Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Please do not post on my talk page

Keeping me involved in this is simply seen by Brya and her supporters as an invitation to continue personal attacks on me to guarantee that only Brya be allowed to dictate how the Botany community on Wikipedia is run. Any responsible new editor to Wikipedia Botany will see their duty to correct misinformation Brya has sent through Cyberspace with the Wikipedia stamp on it and will start changing them. Then, after they have made hundreds of edits, many to Brya's false references, fake groups ("APG III"), and spurious remarks about time frames, they will be personally and falsely attacked for their low number of edits in a vicious and disingenuous manner by Brya until they leave.

If you attack newbies for their low number of edits you are doing far worse than biting them, you are outright giving them notice that Wikipedia does not welcome newcomers or want the contributions of anyone who cannot spend all day and all night contributing.

The Botany pages at Wikipedia need a lot of work to be useful to the Cyber-community. Until they have been attended to they should come with warnings about potential misinformation.

And, as long as Brya is in here personally attacking people, even while being blocked, they should come with warnings that newcomers will be personally attacked in a visious manner by Brya and her supporters for their contributions.

And, by the way, to the Dutch-Brya supporter, Brya introduced spurious references to APG II in the Dutch Wikipedia also.

The Wikipedia Botany community has worked hard over the past year to maintain Brya as a high contributor of personal attacks, point of view, and edit wars. Well, keep Brya, then. But warn newcomers of the potential consequences of attempting to contribute to the plant community on Wikipedia and warn Cyberspace communities that use Wikipedia about her speculation, point of view and false references.

I posted this in the ToL project and my talk page. Brya should rest assured that she has won this battle, as she has won all of the others. She would be right in every things she has called me, especially her personal attacks on my reading ability, intelligence, number of edits and fear of facts, if I kept contributing to Wikipedia in light of her and her supporters' treatment of me and any newcomer who edits and points out her false information all over Wikipedia and Cyberspace courtesy of Wikipedia and Brya.

KP Botany 18:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

KP Botany, I don't have anything against you, you can become an excellent editor and it has been demonstrating this up to now, but please control your emotions. Berton 19:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets blocked at Berlin

I have blocked Semlow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ide Nov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely on suspicion of being sockpuppets of disruptive user Just the way (talk · contribs). Just the way made a number of POV-pushing edits to Berlin back in June, calling the Reichstag photo "Soviet propaganda", removing all mention of Kristallnacht, and talking about how the Nazis made "technical and aesthetical innovations" to the city. Semlow and Ide Nov have just made very similar additions: the phrase "the organizers made many technical and æsthetical innovations" occurs in this edit of Just the way's from 14 June and again in this edit of Semlow's from last night. Ide Nov showed up for the first time immediately after Semlow and began edit-warring against Lear 21 to revert to Semlow's version. (User:Kingjeff got caught in the crossfire: he once reverted to the POV version, making Lear 21 accuse him of sockpuppetry as well, but he quickly realized what was going on and started helping revert to the NPOV version.) —Angr 05:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The user keeps on removing content and adding an image he uploaded onto articles. [1]--Jersey Devil 06:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an WP:AIV case (and I've reported him there). Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Already blocked.--Konst.able 07:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Publicdefender99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

moved from WP:AIV for discussion--Konst.able 07:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Should be blocked until after November 7. This user is either Grace Hu, a candidate for the California Assembly, or one of her supporters or campaign staffers. This user keeps removing valid and well referenced information that is negative to Ms. Hu. User has been warned multiple times, and does not contribute to Wikipedia other than to vandalize the article Cerritos, California. --Banana Republic 04:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I for one am going to support the edits Publicdefender was making. It seems to me rather inappropriate for a section to exist in the Cerritos, California article devoted to detailed information about one person on the city council, positive or negative, political candidate or not. That is local news, probably important news. But this is not the kind of information we should have in a general article about a city. I don't want to see this user blocked for making unpopular changes. Mangojuice^talk 12:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:789suj98e7fh8sfdf98udfu8dfu9sdufdsf8377dh8nsdsncskj (diff; hist) .

