire Wikipedia population, I think there are only five or ten good users who don't use long signatures, who write great articles (that reach featured article status and can be cited by others), who are friendly, who always get along with others, and who have never made a mistake. (I say "never" because I mean it. If anyone makes a mistake on Wikipedia, then their contributions are instantly and permanently devalued.) Don't give me that "we're only human" crap either. --Elkman 04:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think myself that people are too hard on Kelly because of the userbox mess from months ago. Everything she does is scrutinized and over scrutinized. Her lists are not desirable but I'm still not sure what rules she is violating here. AGF is too vague for me, especially for a block. And are we building a great encyclopedia? What the heck does that have to do with anything? --Woohookitty(meow) 04:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, well I supported KM on that front (some misgivings now, though my hate for userboxes continues to know no bounds), but here she was simply wasting everyone's time and energy, I felt. I know some users were intimidated by her cryptic lists, which remain unexplained. El_C 04:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    RE: all the "great encyclopedia" bravado, I created ~80 articles in the last month and performed numerous administrative tasks. If you want my (and others') time and expertise, don't treat us with contempt. El_C 04:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then don't act in a manner deserving of contempt. Rebecca 05:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    These one-sided, tired one-liners are unimpressive. El_C 05:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I dare say, we have a pro-KM clique-like mentality with responses that could be predicted with some regularity. El_C 05:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree (w.r.t the one-liners; don't know anything about KM or cliques). WP:CIVIL does not have an escape clause for "if they reely, reely deserve it", Rebecca. Please see further up this page where an editor's unthinking frustration led to a checkuser admin quitting the task, which is going to result in actual, real harm to the project because there are so few. Why did this happen? Because an otherwise positive user forgot that everyone here is a volunteer, and you don't dump on volunteers or they walk away. Please respect that. Kasreyn 07:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (Unindent→)

    (←Unindent) I agree quite strongly with that principle. Even so, Rebecca and El_C are both established editors who both have too much time and effort invested to just walk away. They're just blowing off harmless steam at each other. :-) So I'm not too worried about that part, at least not today. ;-)

    I do agree they could set a better example though, of course. <crosseyed look> Kim Bruning 09:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kelly Martin/T. Oh, so witty! --Conti|✉ 14:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't call that "witty", it looks like that page has a valid purpose ... she's doing an analysis on RFAs that were malformatted or withdrawn early. Maybe she's looking at ways to overhaul the RFA process. But I don't think this reflexive "OMG she's out to do something evil" response is very constructive. I just wish she would put an explanation or something. --Cyde↔Weys 14:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    An explanation would actually stop this whole mess completly. And I wasn't saying that it's an evil page, but that it's incredibly silly to continue to create new pages like these without any explanation. --Conti|✉ 14:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Those of you who pay attention to Wikimania may have noticed that I am doing a presentation on consensus. I am actually (with Gmaxwell's invaluable help) doing some research into things like voting patterns on RfA and AfD, and other such things, with the hopes of using the findings as part of that presentation or perhaps for later purposes. (I imagine very few of you know that I was a political science minor in college.) I don't think that such examination of Wikipedia's processes should be considered "disruptive", but I'm sure that someone will be quite ready to accuse me of it nonetheless, as it seems that there are certain elements of the community that are simply completely incapable of extending even the slightest bit of good faith to me. That particular page is data that Gmaxwell generously provided me; I created it there partially to work on it and partially to see who would react badly to it. Looks like Conti wins today's ABF prize. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hooray! Well, actually I'm quite content with that answer, as I mentioned above. I wasn't saying that the list was bad or another attempt of yours to take over the world, and I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my words that way. Writing a tiny little bit about why your subpages exist before anyone has to ask isn't going to hurt, really. (Especially after all this.) --Conti|✉ 15:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So, should I expect an interrogation here every time I create a subpage in my user space? Am I now required to post announcements regarding my every action? We treat convicted criminals better than this. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not required to do anything. A small message on those subpages, writing what the point of them is would be quite cool, tho. This would actually reduce people going on your nerves by asking questions quite alot, I think. --Conti|✉ 15:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wanted on the LB list darnit sheesh. --Alf melmac 22:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why has this gotten so blown out of proportion? So Kelly created a list, so what? There is no policy against having a list of users. There was no stated malicious intent by having a list. And unless malicious actions by Kelly were taken based on that list any assumptions of malicious intent a blatantly against WP:AGF. That list was just a list until Kelly's actions say otherwise or she states outright that it's a list being used for a malicous purpose. Neither of these conditions have been met. The only against policy actions have been taken by the two admins who blocked Kelly against policy and by anyone assuming the list has some bad intention behind it in direct violation of WP:AGF. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To avoid undue repetition, I urge everyone to save the just an innocent list arguments and AGF invocations for the forthcoming RfAr. El_C 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as your own conduct will bear equally close scrutiny. Thatcher131 18:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect with near-absolute certainty that it would, but that's not for me to decide. El_C 18:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now now, no need to threaten him. However I would suggest holding off on an Arbcom on this as there really isn't any grounds for it. And frankly the people who have been giving Kelly a hard time are more likely to come out of the Arbcom with some form of sanction against them since Kelly did absolutely nothing wrong. However the same can't be said for several reactionary people accusing her of being "evil". JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was in no way a threat, and I'm sorry if anyone took it that way (as if I could issue threats on behalf of anyone, much less Arbcom). It's just that Arbcom has a way of looking at both sides of a dispute. Thatcher131 20:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no real dispute here which is why this is so funny. There is Kelly who created a list for her own reasons (which per WP:AGF policy have to be assumed to be good unless there is evidence to prove otherwise, which none has been presented). And then there are those that take exception to a list existing, basing those objections on no solid policy or guideline except their own violation of WP:AGF. Doesn't seem like a dispute to me. The attacking parties think they are owed some explaination by Kelly, but she is under no obligation to do so and it should have been dropped there. Instead several users have taken to blocking Kelly, against policy again. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry about it; in any case, I am undaunted. But I also feel this discussion is outliving its usefluness. El_C 20:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if you're going to open an arbcom please let users know. I for one will have 150+ words I'd like to get in edgewise. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, no problem, edge or otherwise. El_C 20:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    An RFAR over this? I'd laugh at you. Phr (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, computer generated lists. Always look odd and scary to people not used to them, so I can understand the problem.

    Even so, I'm flying across the Atlantic to be able to attend wikimania, and I'll probably want to go to Kelly Martins' talk as well. That's costing me quite a bit of time and money, as you might imagine (even *with* sponsoring). I do expect to actually be somewhat enlightened for my trouble of course.

    Therefore, you can probably imagine I shall be somewhat unhappy if people interfere with Kelly Martins presentation in any way.

    Kim Bruning 12:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    So, tell me if I'm right here...

    • Kelly Martin made a random list of people in her userspace under /B.
    • Cyde deleted it, and Kelly said she would place it off-wiki.
    • /R and /Q were created as apparent "trolling", as admitted by Kelly above. WP:POINT and also possibly a violation of WP:CSD-G4.
    • El_C blocked Kelly Martin for 24 hours after the creation of /R. It was quickly reversed.
    • /T was created on July 24 with a apparent list of Malformed RfAs; Considering the timing, it's possible that this also qualifies as a WP:POINT violation.

    So, random notes and opinions from that random idiot:

    • Why the hell am I not on this list with a giant red slash through my name?
    • Process is important. Furthermore, considering the community backlash, it's impossible to say that the snowball clause should have applied to any procedure. This drama should have just been taken to WP:DRV... They're used to it there.
    • This whole userspace thing seems a bit ironic considering previous affairs on the parts of many people commenting here and their relations, myself included.
    • Assuming that there is a WP:RfAr, will I be able to bring the tea and crumpets?

    --Avillia (Avillia me!) 14:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't mean random in the literal sense. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 16:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Robertsteadman, a.k.a. Robsteadman

    Some of you will remember the case of Robsteadman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who engaged in lots of edit warring and abuse, and who used sockpuppets Robeaston99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Vhjh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for votestacking, whose behaviour was generally rather hysterical, and who used to write things about "shallow and twisted" admins, "the 'christian' cabal" (lower case c and quotation marks to make the point that Christians don't exist, just as he uses lower case j and quotation marks for "jesus"), who constantly called other editors vandals and called for them to be banned, who accused an atheist admin of being part of the "christian" cabal when he protected a page, who used the sockpuppet Yummy mummy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to get an extra oppose vote at Deskana's RfA, who was finally blocked indefinitely for trolling and abuse, and who then made legal threats by e-mail because of the sockpuppeting accusations.

    He returned a few weeks later as Robertsteadman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was originally blocked again after refusing to say if he was the same person, and was then unblocked to give him another chance, and was put on probation.

    A new user, Neuropean, who is very likely a reincarnation of Count Of The Saxon Shore (talk · contribs), with whom Rob(ert) was often in dispute, nominated Rob's article Anne Frank's cats for deletion. The article survived the nomination, but it was certainly not an inappropriate nomination, since several people voted to deleted as unencyclopaedic. However, it always looks bad for a new user to start with an AfD nomination. (Since Count Of the Saxon Shore was not a banned user, he had every right to start with a new identity if he so chose.) Robert then started on a clear vendetta against this user, filing two RFCUs (one on Neuropean himself, and one on an IP), both of which were rejected by Mackensen with a {{Fishing}} template. He then made numerous posts to WP:RFI about this user, calling him a vandal, a sockpuppet, and a stalker. He became heavily involved in wiki-stalking Neuropean, showing up at articles the latter had created or recently edited. By the way, it's obvious that he has been making a habit of editing articles that I have just edited as well, and Deskana and Frelke have noticed that he was doing it with them also.

    This caused some distress to Neuropean, and he asked Rob on several occasions to stop. Rob continued wiki-stalking, and continued to accuse him of being a vandal, a sockpuppet, and a stalker.

    I feel I should have acted sooner. By no means do I wish to imply that Neuropean was blameless, but after the stormy beginning, he showed that he wanted to move on, and made a few compromise offers to Robert. I do not think he will be back. He said he was suffering from depression. Nevertheless, I would like to ensure that this cannot happen again. We were too slow in putting a stop to it. I'm bringing this here for review, because I would like some support in making it clear that wiki-stalking and hurling round of unsubstantiated accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry are not going to be tolerated, particularly from an indefinitely-blocked user who has been unblocked on probation.

    I don't want to clog up the admin noticeboard, so I've created a subpage with more information here. I know it can be a bit of a bore to start looking through a case that you don't have any experience of, but I'd very much appreciate some reaction. And by the way, although I and Gator1 deleted Rob's user and talk pages at his request when he left, I have undeleted the earlier versions, so as to be able to provide evidence of his behaviour. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 16:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    So allowed back under a kind of probation, he has harassed another editor to the point of driving him off. I move for a community ban. If this doesn't happen for any reason we can try arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 16:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ann has missed some vital information out about Neuropean being an internet stalker from another site who had followed me here, has used several different accounts to harrass me. Count of the Saxon Shore (Crusading Composer) etc. may not have been a banned user but should have been. The stalking, as Ann well knows, went beynd WP and the TES forum into real life - she was informed of all this. I do not deel I wiki-stalked him - I edited some articles he had edited once I looked into his actions. If I did something wrong I apologise. user: Syrthiss is well aware of all this and, from emails I have received, agrees that Neuropean was a trouble maker and agrees that evidence I have supplied him with shows a definite link to an internet troll and stalker from another web site. I think it is a great shame that Ann, knowing all of this, and being someone with whom I have had major disagreements with is now using this as a trump card to win an old battle over the Jesus article. Her entry here is truly the ultimate in bad faith edits. Robertsteadman 17:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry forgot to say, despite qwhat Ann says, and what WP turned up, I have not used any sockpuppets - that is false. At elast one has now told me who they are and it was a student of mine. Robertsteadman 17:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that six checkuser admins said that there was absolutely no doubt of sockpuppetry, and given that they knew you work in a school, there must have been much more to it than that, even though they never give details of what they find as they don't want to teach editors to get better at sockpuppeting. AnnH ♫ 18:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This makes VERY interesting reading - perticularly the "sudden" reappearance of Count of the Saxon Shore.... how very odd. Robertsteadman 17:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've already agreed that Neuropean is probably Count Of The Saxon Shore, so I don't think there's anything odd about him reappearing after I had said that I had undeleted your talk page. He knows that there's some nasty stuff that he wrote on that talk page, and so he logged on as COTSS to protest against the undeletion. That's not a violation of policy, he wasn't taking extra reverts or votes, and I doubt if he'll be back. AnnH ♫ 18:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Last time I checked, indefinatly blocked users weren't allowed to use sockpuppets to come back. RfCU, anyone? --InShaneee 18:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There was an RfCU, which showed that Robsteadman and Robertsteadman were the same. See here. It lists his other sockpuppets too, with the exception of Yummy mummy, but the checkuser for that is reported here. His return was discussed here, and he was unblocked on probation according to conditions set here. I agreed to allow him back, but I think it's a bit much that an indefinitely-blocked user who returns without permission and is then kindly permitted to resume activity keeps hurling the word "sockpuppet" at another editor who (if it really was Count Of The Saxon Shore) was not indefinitely blocked, and was therefore perfectly permitted to return, and was also free to start afresh with a new identity, and was not using the newly-registered account to get extra votes or reverts. AnnH ♫ 19:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been thinking and indefinite block is in order for some time now... --Lord Deskana (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do. I'm astonished that Neuropean's self-control and lack of hostility still made him susceptible to such bullying behaviour. If this discussion stays around for a couple of weeks and is then forgotten about and RobertSteadman continues to edit as normal it sets a very bad precedent. --Lo2u (T • C) 19:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not an admin, but I'd like to voice support for an indefinite block. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've gone ahead and indefinatly blocked him as a sockpuppet of an indefinatly blocked user. --InShaneee 21:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it was quite right to make the official reason sockpuppet of banned user, since he had been unblocked and allowed back on parole. However, I do support the block on the grounds that his indefinite block was lifted on condition that he behave himself, and that he resumed his abusive behaviour. It's not even a question of blocking him for his recent behaviour, bad though it was: it's simply that he was already indefinitely blocked and when he was given another chance, he started upsetting other editors, bullying and wiki-stalking. I honestly don't think he's able to change. AnnH ♫ 21:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone explain exactly what happens with an indefinite block. Can it it be lifted by a different editor without notice. Its not quite permanent is it ? Frelke 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's technically possible for any admin to unblock an editor blocked by another admin. It should not be done without thoroughly discussing it in advance, either with the blockin admin, or, if he's not available, here at AN/I. Unfortunately, some admins do unblock without discussion, and sometimes original blockers reblock, leading to a wheel war. Let's hope that any further action will be discussed in full here before any overturning of the block is considered. AnnH ♫ 21:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I support an indefinite block. I have seen his behaviour on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thunder Bay Northern Hawks (2nd nomination), then his wiki-stalking members of WikiProject Ice Hockey that disagreed have with him. -- JamesTeterenko

    Regarding the above discussion... I'm reasonably sure that Neuropean was the person who stalked Robert off-wiki a while ago (commented by Robert above), who came here with the knowledge that Robert would be unable to handle his presence. I will take some of the blame upon myself in that I started a wikibreak just as the Neuropean conflict began, though I advised Robert to talk to another admin (Tony Sidaway was one of the names I gave him) to help sort the situation while I was away. All that said, I'm disappointed Robert couldn't just step back from the situation when Neuropean started making overtures (and FWIW Robert told me he felt he stepped over the line as was sorry for it). I've never been stalked IRL or webwise so I don't know how that effects people's future behavior. I wish there was some other way, but per wiki policy and the terms of his parole I have to agree with the block. Syrthiss 12:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    I know that I said that I wouldn't edit here again but I feel quite strongly that an indefinite ban isn't appropriate here.

    • Robert isn't a vandal out to disrupt, he is just very opinionated and stubborn. Yes, he can be quite rude at times, but my experiences on Wiki lead me to believe that abruptness is not an uncommon feature. His problem has been that he is looking for cabals and conspiracies and, to a very small extent, he has been justified in this.
    • Has he said sorry? Yes he has. Is he likely to do this again soon? No, I don't think so. I know for a fact that he can change for the better.
    • He has only really overstepped the mark with me and I suppose I am a red rag to abull to him (although he sees me everywhere, even when it is not me. I have promised never to post on any forum where he is a member, so future suspicion shouldn't be a problem. I feel that if I hadn't AfD'd his article, he would have continued in his 'ways' but not gone OTT, so I would rather not see him blocked.
    • I object in the strongest terms to any suggestion that I have stalked him in real life, I don't know exactly what evidence he has presented in his private emails, but whatever it is has got to be wrong. But I suppose that he has found my behaviour annoying - the AFD may have been a WP:Point, but wasn't meant as a 'personal' attack. It went downhill from there.
    • It has never been my attention to upset anyone - including Robert and I do not want to see him lose his hobby because of me. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I'm sure Robert will agree with me.
    • I ask all concerned admins to give him one more chance. Blocking him will mean one less contributor and (although I still say that Moortje was an article crying out for a AfD,) he has made many positive contributions.
    • His probation wasn't very specific. Instead of blocking him, I ask that he be given more specfic terms and he be held to those in his future actions. Any admin action should be based upon 'future' productivity and not past indiscretions. I think that's the whole point of Wiki.

    That's all.Neuropean 23:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I read m:MPOV today. It seems an apt description of Robertsteadman, actually. --Lord Deskana (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I agree. After the way he terrorized the Ice Hockey Wikiproject for half a month and wikistalked our talk pages and edit lists, I think m:MPOV fits like a glove. DMighton 15:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert Steadman. Wow. DMighton 03:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He has threatened me legally again.