Surely someone with a red link user name who vandalises Charles Darwin - but with a user name like this needs admin action in the face of policy re user names? SatuSuro 08:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User has already been blocked indefinitely. —Angr 08:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Accounts beginning with 0101 and ending with 06

Any unblock requests made from usernames beginning with 0101 and ending with 06 coming from IP addresses in Hong Kong that were created in the last few days should be unblocked on sight. They belong to students of JMSC0101: Principles of Journalism and News Media at Hong Kong University which were blocked prematurely by a number of administrators on suspicion of being sockpuppet accounts. --  Netsnipe  ►  08:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Except the one which says User:0101willyonwheels06, should be obvious...--Konst.able 08:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Above account already blocked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: these are students who have an assignment to write a great wikipedia article? :) Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Endgame1 (talk · contribs)

Not sure what to make of this guy... I have a feeling he's somebody's sleeper account. (Look at those contributions, which include mucking around with two peoples' RfAs in a bizarre fashion.) I thought I should bring it to your attention, since I have no idea what I should do about this. Grandmasterka 09:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I. I called him out for making bizarre, ridiculous accusations on Aksi great's RfA (such as calling him a Nazi for not agreeing to write very specific articles by the end of the candidacy period) Maybe a community block? He certainly is being disruptive. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 21:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I support a block for disruption, which appears to be the single purpose of the account -- Samir धर्म 23:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be leaving. He has asked me to delete his talk page and all his contributions (obviously declined).--Konst.able^Talk 11:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ldingley

Many of the images uploaded by this user have been deleted as copyright violations - a look over their contributions show a pattern of uploading photos from random sites and mistagging or claiming them as his own. I've got to get to bed for the night so if anyone else would like to take a look, this user has been uploading several images a day for more than a month - they all need to be reviewed. Shell ^babelfish 09:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Will review. FloNight 10:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Listed several images for deletion and left questions about more on Ldingley's talk page. [2] Ldingley used the Parliament of Georgia website as a source claiming PD. [3] I question if this a valid at least the way the lic is written. Is any one familiar enough with with Georgian copyright law to know if this is a valid PD claim? FloNight 12:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

He actually provided his answer here. I think we can properly retag the images rather than have them deleted.--Kober 14:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That answer would be great except that its incorrect. More than five of the images he uploaded have been found on other websites - not like Getty Images where it would show he was the photographer, but on personal webpages at tripod or geocities where the photographers are unlikely to notice or complain. Four of these images were also uploaded to other websites claiming to be from various people - for instance, a photo of children from Georgia originally posted in 2005 to a homepage hosted at tripod was uploaded by Ldingley to Wikipedia last month claiming the author released into PD and listing the author as Rebecca James - source was given as trekearth, another site where the same picture was uploaded at the same time but under a different name; the photo has also been found on two other photo sites, all uploaded around the same date. As much as I'd like to assume good faith here, I find it hard to understand how he could have accidentally uploaded several photos from personal homepages, not his own, mistagged them, attributed them improperly and now claim that he buys said images for upload? Shell ^babelfish 20:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please dont call me a rat, its not nice and your tone if not really constructive. Please present evidence where I stole photos from "geocities" or "tripod." (I need to see them to charge their owners with photo theft). The children photo was actually by Mike Bugneri and Rebecca James. It is my fault that I didn’t include Mike. However, do not accuse me of image theft from geocities (actually maybe they uploaded my images which are available online) and call me a rat. Im sorry but im not a rat and you are smelling something else. Thanks a lot for your friendly response Ldingley 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

One example is Image:Georgian kidssvanetia.jpg and Image:Georgian kids.jpg. The first image listed the source as trekearth.com (which calls Mike Bugneri the photographer) and the second identical image was listed as being from your personal collection. The image, in fact, comes from http://svanetitour.tripod.com/ and has been on the web since 2005 at that location. Some of the other images I deleted came from news agencies, which which were also claimed as "in your collection". Third, your most recent upload which you listed as public domain and are now claiming that you have permission for may have been copied from a book (I'll have more details as soon as I verify my source is correct). I'm sure I'll find more examples as I continue to review your contributions.

I'm sorry if you've been told by people that they are selling you these images with their copyrights; this doesn't appear to be the case in any of the instances I've come across so far. While it is taking some time, I have found an online source for each photograph I've reviewed so far. You may wish to look in to the possibility that someone is scamming you. Shell ^babelfish 22:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going through recent changes to Images by anons, and found several where the description has been modified, such as this change. Here are the changes by the anon [4] to images uploaded by Ldingley. I reverted a few of the anon edits before I realized this a problem, and the anon might be correct. I reverted those back to the anons. version pending further examination of what the actual source (TrekEarth) is. If TrekEarth is the source, these are copyrighted, not free to uses here, and need to be deleted. --Aude (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. if users would monitor recentchanges in the Image namespace, that would be helpful too. I'm finding a lot of vandalism edits that go unnoticed for quite a while. --Aude (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible use of proxies in months of vandalism

There's something strange going on at Netherlands national football team, Ajax Amsterdam, FK Partizan, Abdullah Gegić, Ertuğrul Sağlam and Muhsin Ertugral. A lot of IPs have all made exactly the same vandalous or semi-vandalous edits to these articles (for instance removing the list of past Ajax managers or changing the nationality of one of Partizan's former managers), all in (roughly) the same order. The IPs involved are:

• 80.227.0.153 (talk · contribs): Ajax, Partizan, Ajax, Ajax, Netherlands, Netherlands, Ajax and Netherlands
• 80.58.205.47 (talk · contribs): Ajax, Netherlands, Partizan, Ertugral
• 165.228.133.11 (talk · contribs): Partizan, Ertugral, Ertugral, Ertugral, Partizan, Ajax, Netherlands
• 212.50.0.221 (talk · contribs): Partizan, Ajax, Netherlands
• 200.21.174.5 (talk · contribs): Ajax, Netherlands, Partizan, Ajax, Netherlands, Partizan
• 125.18.166.54 (talk · contribs): Ajax, Partizan, Ajax
• 194.171.121.8 (talk · contribs): Partizan, Partizan.
• 82.168.59.236 (talk · contribs): Partizan, Gegić, Partizan, Partizan, Partizan, Saglam, Partizan, Partizan, Partizan, Partizan, Partizan, Saglam, Partizan, Saglam, Saglam, Ertugral, Ertugral, Saglam, Saglam, Saglam, Saglam, Saglam (note the edit summary), Saglam, Ertugral, Saglam, Saglam, Saglam, Partizan, Saglam, Saglam, Saglam, Saglam, Partizan, Saglam, Ertugral, Ertugral.
• 82.92.94.108 (talk · contribs): Netherlands, Netherlands, Partizan, Partizan, Partizan, Partizan, Partizan, Saglam, Partizan, Ertugral, Saglam, Saglam, Saglam

The IPs involved might be proxies, so further action might be necessary: [5]. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Other IPs involved are 219.87.146.160, 194.171.121.10, 194.171.121.25, 194.171.121.27, 148.244.235.4, 148.233.120.49, 193.164.254.50 and 80.81.53.100. I'll provide the diffs later today. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Notice moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies, 27 IPs are suspected now. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 10:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A further note: 80.81.53.100 (talk · contribs) had already been indefblocked as an open proxy. However, the very first edit coming from this IP, was a request to have the autoblock lifted, which read: "It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of General Tojo." Are the edits from this IP, and with it the edits from the other 30-ish IPs, consistent with Tojo's editing style? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The vandal has also created several sleeper accounts on October 8th, presumably in order to avoid the semi-protection at Ertuğrul Sağlam. Among these accounts are Larsnieuwehuizen (talk · contribs), Katie1987 (talk · contribs), Achilles10 (talk · contribs), KarelKoophandel (talk · contribs), Savas77 (talk · contribs), DaphneLuilak (talk · contribs) and Ronald75 (talk · contribs). This might indicate that there are more sock accounts lurking. Has the time come to act on this, or should I wait? PS. The names Larsnieuwehuizen, DaphneLuilak and KarelKoophandel indicate that this could be a Dutch vandal. Is that compatible with any known vandal? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate username, vandalism and possible attack on User:Alphachimp

Thebonerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new account that has made one inaapropraite edit to Giant Panda (diff [6]) , but also posted this to his user page which makes me think he's a sockpuppet for someone with a chip on their shoulder about Alphachimp, but in any case, has not become a member in order to help develop an encyclopedia. --Siobhan Hansa 13:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've indef blocked Thebonerman. Hope that is ok. --Guinnog 13:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If you hadn't, I would have. —Angr 13:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys. If you hadn't I probably would have. Alphachimp 13:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon Vandal of Battle of Mogadishu Page

User:207.190.175.254 has struck again vandalizing the Battle of Mogadishu page (partly a good thing because I was able to check his contributions and find the old version of a section he vandalized before), anyways block him please. He's been warned numerous times, and blocked at least once. PPGMD 13:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No one responded to this so I checked the user history. No edits from this IP since 17 October. If there had been vandalism in the last 24 hours I'd have reblocked. Durova 14:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

He reappeared 8 hours ago, vandalizing a number of pages, most noticably John Proctor. ccwaters reverted some of them, & has left a warning on this anon's talk page. Looking at all of the warnings given this person, I think it's clear this person is not here to contribute to Wikipedia, & the only question we need ask is when should we block this IP for good. -- llywrch 22:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Copy/paste move

Somebody copy/paste moved the previously-moved Punk Goes '90s to Punk Goes 90's, so now I am unable to move it back. Despite the Wikipedia image showing the title to be Punk Goes 90's (as it was on an early online release of the cover art), the actual name on the CD case (and the grammatically correct spelling) is Punk Goes '90s. Sources are here, here and here. Please merge article histories and move back to Punk Goes '90s. Thank you. --HarryCane 14:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

the place for such requests is WP:RM, please take it there. Thanks, ~crazytales56297 ^{O rly? Ya rly!} 04:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Matthew Fenton and Hungrygirl