    I intend to pursue this much, much further. It may werll go to court - because Ann has libelled me many, many time (including today, anmd Deskana has too./

    That's an exact quote from an email he sent me. That makes it twice that he's threatened me legally now. And people wonder why I want him indefblocked!? As far as I'm concerned, he should have a nice permenant ban from editing Wikipedia. --Lord Deskana (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia, as far as I know, has a zero-tolerance policy for legal threats, WP:NLT. He was warned about it by another admin a week or two ago [8]. DMighton 13:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He seems to be back as 86.140.197.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).--Lo2u (T • C) 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I'd say that is good old Rob. DMighton 22:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blanking the warnings on the talk page now. Do we need a seperate RFCU? I would have thought the anon's behaviour on its own might warrant a block. Frelke 06:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    An AMA request for assistance has been made

    An AMA request for assistance has been made here --Kickstart70-T-C 02:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems the part of policy that justified this block is really what's in question. So lets go to the policy. Its for 'Disruption: incivility and borderline personal attacks', and its for a day("24 hours)". There's an attack on the wikipedia process, a personal attack on all the checkusers, and general incivility from the fact that wikipedia isn't always instantantaneously responding from CoventantD. The problem is that you are not being stonewalled, you are being disagreed with. Several people do not agree with you that the block was without policy. The brief block was for incivility and borderline personal attacks, and warning is recommend, but not required. There is the policy reasoning Essjay applied behind the block, which is the subject of your AMA request. Kevin_b_er 04:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying this because I don't know...is there a place within the AMA request, or outside of this very tainted process which this discussion should place? I don't feel that any sort of great solution to this is going to happen within what's already happened here. --Kickstart70-T-C 05:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Taylor Iosefo

    Could somebody with the proper authority remove the history of this attack page? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And the same thing at Peter MCcoy, please? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Taylor Iosefo & Peter MCcoy 's deleted histories appear to contain no information suitable for oversight application. The pages are already deleted and not available to non-admins. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So you don't mind that they contain claims that the subjects have committed illegallities, without a single source? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Zoe, I'm afraid that what I mind and don't mind have nothing to do with the fact that the articles in question do not, to the general public, exist. Oversight, in fact, still doesn't remove the revisions, it only hides them, the same way as they're currently hidden since the articles are deleted. The only difference is that you, being an admin, can review the content regardless of the fact that they're deleted.
    Oversight is approved for use in exactly three cases, and I would refer you to WP:OVER to review those cases, or if you don't trust a page I wrote, see the original version of m:Hiding revisions on Meta. If a request is sent in to the Wikimedia foundation by those offended (WP:BEANS applies), then an oversight request can be sent in to us, but at the moment it does not appear to warrant such attention.
    While I dislike attack pages of all sorts, there's nothing differentiating this one from the thousands of others which have been deleted already, so it does not require oversight attention. If you still disagree, feel free to contact one of the users listed on the oversight page and ask them. I'm sorry. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Kylu is correct here; apparent libel is not enough to oversight a page's history. However, if the subject (or a legal representative) requests its removal or it becomes an WP:OFFICE issue, then oversight may be used.Voice-of-All 04:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Shougiku Wine (talk · contribs)

    moved from AN:

    I'm not sure if I'm reporting this to the correct place, but Shougiku Wine (talk · contribs) is attempting to AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takeshima Islands (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takeshima Islands|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as part of a POV dispute over whether an article should be named Takeshima Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or Dokdo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The result of the POV dispute was the creation of a POV fork of the article. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, Shougiku Wine has clearly moved into the realm of personal attacks against those who don't agree with him as well as using racial language.[9] --TheFarix (Talk) 00:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be on /Incidents, but I've given 24 hours. Circeus 01:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is utterly ridiculous display of personal attacks, and I will not even consider gracing with an answer. I am tempted to lenghten the block though. Circeus 04:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he may be do for a permablock as it's pretty evident to me that he is is just trolling. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There he goes again. Is anybody interested in reading the whole thing? Circeus 21:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He has now resumed his inflamatory editing: [10], [11], [12]. I'm giving him one week this time. Circeus 15:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can honestly say this is the first time I've ever been accused of being Korean. So now, I'm either Korean, Japanese, or American. I'm so confused. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As amusing as this... Person might be, at this rate they are headed straight for a permban. Circeus 05:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he is claiming that you and Pilotguy are engaging in "criminal vandalism" for blocking him and that you two are "only crazy Korean-racism-sided persons" because you will not lift the block.[13] It's pretty evident that he is just trolling and that it is highly unlikely that he will straiten up after the current block is lifted. --TheFarix (Talk) 16:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll admit to being crazy and a person. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin User:InShaneee is removing content from my talk page

    This is a complaint regarding the behavior of Admin User:InShaneee, who removed content from my talk page (and that of others) which he claims to have identified as spam. There is no official wikipedia policy to remove internal spams on sight, as can be seen on the spams policy page. In general, removing content from talk pages is considered vandalism, and according to policy the only exception to that is removing personal attacks, which does not include spam. So technically this admin does not have a right to remove those posts from my page, and in doing so has obviously violated vandalism policy. The admin claims that these actions constitute common wikipedia practice. As they are, however, clearly against wikipedia policy, I asked him to stop them, so far without success. This informal complaint is a result of that fruitless discussion. Shervink 08:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]

    When did he do that? Please provide the diffs. Thanks --Aminz 08:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably here. Looks like a pretty clear-cut case of vote stacking by Zereshk (talk · contribs). Zetawoof(ζ) 08:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Excellent job by Inshaneee of mopping up this attempt to stack an AfD, and if Shervink wants the edit back he only has to re-revert. --Tony Sidaway 08:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, InShaneee's removal of Zereshk's post is just a symbolic action, since people will get the "You have new messages" anyway.
    But no worries, we have now Wikipedia:Iran,shiite and middle east related articles noticeboard/Incidents. Also, Shervink, be careful! Though you may not know the policy and this might be your first time, BUT you may be accused of being vowed to continue (read it with a particular stress on the word "vowed" please) accusation of vandalism and subsequently blocked for 48 hours which is longer than the typical 24 hours. Some of us here are good in reading your mind. --Aminz 08:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, even if you have over 15,000 edits to nearly 3,000 articles and after this long time of being in wikipedia, this is your first time doing something, then you are "vowed" to do it again. Since you are in serious need of doing that everyday! --Aminz 08:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's not the end of story. Some other admins will congrat the admin who has special talent in reading your mind for his good job! Wonderful! Can it be even better? --Aminz 08:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, maybe I'm not clear on this, but the message in the provided diff didn't seem to request a vote in either direction, it simply served to notify the user that a vote was taking place. Or were there other messages he placed which did ask for a specific kind of vote? I'm not clear on the policy here, so I would like to request that it be clarified: under what circumstances, if ever, is it appropriate to alert someone to an ongoing poll or vote? Kasreyn 09:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A vote can nicely be stacked by selecting which users should be informed about it and which not, without giving anybody explicit instructions about how to vote...--Stephan Schulz 09:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the attempt can be made, but if someone who believes the opposite sees that talk page, they will be informed as well. I'm just curious what the actual policy is. Kasreyn 21:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A new research at the university of Wikipedia named "World through the eyes of different Admins" has shown that some people first take a position towards a matter and then try to find a reason to justify that position. --Aminz 09:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Aminz, I'm sorry but I really do not understand what you are talking about, especially that metaphysical stuff about reading my mind. You mean you want to have me blocked based on what you think I think? I think you should think that over. All I'm asking is a quote for which policies allow that admin to remove content from my talk page. He is in clear violation of Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Spamming, none of which identify internal spamming as vandalism and none of which allow it to be removed from a talk page by third parties. Shervink 09:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]

    Shervink, I am not an admin. Were I, I wouldn't have been ignored [14]. If I were an admin, other admins would have NOT disputed my wrong decisions even when an editor cries for a tiny bit of attention and calls other admins for just looking into my so-called "light" punishment imposed on some other editor.--Aminz 09:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Arminz, your style of writing is rather involuted and does not parse well. I can't figure out what you're trying to say. Could you be more plain? Kasreyn 09:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Kasreyn, I didn't have much experience with both Zereshk and InShaneee, when I was involved in Zereshk's block by InShaneee. Zereshk asked all persian editors whom he knew, to vote for the AfD of the article Misconceptions about Iran (or moved to Views of Iran in Media or something similar). Well, Zereshk was spamming. It was his first time and he didn't know about the policy at all (as I can argue he even now doesn't know the details of what has happened to him now). From the very beginning, InShaneee was warning him of getting blocked. I have been around in wikipedia for awhile. I know, nobody gives a {{test4}} for a first time vandalism for example. Anyhow, I was at that time surprised with InShaneee's warning. Aside from the fact that Zereshk has over 15,000 edits to nearly 3,000 articles and this was his first time doing spamming, I told him that yes, he has done spamming but he was only notifying editors who have experience of living in both west and Iran. Zereshk added that some editors whom he has notified have given votes against his vote. Anyways, I asked the other editor who first reported Zereshk to notify several other editors on his choice. It was considered against policy and it passed. Please continue the story in the section on Zereshk here:[15] I was mainly objecting to the length of Zereshk's block and and that his controversial comments could be read or understood in other ways. I was "only" asking another admin to just "look into" this case. Nothing more. --Aminz 10:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This confusion probably would have been avoided with an explanatory edit summary (no offense to InShanneee, not all of anyone's edit summaries are exemplary). I've noticed that many admins and veteran editors get huffy when someone removes content from their talk page, often saying that they can decide things for themselves, yet they do it to others without due consideration or explanation (I'm not saying that this is what happened in this case). Also, while it looks like vote stacking in this case to me, whether it is vote stacking, and therefore whether it should be removed, is usually decided by someone who disagrees with the alleged vote stacker's opinion, which is less than ideal. Removing the comments may not do much good, anyway, since editors will still get a new message notification and they can see the deleted text in the history of their talk pages. Finally, while I am opposed to what he was trying to do, if AfD is really not a vote, how can there be vote stacking? -- Kjkolb 09:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We are getting off-topic here. The point is this: As far as one can see from the actualpolicy, internal spamming is not vandalism:
    Wikipedia editors are not to engage in aggressive cross-posting in order to influence votes, discussions, requests for adminship, requests for comment, etc. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that [t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice. However, excessive cross-posting goes against current Wikipedia community norms. In a broader context, it is unwiki...
    As you see, no mention of vandalism, let alone a request to remove by third parties. In a sense, it is a matter of point of view how much cross-posting is aggressive. Even then, it is not vandalism according to policy, and is not to be removed.
    On the other policy page we read under types of vandalism:
    Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page ...
    Thus, no mention of a legitimate deletion of internal spam or cross posting. According to policy, The deletion of those comments is thus vandalism. Shervink 12:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]
    For those who don't know, Aminz's comments above are simply mocking me over my block of Zereshk (I told him to stop spamming, he said he'd continue, so I blocked him)(incidentally, his user page is now a giant rant about the evils of me and wikipedia). As for my actions, I only wish that policy allowed me to delete the edits from the page history entirely, since rolling back the spam messages did almost nothing to stem the tide of one-sided votes. --InShaneee 22:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't "mocking" you; that is true for sure. If I don't write poetic or ambigious, you'll block me (for some n times 24 hours, where n is a natural number greater than or equal to 2) as well. And who says it was about you? ;) But I don't think you have already made the decision to block me after all. --Aminz 01:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Try assuming good faith. Talking like I'm block-crazy isn't very polite, either. --InShaneee 02:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said you are a "block-crazy"... Gosh! --Aminz 02:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the personal attack from Zeresh's page, which Aminz immediately reverted, and had the temerity to lecture me about editing other people's User pages. I have blocked Aminz for 5 minutes for reverting to the personal attack, and have reverted and protected Zeresh's User page. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, please indicate on your user page that you are an admin. Next, I would be happy if other admins check the message I left for Zoe and how he is replying back to me:"(Aminz) had the temerity to lecture me about editing other people's User pages. " Thirdly, I am standing for justice. I promise that Zoe has not had even reviewed the case closely him/herself. I request Zoe to block for a week if his/her defend of InShaneee is based on his/her close review of the case. --Aminz 02:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot possibly give any greater support to that suggestion than I am now. Either way, she shouldn't have to prove that she's an admin; any user is welcome to remove such hate-filled speech at their discretion. --InShaneee 02:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Zereshk feels he has been under injustice. He has the right to express himself. I see many people make fun of bush everyday. Of course, he didn't make fun of you. But we should let Zereshk to express himself. That's freedom of speech. --Aminz 03:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He has no such right; quite the opposite, as a matter of fact. "Freedom of speech" simply means that the government can't pass laws that censor the people; Wikipedia is in no way related to any government, and thus is free to tell all its users what they can and can't say. That said, we'd like people to keep their opinions to themselves (or take them elsewhere, like a message board) and actually work on some articles. --InShaneee 03:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    InShaneee, true or false, there are two users who think the block at least in terms of its duration was not right. If they can not express themselves somewhere about their feelings, they can not work on the articles either. It may not be wiki policy but it is a humane thing. If you believe you were 100% correct in your decision, you should not be bothered by what Zereshk writes in his user page. Should you? If it is wrong, it will only prove something about himself and not about you. Similarly, all my posts here will prove something about myself if they are wrong and I have already accepted this. --Aminz 03:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Aminz, I have never ONCE blocked someone without someone complaining that it was wrong. I can think of at least half a dozen users who've told me just that, and I am happy to report that they are all incorrect. As you'll notice, there's yet to be one admin here who's said that Zereshk shouldn't have been blocked. Now, Wikipedia isn't humane, either. It's not here for you to do as you please. We're trying to write an encyclopedia here, thank you. Your innermost feelings can wait until you've surfed elsewhere. I wasn't bothered by what Zereshk wrote, but the point was he doesn't GET to write that. If you can't be productive and useful, you shouldn't be here, period. --InShaneee 03:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked both Zereshk and Aminz for 24 hours for personal attacks, disruption, and harrassment. There is no merit to any of their claims; they're just out for blood now. It must stop. --Cyde↔Weys 03:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not inclined to second Aminz' sympathies for the conduct of the other blocked editor, but I don't see that Aminz has violated any policy, in letter or in spirit, and no diffs have been provided to substantiate the charges of "harrassment and personal attacks". Someone has made a mistake here. Aminz should be unblocked.Timothy Usher 06:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Timothy. It seems to me that there is too much enthusiasm here on the part of the admins to block people. You have that right for a reason, and you might need to reconsider what that reason was.
    As for Inshaneee's post on my talk page, which I prefer to respond to here, I'm not saying Zereshk was right to do that. I'm saying that what you did is not strictly according to policy, which you by the way admit on my talk page "Just because it's not written down doesn't mean that it's not done by dozens of admins every day". So you mean admins can do as they please in Wikipedia? It's a good thing that you warned Zereshk, and maybe even that you blocked him (although I think for too long). What I am complaining to you about is only your editing of my talk page which I politely and respectfully ask you not to do in the future. I hope any misunderstandings are erased now. Shervink 09:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]
    Timothy, I'm afraid I can't agree. Aminz has all but stopped editing to pursue his campaign against me in the last few days, which is wrong any way you look at it. Shervink, yes, administrators do have discretion in a wide variety of situations, and if someone spams your talk page again, I will be removing it. --InShaneee 22:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Inshaneee, on my talk you acknowledge that what you did is not according to policy, but is done by many others as well. You claim now that you can do so because you are an admin. Do you realize that you are openly claiming you have a right to violate policy because you are an administrator? Once again, I'm not supporting the spreading of spams. But you are declaring that you are willing to violate policy in order to enforce it. That is unacceptable. I once again urge you not to do this, and I ask you not to remove content, spam or other, from my talk page, except for cases where you can back it up with the exact text of Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Shervink 11:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]
    That is PRECISELY what I'm saying. Admins aren't bound by the letter of policy; for example, if someone is being a nusence, it is within our discretionary authority to do so, and is perfectly 'acceptable', thank you. --InShaneee 22:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Your previous comment contains a personal attack. Be warned please. 2. You claim admins do not have to follow policy. Can you please tell me where that exception is declared? Thank you. Shervink 10:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]
    I do not fully understand the basis for Aminz' block. Was it for reverting User:Zereshk's page after Zoe removed a personal attack? Is there something more to it that I am missing? I am surprised becuase Aminz certainly does not have a history of personal attacks. Tom Harrison Talk 23:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have explained my reverting of the User:Zereshk's user page here [16] --Aminz 17:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    After a bit of cooling down, looking back into what happened, I do admit that I lost my temper block of Zereshk. Even having a point can never justify my voluminous criticisms of InShaneee's administrative decision. I ignored the fact that one's admin actions does not necessarily depend on what a person has immediately done. I do admit that I lost my temper again after I got blocked myself and have done what I shouldn't have done; and by doing so, I have poisoned the well. So did I after Zereshk's block. --Aminz 08:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ryan4

    Could someone else please take a look at Ryan4 (talk · contribs)? It seems to me he's spamming -- basically inserting advertising for an online book this time -- but I'd like another opinion or three. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Spam. The Crux of World History by Francisco Gil-White may be a great book, but if its not being cited as a source, adding it to multiple articles (how many? I got tired before I could count all the articles) in External links is spamming. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm really starting to get tired of JPGordon's personal vendetta against me. It's not spamming because: 1. The link is NOT COMMERCIAL, i.e. it provides no services for any fees, therefore it also 2. cannot be advertising. I added links to The Crux on pages such as The Greco-Persian conflict, Ezra, Nehemaiah, and Artaxerxes because there are specific chapters in the Book that present a very interesting Historical analysis of those particular topics, with specific reference to the history of the class conflict between the Jewish people and the Greeks and Romans around the time of the 1st Century. What on earth is spam about that? The only true guidelines about adding external links are that they cannot be the person's own website, they cannot be commercial links, and the amount of one particular viepoint should not dominate if that viewpoint is out of the mainstream. I have broken none of those rules. Ryan4Talk 18:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Personal vendetta"? What would I possibly want vengeance for? You've done nothing to offend me one way or another. However, anytime anyone inserts identical links into over a dozen articles in twenty minutes, those links are going to undergo very strong scrutiny. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The unpublished book appears to offer an highly opinionated view of history (Chapter 1: The Roman ‘Final Solution’ in the first and second centuries; why it happened, and why you never heard about it. Chapter 2: Enter the villain: Alexander.) Further the author, Francisco Gil-White, does not seem to be significantly more notable than most professors. -Will Beback 19:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As an unpublished work, the link cannot be intended to serve as a reliable source. The link is being added to all these articles to promote Gil-White. It's spam, even if it's not commercial. Pete.Hurd 21:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have some familiarity with Francisco Gil-White's writings in relation to the former Yugoslavia, one of my particular areas of interest. He's got a long history of pushing extremely tendentious conspiracy theories and denialist POVs (some sample article titles: "Was Slobodan Milosevic murdered?", "The Serbs Were Not Oppressing the Kosovo Albanians... Quite the opposite", "The Freezer Truck Hoax - How NATO framed the Serbs", etc - see [17] for more). His work on political issues raises a number of red flags, particularly this one, which is present in spades: "Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them." (WP:RS#Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence) I can't think of any reputable academic sources which cite FGW's views on Yugoslavia. I'm not familiar with his writings on Middle Eastern issues but based on his performance on Yugoslav history, I'd be very wary of them indeed.
    As for The Crux of World History, FGW's not a professional historian so I would certainly not consider him a bona fide expert on ancient history. The book in question is a self-published source and so is emphatically disqualified from consideration as a reliable source per WP:RS#Self-published sources. FGW is an anthropologist and psychologist; he's plainly not a "well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise". Nor is the book quoted in the articles. The whole thing seems very, very spammy to me and I strongly support removing the links. Further, I'm not at all convinced that the article on FGW meets the standard of notability set out in Wikipedia:Notability (academics), so I will be proposing it for deletion. -- ChrisO 20:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mantanmoreland using a sockpuppet and violating policies

    User:Mantanmoreland has been editing Gary Weiss along with his sockpuppet User:Lastexit. See Fred Bauder's comments at [18]. Both accounts have harrassed User:WordBomb who attempted to edit the article but was blocked indefinitely. Both Mantonmoreland and Lastexit have voted on at least one AFD[19]. 130.15.164.51 19:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Lastexit hasn't edited the article since April 29. Do you have any evidence that sockpuppet abuse is continuing now? (ESkog)(Talk) 19:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The AFD in which they both voted ended May 18. They continue to edit the same articles, for instance Naked short selling which LastExit last edited on July 20[20] and Mantanmoreland last edited on July 22. WordBomb is still blocked indefinitely for having edited Gary Weiss and having accused Mantanmoreland of using a sockpuppet. This means there has also been possible Admin abuse that should be looked at. 130.15.164.51 19:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For future reference, 130.15.164.51 is User:Homeontherange. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:WordBomb's edit history shows nothing that justifies a block[21], certainly not an indefinite one which should only be handed down by Jimbo or by the ArbComm, not by an admin acting on her own. 130.15.164.51 19:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WordBomb is blocked indefinitely for having posted what he believes are an editor's personal details. When asked for an assurance that it wouldn't happen again, he reposted them on his talk page. Since then, he has been harassing various people by e-mail, and has evaded the block several times with sockpuppets. He has made no useful contributions and should definitely stay blocked. As for the sockpuppet allegations, FloNight and Fred Bauder are dealing with the situation. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't WordBomb do this the second time after you asked for proof of the sockpuppet allegation?130.15.164.51 20:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you don't seem to be catching this... the block was given FOR saying that users were 'Gary Weiss', which you keep doing. Whether you are correct or not, this is an attempt to 'out' the real identity of a user and not permitted. While Wikipedia does discourage people editing articles about themselves that does not constitute a reason to violate privacy restrictions. The {{autobiography}} template should only be used when it is known for a fact that the person has edited the article, and even then the particular user should not be identified unless they have publically revealed/acknowledged their identity. --CBD 13:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary Weiss has been accused of editing his biographical article under a pseudonym. Shouldn't Wikipedia:Autobiography apply here?130.15.164.81 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of tags by SlimVirgin