Note: I have removed this dispute from WP:AIV. Alphachimp 14:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I have had it up to here with this vandal. because I have started contributing to wikipedia because, MatthewFenton slanders me on this page about being a troll. I think this a good reason to ban this user for not assuming good faith. I don't know where he gets off accusing me of being a troll. Not only that, but I haven't done anything wrong. All my edits are in trying to get rid of a user's negative comments about wikipedia. MathewFenton keeps adding back the user's negative comments because they were friends. I have checked the history and I see that they are good friends. He is showing biased toward the user and doesnt' care about wikipedia. I have even given explanations in attempt to talk out why I don't like the user's negative comments. Mathew Fenton continues to erase them without any explanation and then continues his unacceptable behavior by coming here and slandering me. I think this is calls for a ban. He also has erased my comments from Charlesknight's page repeatedly. You are not allowed to erase comments from pages and I have had to add them back several more than 3 times. Hungrygirl 14:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Your actions are of a trollish nature. Wikipedia isn't censored, and if you dont like a users opinion then don't read it. From your contributions your account has only been used to follow Charles Knight. --Alex (Talk) 14:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hungrygirl appears to be a sockpuppet, judging from its contribs. Michael K. Edwards 14:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hungrygirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Blatant troll: Has been doctoring comments on User talk:Charlesknight on a daily basis and sending me "vandalism warnings" for reverting them - It appears this user has been trolling/stalking Charles since the 12th ([7], [8] - also check contribs for message doctoring.) --thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not make accusations. I am not a troll and when you make accusations without any proof, that isn't assuming good faith. You're breaking a wikipedia rule just like Matthew Fenton. Happy editing Hungrygirl 14:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If the accusations continue, I will take it up with an administrator. I am not a troll and if I am continued to be accused of one, I have a right to go to an administrator about it. I don't care how many edits I've made. You have no right to make accusations. This is about Mattthew Fenton's vandalism. I'm done. goodbye Hungrygirl 14:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not threaten other users. It is contrary to the spirit of this community, and also not allowed per Wikipedia's harrasment policy. If you wish to make a complaint about a user, please follow the steps in our dispute resolution procedure. As stated at the top of this page, this page is not the Wikipedia complaints department. Thank you, Daniel.Bryant 14:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Would support an indefinite block of the troll. Just settle it, go back to working on the encyclopedia, let's not waste time on trolls. – Chacor 14:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Concur (edit conf.) Daniel.Bryant 14:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Sorry I moved it here, I just wanted to clear AIV. Alphachimp 14:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears we got the "troll" bit right. Daniel.Bryant 14:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, but an indefinite block seems harsh. I petition to change it to a temporary block. --Mihai cartoaje 12:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely no way. There's no justifying that behavior at all, I completely agree that an indefinite block is warranted. There's not a bit of evidence that the user would become a productive user. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

On what grounds? Only real productive users get non-indefinite blocks. Throw-away accounts that are being used for trouble-making are always blocked indefinitely. --Cyde Weys 23:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's because,

• It might be my lack of experience, but I have not found anything ruling out a bona-fide first-time editor.--Mihai cartoaje 10:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with this block. Looking through Hungrygirl's contribs, there is nothing there to hint that she wants to be a constructive editor, and her actions are certainly trollish. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hungrygirl has participated in a discussion on an issue of sockpuppets[9]. It appears that Hungrygirl was trying to become a wikipedia administrator [10] and thought that this was how to accomplish it. The many edits to user talk:Charlesknight are because an edit war has happened there. --Mihai cartoaje 09:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Mihai cartoaje has filed a mediation case with MedCab regarding this at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 User:Hungrygirl. If anyone would like to discuss the situation with Mihai cartoaje, or a neutral party would like to mediate, please feel free. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand the admins' actions now after reading about the AfD. It was me who was too hasty. --Mihai cartoaje 21:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

(Other) Admin assistance, re: User_talk:Gary123

I'm sorry to ask for help again, but I'm still just a newbie admin and am not quite sure how to proceed. Gary123 (talk · contribs) keeps posting a notice to all on my talk page indicating that John Smith's (talk · contribs) has a vendetta against him. He links to Talk:People's Volunteer Army, which contains more of the same. His talk page also "documents" this user's personal vendetta. For now, I've just removed his comments from my talk page, but I don't know how to handle this situation. I'm inclined to delete his "documentation" and push him to WP:RfC or WP:M, but I'm not entirely convinced he's acting in good faith. Um. Help? (And sorry! Don't bite the new admin!) -- Merope 15:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Gerard Doyle

Gerard Doyle (talk · contribs) is currently blocked for a week for edit-warring on Parkinson's disease, having just come off a prior block for "sabotaging a checkuser request" that had been filed on suspicion of his being a sock of deservedly banned User:General Tojo. Has this user now succeeded in committing Wiki-suicide by edit summary here? Newyorkbrad 17:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Centrx (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) beat me to the punch and indef blocked the user. (His WP Glossary probably cinched the deal.) -- Merope 17:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

lol. I just left a message on the blocking admins page about that. He's also left some interesting messages on the talk page (both his current rant he's using to blank everything else, and in the bottom few messages before blanking. --Crimsone 17:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have contacted you directly, Crimsone, but figured you would want some other admin to throw the switch this time. (I actually am not as convinced as some others that "reverting warnings" is a serious problem, but his overall pattern of conduct was going beyond the pale.) Newyorkbrad 17:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Newyorkbrad - much appreciated. As you say, his pattern of behaviour really was beyond the pale, so I figured that it made sense just to mention it to Centrx, who'd blocked him earlier. On the upside though, it's always nice to be called welsh! The blnking of warnings wasn't really the problem, but he'd blanked quite a lengthy page, even after telling him that he should arhive rather than blank (I wouldn' mind betting he already knew that mind.

It seems to me that the feeling of "ownership" of user talk pages is a bit of a problem as a whole. Is there an essay/explanation or guideline on the purpose an, uses, and importance of userspace? --Crimsone 17:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Seems that even as an indef blocked user, he's insiting on blanking the talk page and re-inserting the "glossary", even after centrx's revert. Is it worth reverting back and protecting? Crimsone 17:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Gorram Centrx beat me to it again. ;) I don't brook disruption. -- Merope 17:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL - fair play, he's nothing if not on the ball! Very quick indeed! --Crimsone 17:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:70.129.99.99

User:70.129.99.99 has vandalized three times today. Looking at the history of the user's talk page, the user has vandalized many, many times over the past several months. All of this was deleted from the talk page except what was added today. Can this user be banned? Bubba73 (talk), 17:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 18:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon vandal on Pullman related pages

Just an FYI... Yesterday I blocked 207.63.107.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for vandalism to George Pullman, Pullman Strike and a few other related pages. After his block expired today, he was back, so he's now blocked again, this time for a bit longer. 205.188.116.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made similar vandalism edits to the same pages as has 24.97.33.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 169.204.120.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). At least one of these IPs is a known AOL address, so we may see more trouble on these pages this week. Slambo (Speak) 17:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Another minor with personal information

User:Jolu posts locale, DOB and school email... should some of it get deleted? He has <10 edits, hasn't edited since August 16. Maybe try emailing? --user:Qviri 18:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Given his inactivity, I've just deleted the information and left a note on his talk page. Thanks for the heads-up. -- Merope 18:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball special abilities

So this 82kb and growing behemoth has been open for 9 days and was relisted at AfD today for further consensus. At this point it is either a keep, delete, or no consensus and keeping it on AfD is just increasing the pain for the admin who eventually has to read through and close this... so any takers on puting it out of it's misery now? To make things more interesting, it appears that someone tried to solicit opinions from people who opined delete on another AfD, though I didn't check if they were successful or not. Some days I'm glad I'm not an admin.--Isotope23 19:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Closed as no consensus (and what fun that was). Yomangani^talk 21:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You're a good man Charlie Brown.--Isotope23 00:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

wikirules vs insults and annoyance.

Here is an intersting point to ponder if say User:Imprevu might be right about a specific violation of wikietiquette. For example signature. I know images are not welcome although I am yet to have someone confirm that they are prohibited, but nonetheless let's assume they are. So does this allow a user to make a point on my talk page using Offensive and provactive language repeatedly? I mean if this user has a personal dislike of me or my image, and even if he is right about certain aspects? Does it justify his actions? Moreover I am prepared to comply with wikirules and change my signature, but I would like someone to have a serious discussion with that user prior, particulary to the vigilante stand he has taken against me. Diffs:[11], [12], [13], [14]. --Kuban Cossack 20:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Re images in sig: It's not a policy violation, but it's bad form and it adds some unnecessary stress on the server. Regarding personal attacks and incivility... well, that's it's own problem that is separate from the issue with your signature. I haven't reviewed your diffs, but from your description I can come to a conclusion: There is no excuse to be incivil. But maybe it's time you stopped responding to this person at all. ---J.S (t|c) 22:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Who are you J.S., an administrator? My advice to you is stop giving your "bystander" suggestions? Whether it policies or guide lines its all called RULES. They're all manmade, created either by administration or consensus, to follow them or to obey. They're not created for your amusement to pick and choose. That simple."...unnecessary stress on the server." How about unnecessary stress on USERS.