    Contrary to policy User:SlimVirgin has removed an {{autobiography}} tag [22] from Gary Weiss despite the fact that Weiss has been editing that article using various sockpuppets. She has also removed a sockpuppet alert from the talk page[23]. Neither tag named the useraccount, they simply notified readers of the situation. 130.15.164.126 23:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    For future reference, 130.15.164.126 is User:Homeontherange. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What evidence can your provide to support these assertions? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The following list is incomplete but begins to address your request for supporting evidence.
    Mantanmoreland created the article about Gary Weiss[24]
    Then he added a link to an article (from 1997!) written by Gary Weiss[25]
    Then he added a reference to a book by Gary Weiss[26]
    Then he added another reference to a book by Gary Weiss[27]
    Then he added another reference to a book by Gary Weiss[28]
    Then he added another reference to a book by Gary Weiss[29]
    Then he added another reference to a book by Gary Weiss[30]
    Then, some funny editor removed a single adjective about the book by Gary Weiss and Mantanmoreland reverts without explanation[31]
    Tomstoner, a suspected Mantanmoreland sockpuppet, added a reference to a book by Gary Weiss[32]
    Confirmed Mantanmoreland sockpuppet Lastexit is also the only other substantive contributor to the article about Gary Weiss[33]
    Lastexit added a reference to an article by Gary Weiss[34]
    Lastexit added another reference to an article by Gary Weiss[35]
    Mantanmoreland voted to delete the article about Josie Robertson, whose husband Julian once sued Gary Weiss for $1-billion[36]. The deletion nomination came from Lastexit[37]--66.102.186.21 00:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, have a look at the page history, look at the diffs provided. Slim isn't the one making these edits. Guettarda 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be WordBomb who has been harassing User:Mantanmoreland, posting what he believes are Mantan's personal details, and adding nonsense to Gary Weiss. He has also been harassing people by e-mail. It's a longish story and I'll pass on details by e-mail to any admin who wants to see them. I didn't remove any tags, but I sprotected Gary Weiss and talk page, and Mantanmoreland's user and talk pages, which are also under attack. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see User_talk:Mantanmoreland and tell me where the violation is that justified protection? Slim is protecting her friend, alright, but for all the wrong reasons. 130.15.164.126 23:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've protected it so you can't post to it again. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Facts as I understand them: User:Mantanmoreland and User:Lastexit have been confirmed to be sock-puppets by Fred Bauder. These accounts have improperly supported each other in discussions, edit disputes, and/or consensus 'votes'. Our anon, who is apparently User:WordBomb (again, per Fred), further suspects that User:Tomstoner is the same person and that all of them are Gary Weiss... and has been indefinitely blocked for stating this belief and thereby revealing what he thought to be personal info about an account holder. That about right? If so, then I'd say 'all of the above' ought to be watched and the lack of a block on either Mantanmoreland or Lastexit seems a bit odd. --CBD 13:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is an email that was sent to me via Wiki Email by the user who commenced this discussion:

    From: "IPFrehley"

    To: "Mantanmoreland"

    Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 11:57 PM

    Subject: Wikipedia e-mail 

    Gary,

    Just wanted to thank you for responding so perfectly today. This is going to be easier than I thought. Talk to you again soon.

    IPF"

    He is referring to being blocked three times under three different user names, in pursuing this nutty vendetta against Gary Weiss who he is convinced I am. After this he whipped up a chain letter [38] which he posted from various aliases on a number of user pages of people he presumed to have ill will toward myself and SlimVirgin.

    At one point he sent around an email calling me (as his proxy for "Weiss") a "cancer" and saying: "I pushed back much harder than I normally would, and chose to operate outside the normal protocols, because the idea behind that exercize was to gather intel and save my bullets, not affect change. The time has come to affect change."

    Then he moved here, pursuing an off-Wiki cyberstalking campaign (of questionable legality) here, and giving his Internet audience a blow-by-blow.[39]. In the link, the Yahoo alias is the same as the email address of WordBomb/IPFrehley. Make no mistake about it: what you are dealing with is a determined and relentless off-Wiki cyberstalking campaign by an anonymous person who goes to great lengths to switch IP addresses to preserve his anonymity. The file originally posted by WordBomb and since deleted was professionally put together, and his switching from IP to IP shows a determination to evade detection -- not to mention evade the block on his three named aliases, which he has of course done very easily.

    He has so many IPs and aliases that it is hard to keep track of them. Three named aliases have been blocked and a fourth (User:Schroedinger the Cat) remains active. That was created yesterday for the purpose of harassing the administrator who blocked him.--Mantanmoreland 13:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There have been bizarre e-mail threats, including that he's going to the media to expose Wikipedia. He also sent me a link that appeared to be a live link to a Wikipedia user account, but in fact went elsewhere, presumably hoping I'd click on it so he'd have my IP address. Not a good-faith actor. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wordbomb and Mantanmoreland/Lastexit are two different issues and it looks like Wordbomb has already been blocked so that's done with. Checkuser confirms the sockpuppetry so both Mantanmoreland and Lastexit and possibly this third sock should be blocked for violating WP:SOCK by pretending to be different people as was done with Anomicene and Gnetwerker discussed here. 70.48.90.54 19:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It sure does "look like" he's been blocked for otherwise you wouldn't need to haul out another IP to evade the block, would you?--Mantanmoreland 21:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:70.48.90.54 was Homeontherange. He admits it here. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mantanmoreland was warned about socks and unless more happens that is the end of it as far as I'm concerned. Fred Bauder 22:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Common reasons for blocks and blocking policies Azmoc (talk • contribs • count)

    I have already stated that I don't like the common practice when people are blocked / sent to a "cooling-off" period for non-extreme incivility, dubious personal attacks or minor disruptions. These should be treated by ignoring, walking away, calmly discussing and not by blocking. The policies clearly state, that an editor should only be blocked for personal attacks in extreme cases, and that blocks are not punitive but preventive. I don't know form what Zoe wanted to prevent me by issuing the last block, probably from commenting his/her mocking of what I did on wikipedia. Anyway, what we actually have here are policies, that say one thing (block only preventive, in extreme cases) and then we have the admin consensus, that it is OK to block for minor PA/disruption and any argumentation in the sense of "this shouldn't be done according to the policies" is defaced as "wikilawyering". The reason for only blocking in extreme cases is clear, admins shouldn't offend editors who might have a lot of work on wikipedia behind them and get involved in a heated debate by blocking them right away. It is only laziness that the admins block so often. Azmoc 20:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    [40] another example of harrassment. I don't want to be told "now stop that" because I tried to send a nice message to wikipedia users, I don't want to hear "wikilawyering" everytime I say something, and now what JzG said is a complete nonsense, as I didn't mention any rule or policy. Please somebody tell JzG to stop harrassing me. Azmoc 21:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What part of the "No solicitation" at the top of my talk page was unclear? Talk page spammers should expect to rough it. The fifteen-minute block was wholly appropriate as it stopped the spamming. Mackensen (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a "nice" message. You're telling people they're wasting their time here, and they should go volunteer somewhere else, and you were spamming it all over the place. I was going to block you myself but Cyde did it first. Antandrus (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a fifteen minute block was way too lenient for someone spamming 'leave wikipedia' notices. --InShaneee 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I didn't solicit for noone, I am not associated with any NGO that would need volunteers, and saying the truth about what you have to give up to be a "wikipedian" doesn't break any policies or rules here, does it? Anyway, I am going to use the message only occassionaly, so don't worry about the spamming. Azmoc 22:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It shouldn't be used at ALL. This is an encyclopedia, not MySpace. Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean this is the place to go telling it to everyone. --InShaneee 22:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? You do that too, right? You discuss the functioning of wikipedia with other users, right? You even have special places for it, right? Like village pump, right? Azmoc 22:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am previously uninvolved. I've reviewed this user's contributions and history (Azmoc (talk • contribs • count)) and support the current block of 48 hours. Azmoc needs to stop leaving disruptive messages and wikilawyering about it. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (He's not currently blocked, the 48 hours was an old, unrelated block). --InShaneee 22:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, Lar. You reviewed my contributions and history thoroughly, I can see. Thank you for your uninformed assumptions. I am User:Ackoz previously, maybe you would want to check that out too, your way of investigating (i.e. checking nothing at all, just babbling) would find that I have like 500 indefinite blocks on that nick. Greetings. Azmoc 22:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, sorry, was not intentional. Too many users posting and I got into like 5 edit conflicts. Azmoc 22:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Qho (talk · contribs) posting personal information

    A strange request was left on the Medcab talk page concerning User:Qho and User:89.32.1.82. It appears Qho posted the personal information of IP on his/her userpage (diff). I'm utterly baffled by what's going on here, but the IP address was blocked by User:Yamla for editing other peoples' comments, meanwhile Qho has left some threatening messages on the IP's talk page. If anything, the userpage edit should probably be removed from the history, but Qho needs to cool down at the moment. I brought the issue here to see what should be done. Cowman109Talk 22:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: The "personal information" that was left appears to be an extract from a WHOIS lookup, [42] though these may be the contact details for a small ISP or business rather than the individual editor. Road Wizard 23:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonetheless, the IP address is clearly being harassed, and that should probably be looked at. It seems the IP was removing such edits that were harassing him and is being punished for that, which is also why I brought this here as things seem a bit iffy. Cowman109Talk 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it would be best to have a removal of this personal info from the edit history, in order to protect this person from further harassment. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is definitely something unusual and inappropriate going on there. The all caps typing and unusual messages makes me think he needs a time-out or someone needs to have a chat with him. The posting of personal information (whether or not it actually was, its the attempt that counts) bothers me though and certainly needs to be looked at. He admits here [43] to his behaviour and I note no ban, yet the IP was banned for 48 hours. Even with the IP being uncivil, this user still went ahead and tried to put personal information on the page.--Crossmr 06:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was the admin who blocked the anonymous user. This should absolutely not be taken to imply that I condoned Qho's behaviour. My dealings were with the anonymous user who engaged in a number of disruptive edits. I am glad that someone else looked into Qho's edits. While I am not convinced that posting a country of origin (essentially, whois information) constitutes a personal attack, many of this user's other edits may have constituted such an attack (and apparently did as he was blocked). Thank you. --Yamla 03:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

    User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is mass-moving pages from Name X. Lastname to Name FullMiddleName Lastname. We discussed this yesterday, and I suggested that he get consensus and find out which of the versions of the name is more common, as this is what is mandated by the MoS, but he did not respond, and now is doing this moving without discussion. I'm on the verge of blocking him if he doesn't respond to my impassioned plea to stop. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He threatens to continue his moves tomorrow. I have warned him that if he does, I will block him. I am in the middle of reverting all of his moves. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I hae to leave now, and have only scratched the surface of these moves. Could somebody else please pick up from where I left off? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe there's a way disable the page move tab for him (new users don't get the tab, for example). See also [44] [45] for more silliness from this guy. Phr (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yow, there's at least 1000 of those moves. I wouldn't even think of trying to undo them by hand. If there's not already a bot that can undo them, I'll write one. Let me know. Phr (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say about half of them are done; I am still working on it (slowly) and I blocked this user indefinite. While I blocked this user before, and could be seem biased, doing over 800 page moves is, in my view, major disruption. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No reason not to show this user the door. This user clearly performed mass pagemove vandalism without cause, and Zscout is being nice enough to take lots of time out and revert. Clearly not a user equipped with constructive edits by any means. --Pilotguy (roger that) 04:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I stopped the page moves for now; about under 300 to go (including talk pages). Others are taking over now, which I am grateful for, since my arm is dead. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like a major case of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point and I think the block was warrented as page moves on that scale are highly disruptive. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 07:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    All page moves have been finished as of now. If there are any move errors that I caused, let me know so they can be fixed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    My petty complaints aside, I support the block. - brenneman {L} 07:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support. This user has been trouble in other areas before. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    People that say "I see no policy saying what I'm doing is wrong", and not "What I'm doing isn't wrong" are usually wrong. I support this block. --Lord Deskana (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I also locked his user talk page, since he was begining to use that to assail me and to use it as a soapbox to prevail against the "collective punishment" he got. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block. Norton is clearly operating with m:MPOV. Zscout370's comment on irc after manually entering a few dozen (hundred?) reverts (out of 800) was something like "my arm is falling off". Sounds like exhaustion of community patience to me. I also don't understand the part about collective punishment--is Norton using the royal we? I guess that would fit (maybe he's Emperor Norton). I did find a few still-unreverted moves just now and will try to nail any remaining ones. Phr (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think indef might be a little harsh, but this is definitely meriting of a month or six - and that's iff he agrees never to make mass pagemoves again. If not, indef seems perfectly justified. I only say this because he seems to otherwise make some good contributions. FCYTravis 11:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All pagemoves later than "Alva Blanchard Evans" of 17 July have been reverted, i.e. all the ones from his latest spree. It looks like there are some earlier sprees that need to be checked. I'll do that tomorrow. I have a semi-automated script that speeds it up some. Phr (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why didn't Curpsbot get him? I thought it blocked everyone that did large numbers of pagemoves, regardless of where? --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support the block. The sheer number of pagemoves involved tells me there's just something unhinged with this guy, and he's not even bothering to attempt to achieve consensus. --Cyde↔Weys 13:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    From what I understand, this editor has been around for a fair while, and has generally been a positive – if sometimes prickly – contributor. Obviously his chosen method of handing this issue (posting a request at Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests with a six-hour deadline before he continued the moves) was a poor one, and an obvious violation of WP:DICK. I have to ask, is this editor involved in (or has he been involved in) any other major conflicts (RfCs, Arbitrations, etc.)?

    Looking at his block log, he had some significant copyright issues earlier; I don't like to see that, but then the problem seems to have stopped after a block was issued. If there aren't any other issues with this editor, might I suggest trimming the block to a week so he has time to cool down, and allowing him to return on a very short leash? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with TenOfAllTrades. Mr. Norton's goal appears to have been making sure the full-name articles existed, moreso than making sure each article was always listed under the full name. Of course, he should have re-moved the articles BACK to the consensus name, leaving a redirect at the full name (or, better yet, should have implemented the redirects directly instead of via pagemoves), and of course, he should have stopped immediately once warned. However, I think the principle of AGF still applies. His intent appears benign even if his methods were not. Powers 13:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think WP:AGF would have applied had he not been warned previously by multiple users to stop. Blatently persisting in such a manner created a LOT of extra work, and was extremely disruptive. I'm not sure so sure WP:AGF still applies once someone KNOWS that their actions are being judged unacceptable and continues anyway. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 14:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    I agree that his intent was benign, just he wasn't talking with anyone. <scratches head>. Tricky one to solve. Would someone care to discuss per email with him? Kim Bruning 14:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    His intent was benign in the sense of "benign dictator" at best. We have this WP:OWN document cautioning against "owning" articles, but this guy seems to think he owns the whole encyclopedia and the other Wikimedia projects as well (did you see that thing on Commons)? His approach about the page moves was "show me the written policy against it or I'm going to start again at 6 in the blinking morning", which is completely incompatible with the idea of a collaborative project. Fixing his moves burned almost a whole evening for at least 3 different editors. There is no way he should be allowed back without showing evidence of serious attitude adjustment. Phr (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I said... I think. :-) Some people need to be explained to, especially if they're inexperienced in collaborative projects. Well, we can hope anyway. Kim Bruning 16:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to talk with him. To facilitate this I have unprotected his user talk page. We'll see what happens. --CBD 12:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Has been unblocked by UninvitedCo. with the promise of no page moves in the next 90 days. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have opened a discussion of the block at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Block of Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). As stated there, I realize that Norton can be vexatious but I am concered that out of process blocks such as this set poor precedent and would be unfortunate if they became commonplace. Please join the discussion at that page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Brian G. Crawford's edits to Catamorphism's RfA

    I don't usually pay attention to internal drama and I don't know what happened with Erik the Rude being blocked, but Brian G. Crawford made this edit to Catamorphism's RfA purporting to withdraw Erik's nomination, and this one moving Erik's support vote to oppose. The "reasoning" in the "withdrawal" is full of personal attacks and general nonsense relating to Kelly Martin's list, which has nothing to do with anything as far as I can tell. Did someone just come unglued? Opabinia regalis 06:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note Brian G. Crawford also just vandalized JJay's user and talk pages. At this point I wonder if an indefinite block would be appropriate. I'm giving him 24 hours. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support an indefinite community ban. That level of disruption isn't something you can mediate. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed something longer is likely in order here.--Crossmr 07:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Part of the RfA addition could be taken as a physical threat. This user has been trolling long enough. --Firsfron of Ronchester 07:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why on earth would we block him indefinitely? He has a long history of productive edits. We know he currently has issues, but I see no reason why an indef-block without process would be justified. Just zis Guy you know? 08:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked him indefinitely, feel free to shorten his block abakharev 08:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    After the second thought, I shorten my block to 2 months, lets give him a chance abakharev 09:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. I'd go back with your first thought. Anyone who writes something like that about another editor clearly should not be part of Wikipedia, in my opinion. Anyone who wishes to indefinitely block Mr. Crawford has my backing. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may, Alex, I really don't think it was an overreaction. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On reflection, and knowing what Brian is currently going through, I suspect that he should remain blocked until his condition improves to the point where he is ready to return. He can stick {{unblock}} on his Talk page when he feels he's ready, and then maybe he could opt for a period of mentorship. His behaviour is currently outrageous, but I hope we can be understanding of someone formerly in good standing. Just zis Guy you know? 14:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I like a lot of what Bryan has done in the past, but this is beyond the pale. Having 'issues' (emotional, psychological, physical, whatever) is no excuse. We're supposed to treat everyone the same, right? A two month block, at least, is entirely appropriate, to prevent any further hysterical tirades of abuse while Bryan sorts out his problems. Proto::type 09:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Guy's side of it in that this editor looks like he's made some good contributions in the past. However, they are interspersed with diffs of highly questionable judgment. I'm in support of a 2 month block in view of the recent events -- Samir धर्म 10:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've extended the block to indefinite. I've been looking at the IP edit history and Brian and Erik overlap and in one place and time share the same IP. Brian and Erik are either the same person, or possibly share a computer. In any case, Brian is likely responsible for the death threat left on my talk page, as well as several completely outrageous edits. We should be submitting this guy to the authorities for criminal prosecution, not discussing how long we'll make him sit in the penalty box. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Exactly how great are this guy's edits when he is "productive" that would justify allowing him to return ever after that blast at KM? Wikipedia is not therapy. I support a permanent ban. The thing is, he can always return to productive editing under a new ame, and if he gets his whatever under control, no one will ever know that it's him. But with this last screed on top of all the previous episodes, he has lost the right to return to the Brian G. Crawford account and whatever good karma he has accumulated. Thatcher131 12:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm always in favor of kicking someone off of wikipedia for death threats. I don't care if they were "l0l i wuz just k1dding" or not. Support indefblock. Syrthiss 12:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, a quick look through Brian's history and I'm surprised he's still here, whether or not he and Erik are the same person or were responsible for that threat. A lot of effort has been expended on him, but an unstable guy with "mental issues" who can't control his verbal diarrhea doesn't sound like the kind of person we should be actively trying to keep around. Opabinia regalis 12:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Both should stay blocked indefinitely. I don't know what the fuck is going on here but it's clearly not acceptable. Kelly Martin is right, this is beyond the level of thinking about the duration of the block, this is now about whether to contact the police. --Cyde↔Weys 13:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    The fact that he has produced "productive edits" is a total red herring - if you went to your place of work and started calling people a "dyke" and making the threatening comments there, it's unlikely your workplace is going to say "oh but he gets all his paperwork in on time". While, clearly, we do not get paid here, surely the aim and aspiration is for to work together in as productive and as professional manner as possible?