Regarding incivility, it was very uncivil not to follow WiKi guidelines regarding issue dispute and not to talk it over. It was not very civil not to invite me to this postings and discuss it behind my back without hearing me out. And it was uncivil J.S.. to come to my personal page making unsubstantiated statement and not responding to my questions. Please, do so.

Regarding "Personal Attack" issue. You SHOULD review his Diffs and mine too before coming to ANY conclusion. Otherwise its very amateurish and bias...I can understand everything where Kuban Cossack are coming from (not to agree with everything though), but his stand as me using "dress code" instead of "rules" insulted him - just puzzled me. The only conclusion I can come to is that he's not familiar with that term, but please enlighten me.

Now, Will we solve those issues in civil way without name calling or not? Im ready if you are, please let me know. Imprevu 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility begins at home. Your above message is anything but. Please review WP:CIVIL and don't lash out at J.S. for trying to help. We're all volunteers here and he was urging calm, so your tone was inappropriate and an apology may be in order. I'm not suggesting that it's required, but it would be a nice demonstration of good faith. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility begins at home. Chairboy, if the purpose of your posting is to instigate fight I would strongly suggest you to restrain yourself and look up himself in to the link you provided. Unlike you, I don't use empty name calling without prove of example. Your apology may be in order.

J.S. originally lashed out at me his biased opinion WITHOUT reviewing ALL the involved parties arguments (???) That's the definition of incivility. No, he wasn't urging calm, he was very tilted toward one of the parties involved. Read it again. Next time you accuse me of anything, please come up with solid evidence, not an empty words. That's a good faith. Do your homework.

My tone? What's wrong with that? Please, be more specific. Im expressing my dissatisfaction (can I?) with bullishness, rule breaking, ineptness, insults and Personal Attacks. And Im within the appropriate borders of civil vocabulary. I stand by each word I put. Can you (they)? BTW look up the record, Kuban Cossack been warned before for his multiple edit reverting, incivility, annoyance etc... Imprevu 17:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Imprevu, you do not need to be an administrator to give advice or interpret rules, so JS did nothing wrong at all. JS did not say anything about you, he said There is no excuse to be incivil and his comments on your talk page were calm and polite aswell.

As for the specifics of your incivlity, saying if somebody does not read your diffs they are very amateurish and bias is a bit incivil. Since his judgment was only There is no excuse to be incivil, there was really no need to read your diffs to come to this conclusion.

As for the little picture of the flag, it is annoying. But it is not against the rules. I encourage you to continue with your cause, but use restraint and stay calm and polite please. HighInBC 18:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You do not need to be an administrator to give advice ... But you have to be fair and review all arguments before making judgment. His incivility comments had been directed to me beforehand. Is all away sudden "Bias" is restricted word? Another word, he's allowed to accuse me to be "incivil"(without presenting any evidences) and Im not allowed to describe his comments as "Biased"? Mind-boggling. OK let me substitute it with"Not NPOVish", whatever.. Person should educate himself (herself) with all sides of the arguments and info before suggesting an opinion.

And regarding little picture of the flag, you are wrong (can I use this word, is that civil?). Look up WiKi Guide Lines ( RULES made by consensus): "Images of any kind SHOULD NOT be used in signatures." Doesn't sound like a suggestion. Also its an offensive symbol to a lot of people.

HighInBC, I really appreciate your civil response to my statements and pointing to the parts which you don't feel comfortable with (unlike others with blank accusations), although I disagree with most of your observations. I hope my response to you was civil. Please comment. BTW, do you see anything uncivil or insulting in using "dress code" expression instead of "rules"? Imprevu 23:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Who are you J.S., an administrator?"

I am a long established editor in good standing. Admin is not a rank: It's a job. Being an admin grants no extra authority in any discussion. (Except for the fact that admins are usually well-respected members of the community... but that's separate from the admin-mop)

"My advice to you is stop giving your "bystander" suggestions?"

I'm not really sure how to answer that other then "no." You can have a private argument, but wikipedia isn't a private venue. You would need to invite Kuban to an off-site venue (email, phone, etc).

- Im not really sure how to answer your comment. Its not about private argument. Its about a layperson who intended to be a mediator and didn't educate himself(herself) with all available info of concerning issue.

"My tone? What's wrong with that? Please, be more specific. Im expressing my dissatisfaction (can I?) with bullishness, rule breaking, ineptness, insults and Personal Attacks."

Yes, you can express your dissatisfaction. I'll assume you ment "I'm not expressing my dissatisfaction with..." right?

Well, here's the problem that I have with your tone... your acting too aggressive in your dealings here with Kuban, HighInBc, and myself. My grandmother used to say you catch more bees with honey then with vinegar.

-Got you there, I didn't even responded to HighInBC comments yet. You don't pay a lot of attention to details, do you? That is the problem. Once again, please present examples of my "aggressiveness", so I can comment on it. Make your presentation like HighInBC did, simple and easy.

"not responding to my questions. Please, do so."

I'll take a look at your talk page again, but I am not sure what your talking about. If you were trying to make a straw man argument or a ad hominem argument, I usually ignore them as irrelevant.

Let me reiterate again: I don't think the flag is a good idea. You don't need to sell me on that. But the way your going about this is entirely inappropriate. ---J.S (t|c) 20:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

-Here we go again. Just dissect my statement in talk page as you've done it here and answer point by point. For example, your statement, that talk page owner has a privileges in editing his own page. I asked you to point me directly to the location of that rule and you didn't. Or my examples of the other party rules violation. Is that straw man argument? I see the roots of the problem is that you don't really paying attention and misrepresenting my statements, just like you did with your HIGHInBC remark here... I hope I wasn't uncivil this time. Please let me know. Imprevu 21:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is this flag and this message on the user's talk page worth all this hassle? Far easier to ignore each other totally, the more so since this is just a pointless little war. Wikipedia is huge. There must be something else you can each do rather than fight each other. This is not decorous behaviour, guys. Just let this wither on the vine and ignore each other. Fiddle Faddle 23:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's ok Timtrent, I enjoy discussing wiki-philosophy. ---J.S (t|c) 08:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Laws, statutes, policies, guidelines, regulations - they all called generically Rules. Why is somebody should be allowed to be parked in "No Parking" zone with impunity, especially if it causes inconvenience to others and disrupting traffic? Imprevu 23:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page where it sais it's ok for him to remove content from his talk page. Check your talk page, I posted yesterday. The quote is indented and I provide a link to the page that describes it.

Imprevu, it's not worth responding to ad hominem/ad hoc arguments.

You don't pay a lot of attention to details, do you?

You wanted an example of an aggressive statement... there you go. I copy/pasted the wrong name and you attacked me for it. It's also irrelevant to the entire discussion. When you attack the person making the point instead of the point it's self that is two things: A Straw Man argument and fairly incivil.

Now on to more important parts of this discussion: Policies and guidelines are different. Just like the white and yellow signs on the road. The white speed limit sign (well, here in my state) is enforceable by police. That would be the equivalent to a policy here. The yellow speed limit sign is a recommendation. The police wouldn't be able to ticket you for breaking the yellow-speed limit. It's a good idea to slow down to 15 when you see a warning like that, but you can't be ticketed for breaking it. Thats what a guideline is around here. The guidelines are here to give us guidance on how to follow larger concepts (like, in my example, how to avoid running off the cliff).

"And since when substituting "rules" with a "dress code" makes it a "personal attack"?"

I have no idea what Kuban means by calling your comment a personal attack. You'd need to ask him

yourself.

"He made insulting statement on his native language on "edit summary" on his talk page."

I only speak English, so I'll take your word for it. WP:PAIN is the place you should take it if your offended.

"When is the last time you looked at definition of Guideline?"

Since your demanding I answer all your questions I'll treat this as if it wasn't a sarcastic attack on my intelligence. I haven't needed to look into a dictionary to know what "guideline" means since I was 8 years old. Perhaps what your not grasping here is a concept called "industry vernacular". Society and sub-sets of a society often develop it's own words and sometimes specialised meanings for words. I've already given you my take on the difference between a "Policy" and a "guideline" above, so I won't repeat it here. I'm fairly sure my interpretation is in line with the major consensus 'round here.

Is there any other question you asked of me that I had yet to respond to? ---J.S (t|c) 08:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the irony - he/she came here asking for opinions ("here's a point to ponder"), then he/she snaps at anyone who gives it. Am I the only one who finds this amusing? Daniel.Bryant 23:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't find this amusing, but I find your comments confusing... The irony is that the person who "snaps", I assume, you meant me, but the person who originally came here asking for opinions wasn't me. But maybe Im wrong and you meant something else, then it would be amusing...Cheers. Imprevu 23:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me summarize what has happened. Kuban Cossack, you came to WP: AN/I, asked people to get involved with our disputed issue and promised: "to comply with wikirules and change my signature, but I would like someone to have a serious discussion with that user prior". So community had serious discussion with me, they also expressed their opinion about image - "Bad", "Annoying", "No-No" from Administrator on your talk page, even your own admission that it might be "violation of wikietiquette". And then you snubbed everybody's effort and disappeared.