    The editor in question might have issues that he needs to work out - but other editors and administrators cannot be expected to be the virtual punchbag on which he does so. Looking at his edit history, I'm surprised to see (to put it mildly) that we are even discussing anything less than a total ban. --Charlesknight 13:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The comments were beyond the pale; this is an encyclopedia project and we expect somewhat higher levels of decorum than, say, a dark alley behind IRC. I support an indefinite ban—there's no excuse for subjecting other editors to this sort of vitriol. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support indef, Wikipedia is not therapy, and I concur with Syrthiss' succinct appraisal: "I'm always in favor of kicking someone off of wikipedia for death threats" too. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indefinite, as in having no currently defined endpoint, is fine under the circumstances; I'd hope that when Brian is well again he might return but right now he is doing nobody any good, least of all himself. I am more disappointed than I can say. Just zis Guy you know? 14:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Death threats, however veiled or conditional, should not be tolerated here at all. An indefinite block is the least we should do. We should also contact his internet provider and the local authorities. -- Avenue 14:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Death threats are unacceptable. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support indef block as per nearly everybody, but could some univolved admin remove Kelly Martin's indef and impose one of their own? It'd look better, since Kelly was involved in the situation prior to the block. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done this and added the indefblockeduser template. HTH, etc. -- ChrisO 21:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Brian G. Crawford has made repeated personal attacks and physical threats toward others on multiple occassions, and I am surprised that we have tolerated these actions for so long. [46] I support the indefinite banning of this user. Yamaguchi先生 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Brian G. Crawford and Erik the Rude are the same person. I have not made real physical threats to anyone. Those that believe they have been physically threatened need to get out of the house more. Scott Groehning/Kelly Martin is a disgusting abomination who would not be taken seriously by any police organization, given his status as a known pervert. You need to lighten up, people. This is not real life. If you want to cross the line by calling the police, you should be prepared for the sequellae such as civil suits and the discovery process. What I did to Catamorphism, nominating her for adminship when I knew she would be attacked visciously and shot down was just my sick idea of fun. I have to admit, I hate bulldykes, and I've hated bulldykes ever since I saw them on my college campus. They told us to be tolerant, but I just can't. There's a certain degree of conformity and decorum that must be maintained. Catamorphism had better change her attitude if she wants to get a real job. I can return at any time, in any form I choose. I can be anything I need to be. My knowledge is so general that it would be hard to label me a sockpuppet. Looks like you're out of luck. Brian G. Crawford 17:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No, not really. It is unfortunate that Catamorphism's RfA had to be marred by this, since the candidate struck me as a generally good one. Given Brian's instabilities, I'm not sure I believe Brian's repeated claim that he nominated Cat just to see Cat fail. However, it isn't relevant to letting to Brian edit. This is so over the line it isn't even remotely funny. JoshuaZ 04:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Last will and testament edits may be spam?

    On my watch list, I spotted this edit. A little hesitant, I checked out the site. I found it to be legimate enough and think such an article would be a good addition. Then, I noticed the editor who placed them; Livingtrust (talk · contribs). This name can be directly linked to the webpage added, Living Trust Network. I am now a bit worried about whether this should be considered spam or not. As you can see by the user contributions, they have added all instances of wills from the Living Network page to their appropriate Wikipedia articles. Also, at the Famous Wills section, they have a line that says "For more information, please see Wikipedia's biography of XXX." Can someone more knowledgable make comment on my concerns. Cheers! -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 19:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't see any issues with their links to wikipedia -- tons of sites do for more information. I don't think that wills are generally appropriate to link to on Wikipedia though, especially outside of the external links section. My intuition is that it should be removed. --Improv 19:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    • As the CEO of the Living Trust Network, I would like to respond to the above comments. First, we do not want to engage in any activities that might be considered unethical or wrong in any way. So, if we have added links to our website that should not have been added, then we will certainly take them down. We were in the process of adding links to Wikipedia's biographies of famous people whose wills are featured on our site when I discovered a link to a Last Will and Testament on another external site. That gave us the idea. Then we added a few links to wills on our site and discovered that we shouldn't be adding links except in the external links section. We then removed the links and put them into the external links area. If that, too, is not appropriate, then we will certainly remove them. However, it seems to me that having access to a person's will is a good thing and in keeping with the focus of the biography of famous people.

    If you view the page on our site in which the Last Will and Testament is located, you will see that there is no advertising or other offensive material. In fact, you won't find anything on our site that is offensive or in bad taste. We tend to error on the side of being good neighbors - and we will always remain that way.

    So, please, someone advise us as to how we should proceed regarding the links to the Last Wills and Testaments of famous people on our site.

    Regards, Michael Pancheri, CEO, Living Trust Network, LLC

    • I wasn't meaning to indicate that you should feel bad or that it was impropriety to add the links, merely that in my opinion, I don't think they make the articles better because they don't fit with the nature of encyclopedia articles. However, despite feeling as I do, I recommend you want until there's been adequate discussion on this page to reach some sort of consensus on the topic. If you would hold off on adding more links until then, and occasionally check back here in case more discussion happens, that would be great. Don't feel at all bad about adding the link at this point -- we're still working on coming to a set of intuitions on this topic (there have been a few other somewhat similar cases, one involving a scientific journal and another involving Cliffsnote, this month). --Improv 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I once had it explained to me that if the spam is usefull to the article and dosn't violate the other parts of WP:EL, leave it. I think that makes alot of sence... and why should we feel bad about haveing wikipedia link to a usefull website? ---J.S (t|c) 21:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to me like a valid link, adding something useful in addition to article material. Tyrenius 22:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider it valuable information, and find the link appropriate. -newkai | talk | contribs 22:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since User:Livingtrust is "CEO, Living Trust Network, LLC" it would probably violate #3 of WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. I guess the appropriate action would be to "mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 23:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's interesting and appropriate information to add; I'm just unclear at this point why that website had the right to post it in the first place. Even if there is no privacy issue because a) the testator is dead and/or b) the documents were publicly filed in probate court, those documents (except for Franklin's and Washington's) would still be copyrighted. Wills are the type of thing that surviving relatives might take unkindly to having distributed like this (no one wants the world to know that daddy cut them out of the will), and Wikipedia could be secondarily liable for maintaining the links if the Living Trust site can be primarily liable in some way. I've posted a question on the user's talk page on this to see what their legal rationale is; it's quite possible they've received sound advice from counsel that there's no issue here, but it's worth a look. Postdlf 23:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The possible legal concerns certainly need to be addressed, but assuming that there's not a legal issue, then moe.RON has probably suggested the best course. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand that correctly, that means to have the link promoter mention its availability on the target article's talk page instead of adding it themselves, so that others not involved in the external link's site can decide whether to add it? So we would remove the links from the articles pending such a determination? Postdlf 14:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's a copyright issue, as the purpose of a will is to be acted upon. It certainly doesn't violate WP:LIVING, except in the case of someone declared dead who shows up again.... It still could be considered spam, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Extreme threats by 205.188.116.133

    "this is my FINAL warning, quit reverting my edits or I'll blow up your house!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" [47]

    Could someone take appropriate action? Jakew 19:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    AOL IP. Nothing we can do, as usual. Not enough vandalism to merit a anon-only block for a while. I'd suggest sending a email to AOL's abuse report monkie---people. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 19:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Emailed AOL. Please expect a reply next year :-( Iolakana|T 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest ignoring silly kids who say things like that. Until someone's house actually gets blown up over a Wikipedia dispute, I don't consider this any kind of realistic or worrisome threat. If you're a wikipedia editor, expect death threats. Don't we all get them? I'm not saying they're excusable, just that they're not really cause for alarm. Friday (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Established precedent on Wikipedia is that a death threat results in a guarranteed indef block. Sadly, because in this case it would mean an indef block of AOL we can't do this because of their bollixed proxy setup. I suggest keeping an eye out on this person, & if they continue in this vein we may have to consider some extreme measure, which will make the suits at AOL notice & start being more responsive. (I have one idea, but it would require a buy-in from our AOL-using Wikipedians -- & even then it might not work. Email me if you're curious.) -- llywrch 19:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I should clarify- of course there's no problem with in indef block on sight in cases like this- I just hope people don't also get bent out of shape by the threats. Friday (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pat8722

    I just indefinitely blocked Pat8722 (talk · contribs). I feel that his continual confrontation, insults, and misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy is quite disruptive. I briefly blocked this editor before. If you feel this block is in error, please let me know. Background information is available at User talk:Pat8722 and especially at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pat8722. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am unconvinced that Pat's behavior rises to the level meriting an indefinite block. Could you explain in more detail why you think it does? JoshuaZ 21:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of observations: first, if you've been involved in disputes with this user before you shouldn't really be the one issuing the block, and second, it might be more appropriate to start a request for arbitration if this user has already been through an RfC. I do agree with JoshuaZ's comment that an indefinite block seems overly harsh for what you describe - it's a big escalation from a "brief" block earlier. -- ChrisO 22:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All right; I've taken your comments into account and released the block on him for now. Yes, of course, Chris; Pat and I have not been involved in editing the same articles and aside from the matter for which I blocked him, I do not believe we have encountered each other. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request further review Pat87222

    I had been the recipient of I believed personal attack, however on intitially posting this to WP:PAIN it became apparent the the issues involved also centre on my wikipedian and personal abilities as a doctor to contribute to Temporomandibular joint disorder. As there were therefore both incivility and content disputes, WP:PAIN suggested full topic be raised here at WP:AN/I. I see between the suggestion to transfer over by User:Paul Cyr and my having the chance to submit here, a block occured and then unblocked out of wikiprocess rather than assessment of user actions/behaviour/attitude. Also note that having tried to follow WP:PAIN guidance of first posting a personal-attack warning template to the user's talk-page, the user then accused me on my talk page of vandalising their talk page. Given that events listed below now predate the temporary block discussed above - I will understand if my submission now might be superfluous...

    See Temporomandibular joint disorder history & discussion, User talk:Pat8722 and my User talk:Davidruben.

    It is difficult to separate out the personal attack from lesser incivility & belittling, suggestions that only those with professional specialist training in a field can contribute to an article (and that any other approach at classifying symptoms into groups indicates lack of knowledge), whether the numbers of cases presenting to a GP counts as a significant experience of the condition or not, and finally revert-protecting a list of synmptoms. What really irked was that the commonest symptom other than pain at the jaw joint itself (i.e. earche in half of patients) was repeatedly removed in the list's revert-protection as not being cited (a citation needed tag would have been more appropriate as anyone with experience of the condition should have known this was valid information even if needing a reference to be provided for the benefit of other readers), yet rare and obscur symptoms kept because listed in Pat8722 own provided citation.

    • Revert war recently re my converting a list of single symptoms into a shorter list of grouped symptoms, see 20:07, 23 July 2006 edit. Personal attack as to my credibility/knowledge with subsequent edit summary comment of "Shame on you", and when I complained to user, this response on my user page (my multiple objections to that posting given here).
    • In reply, I am now accused of vandalising his/her talk page and using words in a context I have not. As per the comments by other editors on the RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pat8722, I find this effective nit-picking attack on nuances of meaning which are not helpful to the article or to collaborating in wikipedia (?is trolling the correct word). As a minor example Pat8722 wished to peserve separate list entries for upper backpain from lower back pain. Whilst as undiagnosed symptoms upper & lower back pains may have different causes, in context of this jaw-joint disorder neither are being caused by local causes (eg kidneys for lower back pain) and are thus are referred backpain at varying points. Having provided a source that discusses the mechanism of these non-local (atypical) pains, and User:Dozenist recent significant expansion/rewrite to the article's description as to the mechanism of 3 groups of symptoms here, Pat8722 reinserts their simplist list (a revertion to its deletion) here, critises the other editor for the manner of adding additional information and accuses me of vandalism to their talk page.
    • I've had enough of this attack and repeated assertion of having deleted material when I have not (just joined up items in a list into a sentance), had my own addition of earache deleted for being unsourced (a citation-needed tag would have been sufficient, but given upto 2/3 patients with TMJD complain of earache, anyone with knowledge of the field should have been aware of this - info reinserted with refs).
    • I've added further thoughts on Pat8722 comments onto my talk page (for fear of being accussed of further "vandalising" of their talk page if I try to respond there).

    Commentary/background

    To be fair to the Pat8722, the issues were not so much about content as attitude in adding or modifying content. I've probabluy learnt something clinically in having to research citations for this artice, but just because a symptom can occur (and thus is new to me), does not make it common or therefore necessarily that clinicaly important, and by extension that important to stress in wikipedia. So whilst many of the listed symptoms are ones I had not previously encountered in clinical practice and the single source of a book without online access whilst perfectly valid as a citation source is nonetheless hard for a non-specialist to seek confirmation (one source whilst verifying that some might include a symptom within a particular disease, fails prove that consensus of specialist opinion, or more importantly give any indication as to whether it is a frequent or rare specific symptom). TMJD is presented to GPs and Dentists (source provided in discussions) and to suggest that lack of awareness of a symptom amounts to lacking any knowledge in field is a personal attack. Having now done some more thorough PubMed searching, I update my knoweldge that referred pain to the ear is even more common than my own clinical experience suggested (I would have guessed at about a third, but values from studies is between 40-60%) and have learnt that backaches (something not seen in presentation in my limited 20years of experience) also occurs and for similar referred-pain reasons as to the ear.

    However this has not been about editors pointing out further sources of information to discuss whether any given symptom is common or rare (who knows maybe GPs generally or myself in particular have been overlooking a symptom), but rather it is more the antagonistic attitude to myself and other editors ijnvolved with this article that lead to a previous & ongoing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pat8722.

    The content/revert dispute I really do not see trying to join similar muscular pains at sites other than over the jaw joint itself. ie from this:

    • Stiffness in the neck and shoulders [1]
    • Upper backache [1]
    • Lower backache [1]

    to this:

    • Stiffness in the neck and shoulders, upper or lower backache.[1]

    Is with repect to 'backache' symptom a case of deleting and obscurring "You deleted it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temporomandibular_joint_disorder&diff=52064002&oldid=52045411 for the proof of it. You also obscurred it...". Or that disputing this justifies the further posting with edit summary "[stop vandalizing my talk page".

    Pat8722 has had several blocks in the last few months over their ability to collaborate within wikipedia (3 x 3RR edit warring and also "altering comments despite warnings"). The RfC has of course further commentary from other editors. David Ruben Talk 00:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    NYScholar

    NYScholar (talk · contribs) is being difficult on Talk:Esophageal cancer, but my message here mainly concerns subtle but definite rudeness on his talkpage. What am I supposed to do with this? Could someone talk to him? JFW | T@lk 20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone comment on Talk:Esophageal cancer? I stated that he had been incivil, and he removed this as a "personal attack". That's a rather broad definition of WP:NPA. JFW | T@lk 07:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a similar experience with this editor elsewhere. I would very much like to help you at Esophageal cancer, but unfortunately the image made me unable to step over the threshold. :-( SlimVirgin (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Help keeping an eye on an abusive user

    I recently ran across a number of personal attacks, via talk pages, hidden comments in articles, and edit summaries, by Machchunk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (take a quick look at his recent contributions for an idea of the latter) and gave him a two day block for violating WP:NPA. Within two hours of the end of his block, he was back at it, albeit at a slower pace. I don't like to be the only admin passing out warnings (and when necessary, blocks) to a user, so if a couple others wouldn't mind keeping an eye on his contributions for the next few days to see if he shapes up, that'd be helpful. Thanks. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I just went & looked at his user page: childish and intentionally offensive, "If you for some reason are reading this, then I probably hate you. [...] Go home, little boy.". A brief perusal of his contributions, esp to Daft Punk, show no benefit to the encyclopedia of keeping this editor around. Pete.Hurd 22:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    His user page alone says it all. Once a user gets a block and continues with the same shit all AGF is gone. --mboverload@ 22:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He claims to be a "webmesiter" on ebaumsworldsucks. I don't know the forum, so how confrontational are they? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    At a glance, fairly confrontational. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, given another abusive edit summary and rude response to a different admin, I'm reblocking him for a week. If another admin thinks it was excessive or premature and wants to shorten the time, I won't wheel war with you — I just don't see any evidence that this user intends to act in a rational manner here. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 04:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    California Biblical University and Seminary

    The California Biblical University and Seminary are keeps getting criticms removed by IPs. CaliEd 00:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Whenever someone repeatedly removes criticism from an article on an unaccredited religious university, it sets off my Gastrich alarm. He might be innocent here, but keep it in mind if it persists. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially given that the founder is a Louisiana Baptist University grad. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 04:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Semiprotected against further Gastroturfing. Just zis Guy you know? 21:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Onion violates WP:BEANS

    This might inspire some art-imitates-life vandals worth keeping an eye out for. Then again, it might just be funny. JDoorjam Talk 00:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ROFLMAO, thanks for posting this. Does this count as mention in the media, I wonder? KillerChihuahua?!? 00:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw it in my [nerd alert] Google News alert for Wikipedia, so I don't see why not.... JDoorjam Talk 00:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OMG, this is hilarious! User:Zoe|(talk) 01:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL, it is hilarious. And alas [48] here it comes... Antandrus (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I love it. I love the bit about Jimbo being a closeted homosexual and hot-dog freak, according to his bio. ***ERIC IS A FAG*** 03:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And this on the same day, too! --InShaneee 03:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey, if you want to talk comics, Wiki recently went relatively mainstream. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oy. It's gonna be a long, smart-ass night. JDoorjam Talk 03:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What is scary about one of those Workingdaze strips is that I had a conversation last month with a marketing person who couldn't understand why I contributed content to Wikipedia for free. ("You mean no one pays you to write for Wikipedia?") GT Bacchus was there & I believe he can attest to this exchange. -- llywrch 20:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, this month's issue of Wired has an "advice" column by Stephen Colbert that recommends adding yourself to Wikipedia (bonus points for false claims that make yourself look good). --Cyde↔Weys 14:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    New User:Marler Clark been adding links on multiple pages on food poisoning causing bacteria to their "www.about-" pages (eg http://www.about-salmonella.com) - which are produced by the law firm Marler Clark. This is clearly spamming, adding links to ones own web sites, and possibly a group vs individual user account (depending whether "Marler Clark" is an individual head of the legal firm in question, two individuals of "Marler" and "Clark" or a group within the firm). Could an admin do the undo all-last edits tool-thing you have, and decide about the validity of the user (eg its a bit like having a User:Pepsi) ? David Ruben Talk 01:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    All edits reverted by User:Tom harrison. User:Marler Clark seems to have stopped after being warned. Thank you! ~Kylu (u|t) 06:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Anon IP posting of personal info

    I have deleted the edit (which contained an e-mail address in the edit summary) from the history - an Oversight-equipped admin might want to further nuke it from existence. FCYTravis 01:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oversight isn't needed in this case. Please see WP:OVER for details. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would it not be? We're talking about non-public personal information, which is criteria number one for oversighting. The fact that it's not specifically spelled out in the list of items does not mean it's excluded from the list - "information such as." FCYTravis 02:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're worried that an admin is going to see that deleted edit and decide, for whatever reason, to email that address, then by all means request that the revision is removed. I doubt any of the oversight users will do so. Here's the thing: Oversight is used to remove revisions that the Wikimedia Foundation and/or oversight users don't feel need to be readable by admins. It's for when AGF isn't quite enough, when faith in the trust placed in administrators isn't quite enough to make WM feel safe. In any event that oversight IS used when it's not needed...and trust me, Wikimedia does watch the use of oversight very closely...then the user with the oversight permission loses that permission. Each time they use that permission, they have to be sure that what they're doing is the Right Thing To Do and that it falls under the guidelines given by the Foundation. Unlike, say, if I delete the wrong article, the use of oversight is very permenant and involves direct developer intervention and quite a bit of work (comparable to checkuser) to reverse. If you have any further questions, I'd be happy to answer them. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Review this, please

    I've nuked Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO (second RfC) and the talk page. The talk page is nothing but angry flames and has no historical or process-related value, and the RFC, as Hipocite put it, was endorsed by two users who "supported off-wiki personal attacks and the revealing of personal information ... As such, there are no valid certifiers to this RFC." Thus, my deletions. My actions are up for review. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Commendable boldness. Characteristic of this whole ED thing has been one lurid drama-festival after another, and when the flames of one are doused, one of the unhappy participants starts another fire somewhere else. This RFC had no value and removing it hopefully will minimise further time-wastage. Good work, Jeff: that's my opinion. Antandrus (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care that much about what happens to the RfC, although I think you were wrong, but I do find it funny that you gave any credence to what Hipocrite had to say on the matter at face value. His statement was completely wrong on every level. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no, I do care. If it's decided that it's without merit, then that's fine, but is it typical to delete it like that? Undelete it and archive it, or userfy it so the evidence and information are available. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    AFAIK, yes. RFCs without merit are usually deleted. Syrthiss 15:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps so, but three days ain't much time to consider that, especially given it had the required amount of signatures. Given that the entire basis of deletion has nothing to do with the complaints, but rather a) "angry flames" on the talk page, and b) the words of one editor taken at face value without further investigation, I think it calls it into question. I'm more interested in the evidence portion than anything else, but I find this decision more and more curious the more I think about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard is usually 48 hours and if it does not have the enough signatures by that time, it is usually deleted right after that or some hours later. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is what I thought. This specific RfC had 3. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You misinterpret my statement as saying that Hipocrite's opinion was what caused me to delete this page. Incorrect. My quote of Hipocrite is simply a reflection about how I felt about the usefullness and propriety of the RfC.. his words, essentially explaining my decision. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't support any off-wiki personal attacks nor revealing of personal information. I was the one called a troll, by name. To say I am not a valid user to bring an RfC, and then to unilaterally delete it, is a sign that there is an entire cadre among the admins that just feel they are better than long-term users and just don't give a shit whether non-admin users are abused - nay, a cadre among admins that ENDORSE when non-admin users are abused. And you're one of them.
    Hooray cabal! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hipocrite is a troll of the first order, as he has frequently just plain lied in order to get his wikidick sucked. You bought right into his lies. SchmuckyTheCat 17:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote, rather than the alternative... I made my decision, I just used Hipocrite's quote to explain it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I love it when not-trolls tell me that I'm just plain lying to get my wikidick sucked. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You implied on the deleted RfC that I should be banned for "longer and longer periods of time" with the insuation that I'd been blocked previously, and was a troll of the first magnitude, for simply voicing opinions relevant to matters at hand, and for voicing my reasons in good faith for why certain articles should be retained. Virtually all my posts on this whole mess have been along the lines of disproving what I felt were incorrect statements, or revealing relevant information based on incontrovertible evidence that was being left by everyone all over Wikipedia. That's it. You also posted in the RfC and AfD comments like "such and such is a meatpuppet" or "such and such is a sockpuppet" to discredit others. When pressed by multiple editors to justify and prove your comments, you replied that you refuse to do so as it would "reveal IP information", which if it's not in WP edit history you as a non-admin should have *NO* access to based on Wikipedia rules. You really should disclose if you do have access to such information. When asked to then remove your inflammatory and unproven accusations, you simply refused. I'll note that any connections of evidence and behavior I pointed out were backed up with diffs, or common patterns of posting by others, which were in plain sight. rootology 18:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop trolling. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So you agree with the same misinformation he put out there regarding the matter? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trolling, just clearing up factually incorrect misrepresentations made about me. You still have never answered the questions based on your statements of where you had obtained IP information that you should not have access to on WP. As you had firmly insisted previously that revealed IP information on WP be removed (see the previous Karwynn situation), I ask that in good faith you do so now. rootology 18:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps the problem is that too many people with additional buttons are taking too much unilateral action on this whole case, end to end, above and beyond what they should have. Half the contentiousness and vitriol that has been (needlessly) generated with this whole ED thing from the beginning was because of people doing things as is they 1.) are in charge of the WP project; 2.) no regard for process--knowing full damn well that they're only going to incense people by not doing it right or by the book; 3). perhaps it's time for additional community (editor) level oversight of admin actions. Any project like this were anyone is above reproach will in the end fail as the project sways more and more in the horrid direction of cronyism. rootology 15:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Or perhaps the problem is too many people elevating WP:ILIKEIT over WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. That or too many trolls. Take your pick. Just zis Guy you know? 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's the answer! More bureaucracy! For heavens sake; every year the project as a whole gets more inclusionist. Mackensen (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hum...I wondered where that went to...now I know. For the record, I looked through the deleted pages of the ED article and saw nothing that I thought were personal attacks I had made, but that is my perception. Let's write an encyclopedia.--MONGO 16:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Underage users

    I was asked by a user I believe is underage what my sexuality is. I do not feel this is a personal attack or anything but it makes me profoundly uncomfortable to be asked this by a user who is underage. Now, I have no intention of discussing my sexuality, religion, or political views here on Wikipedia with anyone, it is not the right forum. But I am concerned when the discussion turns this way when the person engaging me in conversation is under age. Does anyone know of an article on Wikipedia or a reliable article on the Internet generally where I could direct such users which would warn them of the dangers without sounding like I'm going totally off the deep end (as I probably am in this paragraph)? --Yamla 04:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I personally proclaim it on my userpage because otherwise I'm answering questions all the time; there's nothing, in my opinion, wrong with them *knowing* that you're straight, gay, bisexual, or whatever else, it's when it crosses into actual discussion ("What does..." "Have you..." "How do you...") that it becomes problematic. There are probably documents online with the Center for Missing and Exploited Children that discuss safe internet practices, you might check there. Essjay (Talk) 04:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This article from education-world might help. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    SlimVirgin requested me to not edit article with non-specific threat

    SlimVirgin, a Wikipedia administrator, today requested that I not edit the article New Anti-Semitism for a couple weeks in order to allow here to assume good faith on my part or "there will be consequences". Is this proper? If I do edit that article, and in a proper manner using sourcing and being NPOV, would I be violating AGF with SlimVirgin? Here is the comment (emphasis added):

    "I would ask you not to embark on any editing of New anti-Semitism that is likely to be contentious. The article was disrupted for several weeks by Homeontherange, and as we're still dealing with the fallout of his behavior at Allegations of Israeli apartheid, this would be a provocative time to start it up again at NAS. I'd therefore appreciate it if you could leave it for a couple of weeks, at least, as a sign of your good faith. When you do start to edit, all that matters is what reliable sources have said about it. We shouldn't insert our own opinions. The best sources to use are academics, and these should be used whenever possible because there are many such sources available on this topic. Next down, well-known journalists/writers/researchers in that field writing for serious publications. If we stick to those, we should have no problem. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
    "I can't see a reason to request that I should refrain from editing it when I am ready -- can you point to the relevant policy? With regards to sources: I have experience writing at an academic level -- for example, I have a number of published papers, including one earlier this year in the top computer graphics journal. I have had quite a few positive citations, and adoption of my innovations, from leading academics at Stanford University, Pixar, Industrial Light and Magic, UCLA, and Berkely University. --Ben Houston 19:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
    "Your policy request is another example of the process fetishism that has caused so much trouble. I am requesting that you delay your edits as a sign of your good faith. If you want me to assume there is no good faith, fair enough, but understand there will be consequences[†], and we'll be back to square one with the nonsense Homey started. As for writing at an academic level, we very precisely do not write as though we are academics, who are allowed and encouraged to express their own views. We publish only what reliable sources have already published, and all contentious edits, or edits that are challenged, must cite a reliable source. We don't add our own opinions. We represent what the majority opinion is among reliable sources; next down, we represent the significant minority opinions among reliable sources; and we ignore tiny-minority ones. What we think about the issues is completely irrelevant; no one is interested in our personal views. I can't stress that enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
    † highlighting added by Ben Houston

    No one is seeking any sanctions against myself on any issues. I do not think it is appropriate that I be held accountable for someone else's actions. What is the appropriate course of action? Should be refrain from editing as SlimVirgin requests for 3 weeks because otherwise, in her words, "there will be consequences"? SlimVirgin has over 300 edits to the article in question, it does feel, from my perspective, that she is exerting ownership over it. --Ben Houston 06:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Guys can be virgins too... --mboverload@ 06:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But she's a she. I know because her user page is purple :) Thatcher131 06:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Purple doesn't mean anything. The "This user is a female contributor." userbox, however, might mean a bit more. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 06:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Au contraire, purple is symbolic of royalty, and protection, according to... a Hardy Boys book I read back in middle school. (And you thought I was going to say according to Wikipedia. Pshaw, how cliche.) JDoorjam Talk 07:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd suggest waiting to see what the ArbComm decides in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid. The decision there may resolve this issue. --John Nagle 06:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    While strongly worded, My initial reading of that was wrong, Slim's suggestion is well within bounds, but the use of the word "consequences" is unfortunately non-specific. I see now that it was more in the line of "it may mess up the detante" and less of "and you'll regret it." All editors are advised to tread carefully and source hygienically around contentious articles. While "acouple of weeks" is a long time, there are lots of other articles to edit aren't there? Nothing at all to see here, move along. - brenneman {L} 08:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE: SlimVirgin modified the original report, without comment except in the edit history, soon after I wrote it to remove my highlighting and mention of her non-specific threat of "there will be conseuqneces" -- see this edit of her [49]. --Ben Houston 13:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, well that would be because you modified her original statement without making it clear that the highlighting was in fact your work…I have remedied your omission (see † above). HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did disclose that I added emphais, see my introductory note which says "Here is the comment (emphasis added):" -- I will make it more prominent if there is a next time though. SlimVirgin modified the title of my request as well from "SlimVirgin requested me to not edit article or 'there will be consequences'?", which mentioned the threat to more harmless seeming "SlimVirgin requested me to not edit article" -- that was frigging weird that she would do that. I made the mistake of not mentioning the threat in the intro text thus the bold and the title were the only places -- both of which she deemphasized in her edit. I don't mind being told that what she did is okay, but modifying my report to change its focus is weird. --Ben Houston 14:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ben, as far as I can tell, you can edit the article, nobody owns it. It is good she made her point clear, but that does not imply you have to obey her request. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "The article was disrupted for several weeks by Homeontherange" - A brilliant statement which both ignores common courtesy and anything resembling assuming good faith in the editor. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 14:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And yet true. Proto::type 15:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE: SlimVirgin once again, see [50], modified my complaint without comment on this page except in the page history log -- strangeness indeed. --Ben Houston 15:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE: SlimVirgin modified the title once again [51]. --Ben Houston 19:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Masterhatch

    I've blocked Masterhatch (talk · contribs · logs) for 48 hours for rapidly and unilaterally moving pages from diacritic to nondiacritic names and continuing to do so despite being asked many times not to without prior discussion. When User:Ryulong then mass-reverted his page moves, Masterhatch began immediately undoing Ryulong's actions citing proposed policies and no actual consensus or discussion. I've informed Masterhatch that if he agrees to refrain from move-warring, I will unblock the account. As there is no real policy to govern move-warring blocks (other than debatably, disruption), I'm bringing the block here for review. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I ask you which policy Masterhatch's moves were against? It certainly couldn't be any of these, could it?
    • Wikipedia:Naming conventions "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."
    • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) "If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works. This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources."
    • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) "Diacritics should only be used in an article's title, if it can be shown that the word is routinely used in that way, with diacritics, in common usage. This means in reliable English sources, such as encyclopedias, dictionaries, or articles in major English-language newspapers." and "If the word is routinely listed in reliable English sources without diacritics, then the Wikipedia article should follow that method for the article title, though the diacritics version should be given in the initial paragraph of the article as suggested in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)." and "If it is not clear what "common usage" is, then the general Wikipedia guideline is to avoid use of diacritics in article titles."
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format#Use of diacritics and non-English characters
    Masterhatch should not have been blocked. The issue of diacritics is far from settled and taking unilateral action against one user is both heavily POV and abuse of admin privileges. BoojiBoy 14:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There was some discussion about it on some of the pages. See Talk:Marián Gáborík and Talk:Teemu Selänne. Both of these pages appeared to have consensus before most of his moves. -- JamesTeterenko 19:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess I should add that I propose the removal of this block. Yes, it was a move war, but not the most serious I have seen and he did have some discussion backing him up. I have seen a number of his edits, and he is not normally disruptive. -- JamesTeterenko 19:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RealityBoy's images

    This user has uploaded 54 images, all lacking any statement of source or license. The user has been warned about this, multiple times, with no response. The user has been blocked before, for 24 hours, for doing this. Today, the user uploaded 29 of the 54 images. I have blocked the user for 48 hours for this. I am looking to gage support for banning this user, from this account and any future sockpuppets that can be clearly identified as beloning to the same individual. Please state your thoughts on this below. Thanks for your time. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    How irritating and what a waste of time. His user page says: I am a normal boy who like [sic] to have fun. Maybe he can't read English so well. If he does more of the same after his 48-hour vacation, give him a longer block. If the same pattern emerges elsewhere from another user while he is (or isn't) blocked, permaban the sock. If he doesn't get the hint after a ban of a week or so, permaban him. (NB I haven't actually bothered to look up the relevant policy; I assume that you have already done so.) -- Hoary 09:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The general way I do it is simply to double the block lengths each time, and re-block after each bad image is uploaded. The progression would be 1 day, 2 days, 4 days, 8 days, 16 days, 1 month (32 days), 2 months (64 days), 4 months (128 days), etc. Probably by the 4 month time I'd just change it to a perma block. I haven't ever had to go that far. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps if he, for the most part, begins to adhere to the image policy, you should be more cautious with the block. So far, he clearly has been deliberately uploading pictures incorrectly, but later on you have to account for mistakes. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, let me amend my suggested procedure above - for every 5 sourced and licensed images uploaded, the next block length is halved; that will get it down to minimal with only a few good images uploaded. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    edits by 203.29.131.4 need attention

    I just reverted what seemed like random insertions of <nowiki> in Mountain by user 203.29.131.4. I looked at his contributions [[52]] and there seems to be a lot of dubious changes. I have not got time to check them out as I am at work! -- Chris Q 11:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's a shared IP, and I only see two strange edits recently, both of which have been reverted. Proto::type 11:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Concern About Archiving Recent Talk Page Warning and Discussion about Multiple Identities on Wikipedia

    I would respectfully ask that an administrator take a look at recent activities on User talk:Mantanmoreland. The user has archived a current and very significant ongoing discussion and warning from a Wiki administrator and member of the ArbComm committee regarding the use of multiple identities on Wikipedia. I tried, respectfully, to ask Mantanmoreland to keep this material current. I put up a post asking him to clear up any confusion and doubt created by this situation by clearly identifying how many user identities he is presently using, or has used, on Wikipedia. He has now twice deleted these remarks, and labelled them as “trolling,” something he does commonly as a way of removing anything he doesn’t want on his talk page. I believe this is a situation that warrants an administrative warning, or a significant block. This behavior has been repeated many times over quite a long time. Thanks. Ptmccain 12:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He has received an administrative warning. Unless he has continued to use multiple accounts in a deceptive way please let it go. Fred Bauder 12:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How would one go about determining the use of multiple identities on Wikipedia? I truly don't know. I'm happy to let it go, but I have no indication that the user will in fact cease and desist from using multiple personalities. Please advise how one can investigate and determine the use of multiple identities. It is appropriate to archive an administrative warning so quickly on one's talk page? Ironically, this same user told me that this was not appropriate when I was archiving. Let me know what Wiki policy is on this. Thanks. Ptmccain 13:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You would make a request at WP:CHECK. Proto::type 13:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the information. I will assume for now that the user in question will cease and desist from posting under multiple identities and if that is the case, great! But it is good to know what the options are. Ptmccain 14:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ptmccain, if you have further questions or need to discuss the matter further, you can contact me on my user talk page or by email. As Fred says, the situation has already been investigated and is being handled by several admins. FloNight talk 13:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EasterGeorge

    EasterGeorge has been spamming an exteral link to a white supremacist article on a number of pages, as well as mentioning said white supremacist's book in the "References" or "Further Reading" of various articles (this is the first time I've encountered "refspam"). I left spam template tags on his Talk page, and his response was to harass me by e-mail. When told that he should leave remarks on Talk page, not contact editors by e-mail, he continued to e-mail me. CRCulver 13:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, we can't prove whether emails were or were not sent, but the contribution list is good enough for me. Spam-only account, indefinitely blocked. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris

    I have stepped into an incipient page move war at this featured list. Someone please second guess me (actually, on second thoughts, just shoot me, it will be quicker). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That is one lame edit war... You do not seem to be a party to the move war so reverting per lack of consensus and locking the page is totally within bounds. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you looked down far enough - there was a counter-proposition to move the article to "Île-de-France" that waited seven days before closing. Only one opposed the move, and this is the same that reverted. This isn't only about consensus, but referencable fact - I suggest you read the talk page. Sorry it's so full of cruft, but please pay particular attention to mention of references - this is what a proper name is all about, even before it became a question of consensus. THEPROMENADER 14:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    After a riveting read of the talk page, I would conclude that ALoan's actions are correct. There appears to be one very motivated editor itching to move the page (even inexplicably threatening RfCs to one editor who - correctly - described his actions as 'page appropriation'), and a number of editors who believe the page is fine where it is. Therefore, the page should stay where it is, as per consensus, and the numerous precedents on Wikipedia that ThePromenader seems to be ignoring. Proto::type 15:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not at all opposing ALoan's actions. Because of the low traffic on the page(s) in question, the argument in question has become a one-on-one over fact, and only one side in this is arguing for fact. Now that the page is blocked, if you like you can take the time to decide who. Excuse my shortened tone but I can't help feeling I'm getting the short end in this. THEPROMENADER 15:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Captain scarlet, who has so far always seconded User:ThePromenader (read: User talk:Captain scarlet#Son of "Tallest structures"), hid the list of skyscrapers from List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris. What's the point of the article if the list is hidden? I restablished the list. More disturbing still, the same Captain scarlet has transformed List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France, which was so far a redirect, into an independent article by starting a stub there. That sort of weasely behavior is quite disturbing. Is that how Wikipedia is supposed to work? Hardouin 16:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Captain scarlet has now removed the list of skyscrapers altogether from the article and moved it to List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France (which was previously only a redirect), leaving List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris as a rump article. That's called moving an article by doing cut and paste, which goes both against consensus on the talk page and Wikipedia policy. Hardouin 16:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have rolled back the changes, and protected the original article until genuine consensus is reached. --ajn (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'hiding' was indeed a step beyond, but I think we can attribute this to the high editing temperatures caused by the wholesale reverting and short-sightedness in all this. It doesn't matter who's on 'who's side' but the verifiablilty of it all - by all means, let's talk, but through referenced fact only please. THEPROMENADER 17:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I have and until the article either hs appropriate content or an appropriate name I'll do it till the situation is described properly. I have no intentions on accepting erronous information on the grounds of User:Hardouin having particular and special beliefs when it comes to geography. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true that the article cannot remain in error, and will eventually change - but the fact that the road to this is obstructed by one using any means but reference to reverse any progress towards this indeed maddening. I do understand the frustration, but I wouldn't go drawing the line in that way: what we need is some sort of referee to ask for reference in the matter, then all will be clear and we can be done with all the referencless bantering and unjustified reverting and we won't have to bother anyone. THEPROMENADER 23:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are precisely the sort of attitudes which will keep the article protected. I have blocked Captain Scarlet for a week because his response to the protection was (yet again) to try to subvert it and avoid discussion by changing links in other articles in anticipation of the "inevitable" name change. Negotiate, properly, on the article's talk page. Having looked at the history and "evidence" myself, I'm inclining towards the view that the current name's the right one and that moving to another name would represent the triumph of mindless literalism and pedantry over common sense and common usage - but I'm not going to get involved in the discussion, just in ensuring that any changes are the result of proper discussion, consensus and compliance with policies and guidelines. --ajn (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, thanks for wading in. At least I can now express my opinion on the talk page :) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Look, you were right to block the article and put a stop to the reverting/moving/forking etc, and I even thank you for it. As for attitude, this only appears where discussion fails, and it would seem that this must again be discussed. As you seem to be getting involved, I can thank you for that too. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 10:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing talk page

    Does removing other peoples talk page contribution in a higly contetious current event war merit a block? Or is it acceptable? --Striver 14:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It just appears to be a refactoring of comments, not removal. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Refactoring or personal attacks or unsourced critical material about living people from articles and talk pages is possible. But that is all. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The material he removed was neither PA or OR, Was it? --Striver 15:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't look like PA or OR to me, from that edit diff. Though I am intentionally not following those articles or discussions relative to them, other than the edit context right there. Georgewilliamherbert 00:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Avraham sockpuppet case

    I am a little baffled by this suspected sock puppet case against an admin, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Avraham. It appears to be made in bad faith against him, since he accused another user of sockpuppetry. Any comments are appreciated. Iolakana|T 14:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with you, Kilo: this certainly looks like a bad faith case, considering the circumstances and the evidence presented by Avraham. I can attest for the seriousness of Avraham both as an editor and as an admin. I wouldn't take this very seriously, and I'm sure it will get cleared in his favor pretty soon. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 03:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to hear people think I made the accusation in bad faith --- I can assure you I did not. I thought I laid my suspicions out clearly. If I'm wrong, fine, but I think I detect a hint of favoritism in this decision. As far as this being a retaliatory case, if you read Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SkipSmith you'll see Avi is the one who actually filed a sockpuppet case in retaliation (note the line "I was hoping I would not have to do this, but Skip's accusation forces me down this road"). SkipSmith 00:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A multitude of hoaxes

    Several users, apparently school kids from the Baltimore area, have been salting Wikipedia with hoaxes for a long time now. They started with many, many articles on a supposedly famous American familiy called the Eyre/Heller/Peters "dynasty", all of which have been deleted now. Today Aría has been listed for AfD, and because of that, by checking the contributions of the article's authors, I encounted yet again another Eyre family hoax, Knowlton Estate. I have pared down Grange Estate to a one-sentence stub, since there was nothing verifiable in it since it included more Eyre/Heller nonsense. I have also speedy deleted Category:Eyre family, as it was being slapped on more articles which just begged for more hoaxing. I have warned three of the contributors of the articles that if they write any more hoaxes, I will personally block them permanently. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Review also User:History21, User:70.104.231.84, Judy Feder, Eyre legend, Eyrecourt Castle, Westminster High School (Westminster, Maryland), And Having Writ Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And Having Writ does appear to be a real SF book, though how much of what they wrote about it in the article is true, who can say? Again, Judy Feder is a real Congressional candidate, though her article needs a lot of attention. They also seem to be involved in an edit war at Maryland. I'm wondering about sockpuppets. "They" also seem to have a lot of interest in First Family of the United States. Also watch User:70.35.97.241. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    R40A (New York City Subway car)

    A set of IPs have been changing information on various pages about the NY subway. Multiple editors have asked these IPs for a source/reference with no sign of a reply. The edit summaries are very similar.

    What should be done in this sort of situation? Gimmetrow 17:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Go to WP:RFPP and ask for Semi-Protection. Editor88 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. However, another editor did ask and was denied. In this case, latest IP violated 3RR so there should be a short break. My general question is about "devoted" editors who repeatedly edit the same thing into an article, despite multiple other editors asking for a reference. If the editor won't respond on talk or user-talk, it's not exactly a content dispute. In a different case I'm following, an editor has made the same edit about 24 times in 20 days, not violating 3RR but also not explaining the edit. What to do? Gimmetrow 19:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Users end up being disruptive by refusing to discuss what is obviously a contested edit, and can be temporarily blocked for it. Clearly if they're making the same edit 24 times in 20 days without discussing the edit, they're not interested in consensus and should be temporarily removed from the process. JDoorjam Talk 19:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dig pages

    User:Hillman has created a set of "dig" pages to track users. Purporting to be "personal notes" for an essay, they record edits by IP addresses and user accounts and group them under presumed real-life identities, with WHOIS and other information. These are not vandals, but users deemed by Hillman to have made "bad" edits. Each page notes that some of the information "may be sensitive and therefore should not be widely publicized if this can be avoided," and yet they reside on one of the highest-traffic sites on the Web, and show up in Google searches. I've contacted Hillman, but she won't discuss the matter on-wiki. Do these pages contravene the "Posting personal details" section of the blocking policy? Are they an appropriate use of Wikipedia? Tim Smith 18:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    They are the same stuff that shows up here at ANI, and in RFC's, and suchlike, all the time. I'm not too bothered. I disagree with some of the stuff on User:Hillman's user page but overall it's one of the most interesting wiki-essays I've seen so far, and I'm satisfied about Hillman's motives. Anyway, anyone interested in wiki-abuse issues keeps notes like that. At least with Hillman, you know what s/he is writing down about you (if anything). Lots of others maintain this kind of data privately and exchange it with each other on closed wikis or by email. Which of those practices (Hillman's or the alternative) creeps you out more? Phr (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Legitimate tracking of long-term POV vandalism. Nothing to see here... Just zis Guy you know? 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to be a quite legitimate effort to document and research vandalism and POV-pushing on Wikipedia. FCYTravis 00:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tim, if you will just give me a chance, I have sought and recieved some valuable admin feedback and am about to make some changes (beginning by retracting that silly "no link" thing). I was trying to avoid a public furore to increase the chances that I will actually find time to finish my essay on User:Hillman/Digging, which ironically is intended as a first step on the long road to proposing, discussing, and establishing a policy on when digging is and is not appropriate. Since the furore arrived before I could finish my essay, I am considering a volte face and may nominate these pages myself for RfC or even MfD. Please give me a chance to consider how to to that since I think the Sarfatti and Haisch pages have legitimate uses in addition to background for my essay. Your cooperation is appreciated! ---CH 22:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have asked Tim to give me a chance to RfC the pages in question, so trust this is now moot. I ask DrL (talk · contribs) and others not to edit the pages, at least not during the RfC (but I thought it was in bad taste to edit pages in another users user space if they have asked that others not edit these pages?) ---CH 23:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the tracked users are POV-pushers or vandals, but others seem to be good-faith contributors whose connection to "alternative" theories put them under Hillman's radar. They range from notable public figures like Bernard Haisch (who mentions his conflict with Hillman in a recent LA Times op-ed) to pseudonymous editors about whose real-life identities Hillman speculates at length. The "Posting personal details" section of the blocking policy states that "Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time," and publicizing presumed real-life names and places of residence would seem to contravene it. (If the policy carries implicit exceptions, those need to be made explicit.) I appreciate that Hillman's goal is to formulate a policy on when "digging" is and is not appropriate, but it is obviously premature to make the digging public before the policy has been formulated. Tim Smith 23:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Football365

    Please keep a close eye on IP address 86.133.156.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They have contributed malicious and highly irrelevant content to the page mentioned in my title over a very small period of time (~15 minutes). Thank you. --Raj Fra 18:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to have six pages (redirects) protected

    Text is based on earlier request by Suedois at 18:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC) in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive119. The infamous Kven editor, under new usernames all the time, is repeatedly recreating forks, at Cwen, Kvæn, Kveeni, Qven, Quen and Kvenland. They are, and have always been, newer cut-and-pastes of material written in the original page, now split into Kven and Kvens of the past. Any block against Kven editir is not highly efficient, as (s)he shows a pattern to create a new username (recent days, User:WeBeToys and User:TheTruth1 at least) to continue same edits. As it is clear that cut-and-paste forks are not allowed, could somebody freeze the situation of those six redirect pages, with indef protection against editing and moving. After all, no one should have any legitimate interest to edit anything in those redirects. Let us have a situation where only the oldest articles are the battleground, and not also several forks. --Labongo 19:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Just zis Guy you know? 21:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi Protection Request

    Requesting a Semi Protection for Article United_Pentecostal_Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) due to regular Vandalism and unwanted anonymous editing. Pastor Linu 21:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Err, eyeing the above requests, this isn't the place for this. You should go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection instead (WP:RFP for short). Cowman109Talk 21:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KittenKlub and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal

    KittenKlub is engaged in an edit war between Cabalists in regards to his changing a comment behind Rob Church's name on the former cabalist list.

    KittenKlub alleges that the comment is a personal attack, while the diffs behind the original incident provide a view that KittenKlub was acting in an incivil manner. He is now in violation of 3RR on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal and WP:CIVIL at the very least.

    Please act expediently in this manner, should you require further information, I am available on talk pages or on IRC under the same. CQJ 00:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't worry about it. I guess the situation was resolved per this. CQJ 01:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Emico sock proxies and Iglesia ni Cristo

    I've been involved in a dispute with User:Emico who has been banned by arbcom over his edits to Iglesia ni Cristo. Over time he's been trying to edit the article using Proxy IPs and sockpuppets. However, recent developments over the article have caused him to edit to his POV in a circular fashion. As a result, User:Voice of All semi-protected the article. Since the protection, emico sockpuppets and proxies have been attacking me over on my User talk page and Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo. I've semi protected my talk page. Now it seems he intends to take the problem beyond Wikipedia, as shown by this link which I refuse to visit. After taking advice from other admins. I've went ahead and semi-protected Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo. Your input? --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 03:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't even want to know what garbage he wrote on that forum. but glancing at INC related forums at that site, it's full of Encyclopaedia Dramatica style crap. I've added this incident to his arbitration case as well as called User:Voice of All about this. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 04:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure there is much I can add here.Voice-of-All 18:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nonstop Vandal Reverts to House of Yahweh

    • 64.185.45.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a vandalism only IP and has been making the same blatantly POV vandalous edit to the House of Yahweh article. Every time, I, or someone else, puts the appropriate warning template on their page, which eventually leads to having the user posted at WP:AIV, when I tried it this time however, they didn't block the IP, with the excuse; "user hasn't edited in hours". Let me just reinforce the fact that this IP only makes one edit and they've made that same edit repeatedly since May 2006. At what point do we say "enough is enough"? Is there anything I can do? Or do I just let this person continue to vandalize Wikipedia?

    On a more philosphical note, is the fact that he "hadn't edited in hours" really a reason to not block someone who clearly only has one purpose on this site? - pm_shef 03:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    IP static, blocked for one week. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:OR violation on anarchism and individualist anarchism

    User:Lingeron keeps inserting a section on Thomas Jefferson,[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61] claiming that he was significant in the development of anarchism as a socio-political philosophy. There is no mention of any such thing in the article on Jefferson himself, and the claim seems dubious to me. A few sources have been provided, but nothing that escapes, in my opinion, the policy on original research. I would appreciate it if somebody stopped by and explained the policy to Lingeron. She appears not to trust anybody who disagrees with her, claiming that we are Communists bent on destroying Wikipedia and subverting America. No joke. Anyways, she seems determined to have this in there, and we've got an edit war brewing, so any help would be great (on a side note, she has also been making some highly POV edits, like this, and could probably use an explanation of that policy, as well. I've tried, but she won't listen to me.) --AaronS 03:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No, you're right, Aaron, I won't listen to you. I tend not to listen to editors who have no tolerance for edits that don't coincide with their POV pushing agenda. Honestly, Aaron, your need to dominate all articles pertaining to anarchism, and even to destroy the one that has featured status, is revolting. I would appreciate it if someone would look here at anarcho-capitalism and see the work what AaronS and Blahblahblah are doing to destroy this article. The only policy that AaronS seems to have heard of is WP:OR and yet, sadly, he has no actual grasp of it. Also, there are several other editors who agree with my edits. Shannonduck talk 03:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll just let those comments stand on their own. --AaronS 04:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You should really tone down your rhetoric. It's not going to help matters at all. The Ungovernable Force 09:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Guess what? I'm going to watch both those pages, then decide which one of you deserves to be slapped. =D --mboverload@ 05:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nobody deserves to be slapped. Shame on you. --FOo 08:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are User:Lingeron's comments describing her own activity:
    The Ungovernable Force, when I study I like to study the actual history and the events that happened rather than rely on another researcher's point of view. I like to just get the facts and then draw my own conclusions. It's like reading a newspaper. One can read a right or left leaning paper, where some of the facts are left out, and come to right or left leaning conclusions. I would much rather just get the facts and make up my own mind about the event.[62]
    If that's not the definition par excellence of original research, I don't know what is. --AaronS 12:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    AD removal vandalism

    Through discussions at the anti-vandalism IRC chat, as well as various edits by myself, CodexSinaiticus, and others are dealing with a vandal (originally named Panairjdde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) who edits from 151.44.0.0/16 and 151.47.0.0/16 who constantly removes AD (Anno Domini) from various articles because of his interpretation of WP:DATE, feeling that the statement "Normally AD should not be used..." means that AD should not be used. While there is a discussion going on at the Manual of Style for Dates and numbers' talk page about the interpretation of this statement, this user has constantly removed the usage of AD from articles, most of which can be found in the history of one of the IPs he has used: 151.44.81.169 (talk · contribs). January and Gospel of Thomas were sprotected, but this user has way too much of a range of articles that he does his removals from that it is near impossible to sprotect them all. The following is a small sample:

    This user's main account was indef blocked, but he has used other user names and disconnecting and reconnecting and resetting his IP address. He seems to be using this Italian ISP, and if Wikipedia were to put long-term blocks on the two /16 ranges he editted from, that would block more than 130,000 Italian users from editting the English Wikipedia anonymously or otherwise. However, it appears that the only edits from these wide ranges are from this editor, and the ranges can be narrowed down further to 151.44.75.0/24 through 151.44.125.0/24 (I do not know the CIDR terminology for showing a range of ranges) and 151.47.75.0/24 through 151.47.125.0/24. These ranges would end up blocking near 25600 editors (I think) instead of the 130000 users of internet.libero.it. I am requesting assistance here, as there doesn't appear to be any way that this huge range can be dealt with. Ryūlóng 03:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You might try 151.44.64.0/18, which will catch 151.44.64.0 through 151.44.127.255 (16000 adresses). Thatcher131 (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While that is a good idea, I am not sure if it will be used, as to prevent this vandalism the same block would have to be placed on 151.47.64.0/16. Ryūlóng 06:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I will suggest it to the admin who suggested I go here, but I would still prefer input from others. Ryūlóng 06:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Manga copyvios

    Kawaiiprinces2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has added a number of pages on manga topics with text fetched directly from external websites. The user has also added a few articles containing nothing but an infobox. I know nothing about manga; I'm tempted to just tag the lot as speedies, but I don't want to bite a newbie (and very likely a child). Perhaps somebody who is interested in manga/anime could open a dialogue with Kawaiiprinces2004 and examine what is salvageable/rewritable? Tupsharru 09:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I deleted all that I could find, as they contained nothing but a copyvio. --InShaneee 23:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    EddieSegoura/Exicornt Vandal

    YankeeFan2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked today as another EddieSegoura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/Exicornt vandal sock. Yankeefan2006.. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now appeared, using a partial copy of User:YankeeFan2006's user page and talk page. It seems likely to be another sock or possible impersonator. More info: [63] and [64]. Thanks. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrator user:Alex Bakharev and his semi-protection spree

    Does this edit warrant a block of the article just to please user:Ghirlandajo, who has WP:OWN problems (for which he was blocked), when I first corrected false information and inserted a proper caption? Also, is it fair to be called a sock to discredit an anonymous IP's edits? Same thing at Nevsky Prospect, where Ghirla's two uploaded photos are untouchable despite both of them being vintage, for which another user got bullied, and only my intervention brought about a discussion, at the cost of my edit? Any administrators willing to intervene without being afraid of being pounced on and demeaned, as other admins who have stood up to him have?? 83.5.249.155 12:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    For a recent few days many articles written by User:Ghirlandajo are under attacks from an anonymous stalker. See for example:
    All the attacks come from the same B-type sub-net 83.5.*.* . The attacker is an obvious sockpuppet of an established user. All the contributions of the anonyms is just some reverts of Ghirlandajo's edits (mostly picked up from some stale edit war) and more or less abusive complains on Ghirlandajo. Some users suspect that the anonym is a sockpuppet of User:Molobo circumventing his one-year block, but on this stage I am almost sure that it is not the case.

    I am tring to get to the bottom of this, but as a first step I indeed semi-protected a few articles. The anonym's puppetmuster is an established user and can edit semiprotected articles if he wish abakharev 13:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Of course attacks and stalking are newspeak for editing and increased scrutiny after the incidents I have posted above, providing the rationale for my actions (Sortavala being the first case, where he used deliberately inflammatory language "reunited with Russia"). Notice the stress put on the word "attack" as to discredit me. I am hopeful the actions of the above mentioned pair will be brought to the attention of a much wider audience, especially Alex's protectorate over Ghirla's unhindered slander. PS Not my fault I have a dynamic IP. 83.5.249.155 13:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree with Alex that we are seeing sockpuppetry here, and with the disclaimer I have not reviewed all edits of those anons, those that I have does not look like attacks. Yes, they are revert warring, but that requires two to tango, and I'd suggest protecting the articles and let Ghirla and the anon solve their differences on talk, unless there are anon edits that are clearly vandalism, I see no reason as far as content goes to penalize contributions of anons over that of registered editors. That said, on the first sign that the anon main goal is indeed not content creation but some kind of trolling, vandalism or harassment, I would fully support semi-protection and/or ban.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  14:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Pschemp will probably block me (?)

    moved from the Villiage pump pschemp | talk 13:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I'm posting here because I'm not really sure where else to turn for help. I fully expect my account (Andy emigré) to be blocked by User:Pschemp for making this edit, if only because it raises questions about the appropriateness of his/her blocks, the one on myself included. I realize Wikipedia suffers considerably from trolls and vandals, but really--Pschemp's blocks on myself and this "No Chinese allowed" guy seem not to be aimed at reducing vandalism, but rather at silencing criticism of his/her own behavior.

    So, could someone (1) keep an eye on the page "User:No_Chinese_allowed" to make sure Pschemp doesn't erase my comment, and (2) make sure he/she doesn't block me in retribution for whistleblowing, if such behavior is indeed inappropriate according to whatever relevant rules may exist? Thanks in advance.

    Andy emigré 08:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    One more thing I wanted to ask. Am I correct to infer that there's no oversight to curb this sort of administrative abuse? Or was Pschemp justified, after all, in deleting my comments and blocking my account? If the latter, my apologies for wasting your time; if the former, I'm left wondering how Wikipedia can keep potential editors, such as myself and those others in my department I mention in the forcibly redacted comment, interested instead of disillusioned and bitter at the forceful rejection of our contributions. Andy emigré 08:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Responded at user's talk.--Kchase T 08:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The username policy is mainly in place to avoid a couple of things:
    • Obviously trollish accounts - "WIKIPEDIA IS GHEY" and the like.
    • Impostor accounts of varying sneakinesses - say, "Jimbo WaIes". (Note that the middle letter of the last name is an uppercase i, not a lowercase L.)
    • Untypable usernames - like "小", I'm afraid, as well as long random strings of characters. There's a standing policy on this wiki against "untypable" usernames, as they're extremely difficult to tell apart.
    I don't see any evidence of blocks having been carried out outside of this policy, though. No Chinese allowed (talk · contribs) hasn't been blocked, and neither have you - and I see no evidence that either of you are going to be, either. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, when Pschemp blocked me (on my now inaccessible "Anonymous Andy" account) it seemed to be in direct retribution for criticizing his behavior towards the "No Chinese allowed" guy; my experiences stemmed from someone at my university had managed to get the entire department blocked under the guideline to which you refer.

    The policy of blocking users without explanation and no apparent means of getting unblocked (I don't remember seeing a procedure on the block page, at least as of a few months ago when Wikipedia had my department's subnet blocked--the reason for which, again, I had to turn to offline sources to discover) is a huge turnoff to potential contributors. I just hope you understand that. Andy emigré 09:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A reason was given for this diff among others and it was (personal attacks, trolling on articles) Your use of profanity and personal attacks on me are against policies and not appropriate. Yet, on your talk page, you have repeated them. It is quite obvious you are upset about the username policy and are taking it out on me. Why not do something more constructive? pschemp | talk 12:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen several users with Chinese characters in their usernames here, and they have not been blocked. I think blocking usernames with Chinese characters (or other languages) is unfair, and sometimes names are not easy to romanize. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether you like it or not, its policy at WP:USERNAME and has been so.pschemp | talk 12:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If by "potential contributors" he means "people who will start calling people d1ckheads" at the drop of a hat, then we can probably live without them. IIRC the "unpronounceable" chinese name that was blocked a few months ago was reported here as being either an insult when translated or the chinese characters were not resolving properly and causing problems. Syrthiss 13:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, that's not what I mean by "potential contributors." Now that's a little unfair; I don't think I'm being unreasonable here. Surely it's not difficult to understand that getting blocked without warning (what triggered my block was an attempt to rewrite a comment to REMOVE a personal attack on Pschemp), with no easy recourse (how can you talk to an admin when you've been blocked from editing?), and apparently for reasons of self-interest alone, doesn't endear people to your project. I'm not a "vandal" or "troll," if that's what you're implying. Andy emigré 17:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this "removing" a personal attack? pschemp | talk 19:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Andy, this looks like you have been blocked in the past because of usernames that were against the username policy. So no admin abuse there. Then, instead of reading the username policy, realising that those are just the rules of the game here, you respond bitter and frustrated, and show that frustration by leaving comments about 'abusive admins'. Also, the text you see when you try to edit when you're blocked, is pretty clear in what to do when you are blocked: MediaWiki:Blockedtext. Anyway, please drop the issue, don't take it this personally, create a username that stays witin policy and start editing! If you disagree with the username policy, please go to the talk page of the policy page and start a discussion there, perhaps you can convince the community to change the policy, who knows? --JoanneB 14:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wait a sec, *I* have never been blocked for usernames against policy... when did this become about me? :-P Look, perhaps you're misunderstanding my complaint? I'm not out to cause trouble here, I'm just trying to point out that administrative abuse is annoying enough to drive people away from Wikipedia. Anyway, yeah, it doesn't matter. Andy emigré 17:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What abuse? pschemp | talk 19:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently, this:
    (a) blocking User:小 without politely giving him the chance to change his name first (even though WP:CHU recommends if you have very low numbers of edits to just start over to avoid making work for the 'crats and loading the servers)
    (b) blocking User:anonymous Andy for calling wikipedians "Fucking dickheads" [65],
    (c) removing the Fucking dickheads comment from User:No Chinese allowed (note: the user page, not the user talk page), and
    (d) blocking his whole university department from editing (which must have been an autoblock, so I guess its your fault for not knowing his whole department uses one proxy server, and for not personally telling him that he can use wikipedia mail to contact you about the autoblock even when blocked)
    So clearly you should turn over your mop immediately! Thatcher131 (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ps3fan2005

    Ps3fan2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has written several articles and uploaded several images that are clearly copyright violations. Speedy deletion, {{prod}}, and AfD templates added to the articles in question have been removed repeated and it appears as though the notices regarding copyrights on the user's talk page are being ignored. Can an admin take care of the situation? Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I added a warning regarding the removal of the {{afd}} templates (apparently he hadn't actually gotten one before). Let's see if he heeds the warning. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD blanking & short block

    Just so other people can keep an eye on it, user "Sango123" (the name that shows up on signatures, but not the name that shows in edit history) has been blanking [66] this AfD. This is after significant voting had taken place. Even if one has indisputable proof of "bad faith nomination," one does not get to blank an AfD, much less re-blank it with "rv vandalism" in the edit summary. A longer block may be called for and more investigation of the person. Geogre 14:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely as a vandalism only, impersonating account. --Cyde↔Weys 15:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • My apologies to all. I saw the blanking, and then I was rushing out the door, so I didn't investigate and see that it was an impersonator. I thought it might be, but I didn't have the time to really check it out. Conversely, my thanks to everyone for going the mile I couldn't go. Geogre 18:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Marudubshinki running unauthorized robots

    The following is copied from this edit to my userpage. -- SCZenz 16:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, I noticed that you were responsible for blocking the robot User:Bot-maru, and thought you might be able to help with a more recent situation with its user, User:Marudubshinki. He has been running bots through his regular user account, and recieves frequent complaints about its errors. His response to these complaints is in general quite callous, and he continues to make automated edits with this user account.
    My first complaint can be seen at User talk:Marudubshinki/Archive 49 under "Your - the the + the bot". Current complaints can be seen at User talk:Marudubshinki under: "Please stop fixing my double redirect", "Removing whitespace ...", "Robot removing selflinks", "Bot removing self-links is causing grief", "External link bot".
    Is there anything you can do about this, as an admin? - Rainwarrior 06:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The answer is, I've been aware of the problem for quite some time, but I'm not sure what to do. Marudubshinski runs an unauthorized bot out of his own account, to do minor tasks, and fairly regularly annoys people. It is undoubtedly against bot policy, a fact he's aware of but has basically shrugged off; he also routinely shrugs off complaints, by which I mean that he fixes problems but seems quite unconcerned that his bot is breaking pages. I tried emailing a member of the bot authorization group, but that never came to anything I'm aware of... So what should we do? -- SCZenz 16:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Block him indefinitely and only lift the block once you get a promise that he will go through the proper channels for bot authorization and never run it under his own account. --Cyde↔Weys 16:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked Maru indefinitely pending his assurance re bot useage. [67]. -- I@n 02:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I support this action. It's a simple thing for him to get himself unblocked. Maru has been brazenly violating policy, and continually illustrating why that policy exists in the process; as an admin, he should be setting the opposite example. -- SCZenz 02:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He was previously blocked indefinitely for running unauthorised bots on the 13th, but unblocked himself the same day claiming the bots were shut down, and has since started the bots up again. To my mind this is a most grievous abuse of admin privileges. I've left a message on his talk page suggesting that he is under intense scrutiny at the moment and is not likely to get away with doing so again. I recommend keeping an eye on his block log until the matter is settled. Snottygobble 02:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case the block message did say he could unblock himself when the bot was shut down, but the clear implication that unauthorized bots are not allowed was clearly ignored. Sadly support the block. Question, however, since there are a lot of bot-blocks, and User:Bot-maru was indef blocked and never fixed (or rather, moved to the main account), what happens if he promises to get approval, gets himself unblocked, and then runs the bot again? Thatcher131 (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that was on the 6th. He was blocked indefinitely by AmiDaniel on the 13th, with the summary "Please request approval before running your bot." AmiDaniel also left a message on his talk page explicitly instructing him "Please email me or add {{unblock}} to have the block removed--do not unblock yourself." Maru unblocked himself and continued running his bot without requesting bot approval. Snottygobble 02:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a pretty strong community consensus against running a bot as an admin, and it's trivial to get a new bot account, the bot policy is pretty clear that this block is supported, although I hope it will not be a reason for Maru to leave over. As for the bot actions themselves, they appear fairly harmless, but inefficient (e.g. here multiple edits were made in succession, where they could have been made at once. — xaosflux Talk 02:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused about the history re the 15th, and I'll review it again shortly. However I'd just like to say in response to Thatcher's question the following... Maru has never lied, he's just ignored policy. If he unblocks himself or promises to stop and then doesn't, I have a rather clear idea what to do, but I think that discussion is premature. Also to Xaosflux, I'd like to mention that there have been more serious issues like editing peoples' talk page comments and breaking links. -- SCZenz 03:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just saw the comments related to those, and it goes back to show exactly why WP:RFBOT exists. — xaosflux Talk 03:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblocking himself

    I'd also like to note that Snottygobble's statement above is 100% correct, even though at least two of us were confused. Maru did unblock himself after being explicitly instructed not to do so by Ami Daniel on the 13th. [68] [69]. -- SCZenz 03:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ethnic slur

    Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) has been issuing multiple ethnic slurs (making comments about "Poles and holes")[70][71] I politely brought this to his attention yesterday and asked him to stop [72], but he has not only continued the behavior, but is actually now posting similar uncivil comments on WP:AN [73]. I request administrator intervention in this matter, regarding a user who shows clear unwillingness to behave in a civil manner. --Elonka 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    With the disclaimer that I am one of those often targeted by Ghirlandajo, I second Elonka, and would like to point out that this is an example of common behaviour on Ghirlandajo's part (as shown by this RfA from last year and this RfArb warning), and that Ghirlandajo has already been blocked once for incivility; a longer block should be considered.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  17:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no excuse for this, and yeah, I see that it's been a recurring problem. I've blocked for 48 hours and explained on User talk:Ghirlandajo. As always, I welcome review of the block by anyone, and invite other admins to adjust the block as they see fit, if they strongly disagree with what I've done here. Friday (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Expressing no opinion on the crrent block (I just edit conflicted with the note), why do you not try dispute resolution? How many times I have seen you complaining about his behavior, and never considering my recommendations, long ago since, to hear it before ArbCom. By now, do you think it will change? Dmcdevit·t 17:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Assuming you are asking me, I prefer content creation to politics, and I believe the accumulated evidence is pretty clear; besides, ArbCom has enough to do to bother them with such a clear case. If community disagrees with Friday (whom I strongly support), then perhaps I will take the case to ArbCom, but hopefully nobody will defend such gross and recurring violations of WP:CIV, and Ghirla will learn his lesson after two days vacation (I am an optimist, but what's wrong with it?). PS. Mediation was already tried and Ghirla refused to participate in it, as he often shows contempt for DR procedures.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  17:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Piotrus, if there is someone who is habitually crossing the border, it's sort of a community service to get the roots of the problem exposed. I know that mounting an RFAR is painful and time consuming, but, especially if one party refuses to mediate, it's the only way to separate the issues and get a more lasting solution. N.b. I have no opinion whatever on the merits of the case and have had no poor dealings with any of the editors in question. I just have to agree with Dmcdevit that we're too often too weary to see things set right, if there is some promise of mere relief. Geogre 18:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I would have thought, it's not "such a clear case". If the evidence is so compelling, then there's the evidence that arcom is appropriate. There's no denying that Ghirla is very prolific, which makes this something other than clear cut, anyway. Dmcdevit·t 03:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, Ghirlanda is continuing to rant against "the Poles" at User_talk:Ghirlandajo#Personal_remarks. I have no knowlege of the history of this situation, but it's possible I've kicked a hornet's nest here. Friday (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am afraid Elonka have to learn to read English language here. There was no ethnic slur (although there was a mild personal attack) directed to poles. This misunderstanding is particulatly noticeable from her remark at Ghirla's talk page: I find this particular comment that you made about Poles being a type of "Holes", offensive. The phrase in question is a quoted pun: "If people from Poland are called Poles, why aren't people from Holland called Holes?", and if it is offensive to anybody, they would be "people from Holland", not from Poland. I think User:Friday is overreacted here and kicked the hornet's nest indeed. As for 'rant against "the Poles"' it refers to indeed mildly unetical unilateral action of admin user:Balcer, who, being a participant of a certain discussion, unilaterally reverted the decision of another admin. `'mikka (t) 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Balcer is not an admin. Perhaps you would like to double-check your other facts, too. And or the record, I find this 'mild personal attack' a highly offensive one. And yes, the original quote was not offensive, but Ghirla took it out of context and with additions such like "The Poles, however, do not like to be accountable to the same standards as others" and "the Poles are so different from all the rest" I find quite offensive.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I obviously second mikka's opinion. This is completely ridiculous. For instance, a few months ago, a user that will remain anonymous said "if he speaks Russian, drinks vodka and sings Katyusha - he's a Russian". However, he never got blocked for that, while I think we're talking about the same level of mild offense.
    This whole story remains me of one alledged historical episode. Someone asked Churchill: "Why is there no anti-semitism in Great Britain?". And Churchill answered: "because we don't think Jews are cleverer than us", or something in that tune. A balanced and normal person does not care about such kind of petty remarks. IMHO, jumping on the gun because of such remarks only reveals one's hypersensitivity and insatisfaction, and not much else... :(
    Furthermore, what admins should have investigated is why Piotrus and Ghirla get along so bad with each other, which could bring some quite interesting elements for a possible dispute resolution.
    Consequently, I ask admins to review the block. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    whoa, could somebody review this block? Ghirlandajo said nothing like "Poles are holes", kindly look at the diffs in context. This appears to be a typical case of nationalist editors ganging up until one feels compelled to shake them and ask what is it with your precious nationality. Taken out of context, such exasperation can be too easily dennounced as "ethnic slurs". Nationalism (the bad kind, as opposed to sane mild patriotism) is evil and has no place on Wikipedia. I recognize Ghirlandajo himself sometimes shows nationalist inclinations, so I leave it to a completely uninvolved party to review this. A comment of "the Poles [the Polish nationalist editors on Wikipedia] treat other Wikipedians as holes", while not necessarily inspired as a pun, cannot be taken as a block reason without looking at some context. thanks, dab (ᛏ) 22:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Misunderstanding? I am sorry, but "Poles treat other wikipedians as holes (as usual)" is a comment I view as highly offensive. fanatics is pretty ofensive too, and if descring Poles as 'fantatics' is not an ethnic slurr, then I don't know what is. morbid polonization is yet another example, and I think every single one of them is a sufficient ground for the block Friday enforced. And even if Friday (and me, and Elonka) were completly mistaken, a user reaction to the block such as saying: "this project becomes less reputable day by day and evolves into a haven for brainless admins who seek to oust content creators. If you didn't bother to look into the matters before fucking me, fuck you all too" is not only not a proper way to request unblocking, but further proof that the block is right and if anything, should be extended until that user learns what WP:CIV is about.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ghirla objects to what he alleges is a "morbid Polonization of Wikipedia". He does not as much as object to a "moderate Polonization". I see no ethnic slur here, the question is rather whether there was indeed "morbid" nationalist edits on the part of Polish editors, or if Ghirla is exaggerating. To establish this, context is needed. Either way, I see no ethnic slur. I know Wikipedia gets a lot of nationalist crap, and sometimes the perpetrators come here calling "discrimination" if people object. This appears to be such a classic case. Point out some actual offence, or unblock the man. dab (ᛏ) 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:CIV. Ghirla is "being rude, insensitive or petty [which] makes people upset". I - and many other users - find 'morbid Polonization of Wikipedia', as description of our actions, highly offensive. We can live with one such remarks, but not with dozens Ghirla constantly hurls on us every day. Proof of those dozens is cited above, up to an including RfA and comments by ArbCom. Last, but not least, you are insinuating that Elonka, a respected user that to my knowledge has not ever displayed the slightest 'Polish nationalist tendencies', to be a 'perpetrator of natinalistic crap'; this is an offensive remark for which you should apologize to her, and please avoid personal attacks.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I second the request to review the block (see arguments above)... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said before, if anyone thinks I made a mistake please adjust the block as you see fit - that includes removing it altogether. I thought the gratuitous grouping together of editors by nationality was sufficent grounds for a block given the recent warnings and other history here, but I could easily be wrong. I'll admit I have a strong personal bias against prejudice and racism, and that's what I thought I saw here. I don't intend to let editors blame problems on this or that ethnicity or nationality. It creates a poisonous atmosphere. I'm not at all suggestion that either side is right or without blame- I merely reacted to the diff I gave in the block notice. Friday (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I feel a bit offended by Ghirlandajo's comments, especially after calling Polish Wikipedians 'fanatics'. In my opinion the block is justified, due to breaking Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:No personal attacks (personal attacks hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia") Jacek Kendysz 23:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto! I don't have any personal argument with Ghirlandajo, yet I get offended as a Pole. What is really sad in this case, is that the behaviour repeats continuously, causing additional problems, like showing other editors that this way of addressing Poles is perfectly acceptable in Wiki and worth following as arguments in discussing articles. I also find it disturbing that such respectable editors like Mikka and others defend Ghirlandajo in this case, because it only encourages him in his misbehaviour, and assures him that he can be above Wiki policies.--SylwiaS | talk 00:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A thorough review is requested

    That's getting really too far, dear friends. First of all, as it was exposed above, there was no ethnic slur. We have a deceiving complaint and, unfortunately, an immediate block instead of the investigation. Second, grouping of editors by nationality is a sad practice, that frequently happens, but throwing blocks for that is a new development. I am not sure how far this will go even though, I was never an opponent per se of the practice of the blocks issued by admins' personal judgement. I can provide plenty of examples of other users, grouping colleagues by the nationality, and Piotrus have done that as well. User:Ukrained and user:AlexPU habitually call their opponents by nationality all the time. I suggest you check their edit summaries and/or talk page entries, recent or from months ago is up to you. They are there anytime. There were no blocks and no one even asked for blocks.

    What we see here is a sad practice of certain users who try to "win" through having their opponents blocked by any possible means. Sadly, this is not the first time Piotrus is doing that. Even more sad is that some buy into this and issue blocks without proper investigation. There has recently been an extensive post by myself at WP:AN, now available in the archive here. Many people provided further input to it and commented that it was "a good read". I suggest those who find this issue worth of attention but unfamiliar with that past discussion check the link to the archives. In an interesting coincidence, soon after that I was blocked myself at the trolls provocation (see this and this for details).

    I would ask Friday and/or some uninvolved admin to give the issue a full review and then they will hopefully see that the block here is simply a mistake, at least. If they agree that the block is unwarranted, I respectfully request the block reversed with an unblocking summary that would clearly state the error in the initial block. What is written in the block logs matters sometimes too. TIA, --Irpen 02:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. I am putting a {{unblock}} on Ghirla's page to make sure this matter is attended. --Irpen 02:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that there was no ethnic slur- I don't believe I ever said there was. However, complaints directed at a particular ethnic group are still inappropriate here. To me, if someone uses the word "nigger" or says something like "The blacks are causing trouble here" these are in the same ballpark and either remark is undesirable and unhelpful to the project. Also, I have to say, I don't believe this was a knee-jerk block on my part. I took some time- but, I admit, perrhaps it was only 10 minutes- to look things over. I saw a history of civility problems, and, what to me looked like a solid indicator of a current, ongoing problem. If someone has a problem with the behavior of a particular editor, or even a group of editors, it's ok to name them and criticize their edits. But remarks aimed at an ethnic group can serve no useful purpose, and do much harm. I appreciate any and all feedback, but so far I still stand by my block. The minute I personally thought it was a mistake, I'd undo it myself. I continue to invite any other admin to change the block if they feel it's appropriate. Friday (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Grouping editors by nationality is of course no basis for a criticism, and certainly not a block. But calling such a group with demeaning names (fanatics, etc.) is, and this is what Ghirla is guilty of. I am not currently involved with any content dispute with user Ghirlandajo, and so Irpen suggestion that I try to gain something by this block is a sad example of bad faith on the part of an otherwise reasonable contributor (and please note it was not me who reported this issue here, but another user who felt offendend, and if I count correctly there are at least four users so far who stated here they are offended by Ghirla, all of them in good standing). The link to archived discussions Irpen provides is interesting, but you seem to miss some key points: not all editors offences are equal, and Ghirla deserved his block, while other editors we talked about didn't. Lumping them together weakens your argument. That said, I ask that reviewing admins make sure that carefuly review the situation, especially the evidence of many repeated offences provided of Ghirlandajo provided at the talk of this thread, and the way Ghirlandajo attempted to defend himself (in essence telling all administrators to f... off, as referenced above). If this defence convinces you that the block is unwarranted, and Ghirlandajo should not be discouraged from breaking WP:CIV and related policies, so be it - but it will send a sad message throught community, one saying that we don't care about WP:CIV and it is impossible to do anything to users habitually breaking this policy.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Potters house spamming slanderous attacks against me

    Potters house (talk · contribs) is a strong supporter of Johnny Lee Clary, a.k.a. TheKingOfDixie (talk · contribs), whose self-written article was deleted by AfD a while back despite Clary's personal attacks accusing editors voting "delete" of being "Neo-Nazis" and his attempts to tamper with the AfD process by erasing comments. Potters house (talk · contribs), a.k.a. "Nick", has tried to re-create the article under such titles as John Clary and J L Clary; since re-creating deleted content is of course a flagrant violation of policy, these articles have been deleted. Since then Nick has created articles such as Wade Watts and Operation Colorblind; since the main focus of these articles on subjects connected to Clary actually seems to be including exactly that material which was deleted by consensus at Johnny Lee Clary, I proposed that they be deleted, too.

    In apparent retaliation, Nick has left, on no fewer than thirty user talk pages, identical copies of a libellous message in which he alleges that I am a "covert racist", that my "deletions are because of racial discrimination" or alternately, that "it is politically motivated, as Johnny is a strong supporter of George Bush and Antaeus Feldspar of Kerry" (a conclusion which he draws from me having made two edits to John Kerry, both reverting edits made by the notorious Rex071404 (talk · contribs), back on April 6, 2005.) It is bad enough that Nick should completely ignore the policy of Assume good faith and make these slimy, libellous, monstrous accusations on any user talk page. But he's made them on thirty! I request that action be taken to strongly communicate to Nick that vicious false accusations of this nature are not permitted on Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Potters house has now been informed that his conduct is inappropriate, and that continuing along this course will result in a block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Roitr

    The long-term permablocked vandal Roitr (for more information see: User:Roitr/sockpuppetry) have created a sockpuppet account Aldis90. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to impersonate user Aldis90 (contribs: [74]) and continues revert-warring.--Nixer 18:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked as obvious impersonation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ranks of the People's Liberation Army

    Can somebody please semi-protect this article Ranks of the People's Liberation Army which is now being vandalized by sockpuppets of long-term vandal Roitr (see User:Roitr/sockpuppetry for more information) and block the socks please.--Nixer 19:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request that controversial info not be removed from history

    At Charles_Jacobs (political activist) we're having some disputes. Jacobs is a controversial political figure, and he has some strong defenders. Negative material that his defenders consider "poorly sourced" is removed, while favorable material stays in.

    For libel purposes, Jacobs is a "public figure". He's been on major TV talk shows, has written op-ed articles in the New York Times, and runs advocacy organizations. So there's no real libel risk here under US law.

    With this background, please see Talk:Charles_Jacobs (political activist)#Disputes in which Jacobs is involved and its previous version, [75]. One editor has asked that the history of the article be destroyed by an admin. I would like to ask that this not be done without formal review by a neutral party, so that the actions of various editors, including myself, can be reviewed.

    The material concerns a defamation lawsuit in which Jacobs is involved, as a defendant. Jacobs has been involved in efforts to stop the building of a large mosque in Boston, and this has resulted in lawsuits. There's substantial press coverage in the mainstream media of this, along with websites from both (maybe three) sides, and a blog with a timeline. So I put links to all this on the talk page, not being ready to add material about it to the main article.

    Read for yourself what happened then.

    Please read the material referenced above and let me know if I've done anything improper. Thanks. --John Nagle 21:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like a case of "Legal Threats" to me by NYScholar. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Mantanmoreland

    Mantanmoreland is attempting to whitewash and cover up the fact that he was found to be using a sockpuppet and posting under multiple identifies on Wikipedia. I was advised a couple days ago to let this matter now lie and I agreed to do so, but user Mantanmoreland is now trying to remove evidence and important information about this incident.[76] I suspect that in fact he has been using several identifies: Lastexit for sure and I suspect also "Doright." He was warned by an administrator about this and the administrator the indicated that he was definitely using a sockpuppet. He is now trying to cover this up by removing text from his archived talk page. I believe this is inappropriate. Would somebody here please advise Mantanmoreland to stop deleting text concerning this incident from his talk page archives? Thanks. Ptmccain 21:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fred Bauder has already dealt with this. You are in a content dispute with Mantan, and seem to be trying to cause trouble. He has seen Fred's note, and if he wants to archive it, that's up to him. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I properly removed anonymous comments from banned user WordBomb circumventing his indefinite ban -- the same IP comments for which my user page has already been semi-protected. Ptmccain has mischaracterized my actions in edit summaries as "removing warnings" and improperly edited my archive page and engaged in trolling. He is indeed engaged in a protracted content dispute with me and other editors on Martin Luther and other related pages. He is an edit warrior who has been banned a half dozen times -- the second to last time, on my complaint, for one week -- for vop;ating 3RR on Martin Luther [77]. I and other editors have warned him to stop his disruptive conduct.[78] His actions here are in bad faith and vindictive. Note this:[79]Ptmccain should be sanctioned for his misconduct. --Mantanmoreland 21:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusations of "edit warring" are easily made and anyone reviewing edit history on the Martin Luther pages will realize that Mantanmoreland and SlimVirgin are every bit as much part of the problem there as anyone else. In fact, I notice that SlimVirgin is herself now before the Arbcomm for similar behaviors even toward fellow admin. So, I think can dispense with the tactic of trying to divert attention from the issue here. Trying to divert attention from this complaint is not helpful. Mantanmoreland is attempting to whitewash a most serious breach of Wiki policy and is telling only half the truth. I did not not try to restore most of what he deleted from a banned user. I did however restore a very important part of the user's violation of Wiki policy. Here is what Mantanmoreland is trying to remove from public view in his archives:

    Interesting conversation, Fred. Say, just to clarify, what's the the policy when it appears one individual voted twice using two identities? Take this instance, for example[80]. On its face, it would seem Mantanmoreland voted in an AfD sponsored by Lastexit. --66.102.186.24 03:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Yes, a violation of our sockpuppet policy. I hope he takes this warning to heart. Fred Bauder 14:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Is it appropriate for a Wikipedia user to remove a finding from an administrator that he is engaged in violating teh Wikipedia sockpuppet policy? I have been, I believe rightly, instructed by administrators not to remove any admin warnings or comments from my talk pages? Were they wrong?Ptmccain 21:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mccain, you're trolling now. This has been dealt with by three admins, one of whom is on the ArbCom. It is dealt with, finished, over. There's no need for further input from you. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:66.102.186.24 was an obvious sockpuppet of banned user WordBomb, and removal of that and other sockpuppet edits, which were evading an indefinite ban, was totally appropriate. Ptmccain's re-posting here the taunting comment from this banned user (the subject of his complaint below) was abominable. --Mantanmoreland 22:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's have the facts clear. What I restored was not a "taunting comment" -- I have no way to know that was its intention, nor do I care really. The reason I put it back in was because it was a very important part of the record here, a very important question that made it possible for Fred Bauer to make his follow-on remark indicating that Mantanmoreland has been using a sockpuppet. I would be happy to leave only Fred's comment on the open archive page instead. I offer that as a solution. Let's just keep Fred's remark on Mantanmoreland's archive page. That would be fine with me. Removing it is wrong. I've been told by both admins and users that it is wrong to remove admin warnings and comments on my talk pages. Were they wrong? Ptmccain 22:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ptmccain is referring to my warning here [81], in which I warned him not to personally attack me on his user page and then edit out my response. No, that is not the same thing as removing edits from a user circumventing an indefinite ban.
    It is time for the plainly retaliatory conduct of this editor to come to an end.--Mantanmoreland 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's getting close to the time for an indefinite block of Ptmccain for trolling, six 3RR blocks in two months, vandalism, page blanking, several WP:POINT violations, repeated personal attacks against many editors, sending threatening e-mails, and threatening to "out" someone. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How indefinite would that block be exactly? I hope for a long, long time! 64.12.116.65 01:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would consider it a personal favor if somebody would "indefinitely block" me. That way I would be forced to avoid the temptation to participate in Wikipedia and have to deal with the likes of "SlimVirgin" aka Danny Wool, and Mantanmoreland/Doright/Nextexit and the other assorted troubled persons who inhabit Wikipedia 24/7 hiding behind their anonymity, working out their psychic disorders in various and sundry fashion here, not to mention participating in a project that ultimately is fatally flawed due its encouragment to people who know nothing about a given subject to participate in. No "encyclopedia" operates in such a fundamentally intellectually dishonest and unreliable way. So, please...go ahead, make my millennium. And I will thank you for it. I assure you it will be of no concern to me. I thank you kindly for the suggestion Danny. And it will be fun to watch the history page here to see how quickly Danny and playmates permanently delete this remark from the Wiki record. Ptmccain 00:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SlimVirgin

    SlimVirgin deleted evidence I was offering to support my complaint and to respond to accusations. You may review this history to see how this happened.[82]. I made my complaint and then when challenged, I offered further evidence and since it is difficult to read the history given the fact that it has been deleted without clear edit summary, I posted the salient passages that I restored. Slim then came along and "ruled" it to be "trolling" and deleted my post. That doesn't seem appropriate, does it? How may Wiki users make complaints if admins come along and simply revert and remove comments from their complaints? It is appropriate for administrators to remove evidence offered by users to back up their complaints on this notice board? Thanks.Ptmccain 22:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep it up and we are going to quit using the word "trolliing" and start using "Ptmccaining" Fred Bauder 22:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would consider that an honor, but only if you start referring to abusive administrative behaviors as "SlimVirgining" Ptmccain 00:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't it make more sense to name it after an abusive admin, rather than a good one who's forced to put up with nonsensical trolling? --InShaneee 00:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure Danny will appreciate your kind sentiments. Isn't it more than a little pathetic to realize that "SlimVirgin" spends every waking moment tinkingering around on Wikipedia in what is ultimately an exercise in irrelevance and futility? Ptmccain 01:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Skip the "Ptmccaining", the word "trolling" will do. (→Netscott) 01:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks to be a dispute between you and one admin. Maybe you should take it to filing an RfC, and take it to ArbCom if you're not happy with the result. Edit warring here isn't helping anyone or moving anything forward. rootology 01:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ptmccain: admin action requested

    I'd like to request admin action against User:Ptmccain, who has just posted what he believes are the real names of two editors, myself included. He has done this before, and was warned not to repeat it. WP:BLOCK says: "Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely, depending on the severity of the incident, and whether the blocking admin feels the incident was isolated or is likely to be repeated. This applies whether the personal details are accurate or not." He posted what he believes is a user's real name here and another one here. I can't take action as I'm in a content dispute with him. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Do your homework! I blocked him half an hour ago for trolling. :) --InShaneee 01:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, InShaneee. I'm a bit slow today. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    After the following e-mail exchange (addresses have been anonymized) it appears safe to assume that this user would like to be banned... I'm not one to disagree with such a request:

    To: Netscott <xxxSCOTTxxx@gmail.com>
    Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
    From: Ptmccain <bocXXXX@mac.com>

    Do you get special decoder rings when you join the "Cult of SlimVirgin" aka Danny Wool?

    To: bocXXXX@mac.com
    Subject: Cult of SlimVirgin
    Delivered-To: xxxSCOTTxxx@gmail.com
    No, there's no brownie button system. You've definitely crossed over into
    trolling territory though. That said your dispute with Mantanmoreland is
    understandable but the way you've been going about trying to get your issues
    resolved is just wrong. If you continue in the direction you are currently
    you will undoubtedly find yourself eventually indefinitely blocked.
    -Scott
    From: <bocXXXX@mac.com>
    Subject: Re: Cult of SlimVirgin
    Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 20:35:00 -0500
    To: Scott Stevenson <xxxSCOTTxxx@gmail.com>
    I eagerly desire to be indefinitely blocked and thereby will be able
    to avoid associating with the likes of SlimVirgin and her fawning
    syncophants like you.

    (→Netscott) 01:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've gone ahead and taken just such a liberty, since he's pretty much stating (and showing) he's not going to be playing nice anytime soon. --InShaneee 02:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    new sockpuppet of user:General Tojo

    User:RRennalls, currently in action at Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

    ...and user:88.106.220.84 too... KarlBunker 22:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    James Ewing Harassing me.

    Can all references to User:AndrewBourke and the address and contact information be purged from the revert history and archives?

    I *am* the Andrew Bourke that Mr. Ewing of Sveasoft Inc. is harassing by registering my name as a username and posting my personal info from open proxies.

    Thanks,

    - Andrew

    User:George Stroumboulopoulos

    I asked User:George Stroumboulopoulos to choose another username, since we don't allow the names of celebirities unless they're the real people. See George Stroumboulopoulos. He blanked his Talk page and called my request vandalism. When I told him that I was an admin and asked him again to answer my question, he tried to claim that it's his real name. I have blocked him and asked him to choose another name, but instead I'm getting abuse on his Talk page. He only has about three edits. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blank it and protect. --InShaneee 00:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely. Tyrenius 01:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Handface

    After reverting User:Handface's edit to Bill Clinton (which, apparently, was not the first time that article was vandalized), I looked at the user's talk page. This latest incident of posting Coulter's erroneous opinion that Clinton is a rapist, molestor, and latent homosexual as a fact just served to illustrate the bad behaviour of this user. I believe we need to permanently block him/her, seeing as the user is argumentative, offensive, and has a great history of vandalism on Wikipedia. -PhattyFatt 00:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have just checked the edit you mention.[83] In two short sentences Handface has provided 3 references. This hardly qualifies as vandalism. I don't know anything about Coulter, but she is obviously being given media access to say these things. What verification do you have for the description "erroneous" as at the moment your statement reads as POV. I can't see any reason to block Handface at all for this edit. I can see a need for a more serious discussion about whether Coulter's views have gained sufficient exposure to merit their inclusion. Tyrenius 01:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dynamic IP vandalism

    Someone is switching between many different IPs and vandalizing Bulbasaur. I'd take it to WP:AIV, but no IP vandalizes it twice. Can someone check if they're open proxies or sub-net masks? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    My view is that this is common main page vandalism. Doesn't follow a pattern to indicate that a single person is behind it. However, I see no harm in checking. Joelito (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've temporarily sprotected the article. — xaosflux Talk 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm currently having a few problems with harassment with regards to the article Actuarial Outpost. I was advised by User:WAvegetarian to bring my concerns here.

    First, and by far most importantly, one wiki user (64.7.136.166) is gathering the IP addresses of those who disagree with him and using that information to harass people at work. For proof of this see [84] and [85].

    Second, some of the comments made to me by User:Avraham in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SkipSmith appear to bump up against the policy on legal threats.

    I have some other concerns (regarding false sock puppet accusations), but they are less important, and don't need to be covered here. Thank you. SkipSmith 01:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Avraham_sockpuppet_case. Secondly, Wikipedia:No legal threats#Copyright and slander allows for a response to perceived defamation. Also, I never made a threat that I would do something; rather I was pointing out the seriousness of his accusations and how, as I worte in my edit summaries, he had "crossed a line" from mere trolling to something more egregious. Thankfully, in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SkipSmith, user:SkipSmith clarified that I had nothing to do with the harrasment, whereupon I promptly removed the {{defwarn}} as can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASkipSmith&diff=65813822&oldid=65797242 Lastly, the person which he claims has harraased him does not have a wiki account to my knowledge, as can be seen from this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Actuarial_Outpost&diff=next&oldid=53950210 and no one argues that Glenn was the only webmaster at that time. Thank you. -- Avi 02:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Anonymous vandalism at Jerkcity

    The article Jerkcity has been subjected to periodic vandalism (e.g., [86]) in the last week or so from an anonymous user connecting from a few Verizon addresses. I semi-protected the article for a few days, but after lifting it, the vandal returned with a couple null edits with attack edit summaries [87]. In response I have blocked 70.20.92.157 for 48 hours. I am submitting this here for review since the attacks were mostly directed at me. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    edit/revert war on International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

    Hi, There is an edit war happening in International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. War is over inclusion of AIPAC reaction to a House Resolution. Various accusations are being thrown around by Comrade438 eg. im being accused of trying to paint a "zionist conspiracy". Been a few silly edits, and comments, along with what might be a threat. Its degenerated to Comrade438 blocking the page on his own volition without consulting WP:RPP, then reverting last changes. Tried citing his talk with vandalism notices and reporting the vandalism but they sent me here. I dont believe its a content issue. 82.29.227.171 03:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ a b c d TMJ Syndrome: The Overlooked Diagnosis, A. Richard, D. D. S. Goldman Virginia McCullough, chapter 5, http://www.headandneck.com/book/Chapter5.htm
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=66284786"