I know its very tempting to show off, its very human, but are you master of your domain, can you show self-discipline instead? Why are you disregarding clear instruction of wikietiquette? Show some respect to consensus which made those rules. Would you please hold up your end of the bargain and loose that image from your signature. Imprevu 19:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Persistent copyright problems by User:Jonathan ryan

I have been dealing with User:Jonathan ryan who persistently has been uploading images [15] that clearly are copyright violations, and places improper licensing tages. He is improperly claiming public domain over some images. Also, claiming he's the creator even though it's clearly not the case, with the names of the photographers/copyright owners marked on the photo. [16] [17] [18] ([19] [20] [21] - these already deleted) He also has misrepresented the time/place that the photo was taken. [22] [23] [24] I have tried my best to assume good faith, to think that he is well-meaning and just doesn't understand about copyrights. I have left numerous messages to try and explain about copyrights, in addition to the standard copyright problem messages he's received. I don't think he will listen to me anymore, and maybe someone else can get through to him? Otherwise, I think he is heading towards an indef block, per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Protection. I would appreciate any second opinions on this. --Aude (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Image sources are detailed here. --Aude (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I left a final warning. Jkelly 22:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't like to block users that may mean well, but his edits and uploads have not been helpful for Wikipedia. I've been able to get through to other users about copyright issues, but he doesn't seem interested. --Aude (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Probable sock User:Gtorresjr at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjinderpal Sekhon

Gtorresjr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making quite a scene at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjinderpal Sekhon, including general incivility, baiting, trolling, comment blanking and indications of a rather high level of knowledge of Wikipedia policies and systems for someone who just signed up. Anyone care to give him the onceover? --Aaron 22:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Trolling of Memory Alpha

Several users of the "Lostpedia" are trolling Memory Alpha (Check history) addingg no existant AfDs, speedy deleteions, multiple PRODs. Likely due to the fact there article was deleted for the 5th time tonight. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what action is needed? There are specific places for requesting page protection or vandal blocks. 90.192.92.77 (talk · contribs) has been warned and seems to have stopped, and he seems to be the lone offender today. --W.marsh 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

The following pages need protection:

1. Butterfly
2. Rashi

I thought I could protect these pages by putting the protection tag on them myself, but I guess there is more involved than that. These pages are vandalized on a regular basis. Most of the people who do it are supposed to have been blocked from editing, but they keep on doing it over and over and over again. Just check the pages' histories and you will see.

Sometimes, the people will erase the entire article and just leave a single profane word in its place. Other times, they just rewrite paragraphs, throwing in raunchy words to make the subject look like a sex-starved pervert, especially in the Rashi page. Please protect these pages!!! (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC))

Sorry, but there really isn't enough recent vandalism to justify protecting them. Also, requests for pages to be protected should go here. Thanks. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Improper unprotection of Albert Einstein

User: Kingboyk unprotected Albert Einstein with the comment “Protected Albert Einstein: Our high visibility articles should not be protected for long periods, and the attack on this article was trivial and could have been solved by a block (see The Beatles, we get crap every day)” This article was vandalized 31 times by 24 different IPs in 3½ days. That is hardly trivial in my book. Which of the 24 IPs does he propose to block. Also it had not been protected for a “long period” – only 2 days. It seems to me that an admin should be less bold in abusing his power. --teb728 23:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you've directed Kingboyk here, but I would strongly recommend asking him privately on his talk page first and giving him a chance to reply before posting on ANI in the future. I've also taken a cursory glance at the situation, and I don't find anything wrong with the unprotection. The article, a relatively high-profile one, had already been semiprotected for over two days; semiprotection is not meant to be used generally for lengthy periods of time. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. This article is regularly vandalized by various anon vandals about ten times a day every day whenever it is not semiprotected. What in your opinion should be done in such a case? Blocking individual IPs does no good, because the vandalism comes from many different IPs. I fail to see any reason against long-term semiprotection—particularly for a high-profile article. If nothing can be done, good editors will just take problem articles off their watchlists, the vandalism will go uncorrected, and the reputation of Wikipedia will suffer. --teb728 01:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is explicitly in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia to have any page protected or semiprotected for a great length of time. Unfortunately, this means that very high-profile pages get vandalised often, but high-profile pages also tend to be the most watched, and thus the vandalism is always fixed within a minute or so. Except in the case of sudden and extreme onslaughts of vandalism, pages should not be semi-protected at all; in the case of concerted vandalism efforts, blocks combined with day-long semi-protection nearly always solve the problem. —Cuiviénen 02:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no mention (or implication) in WP:SEMI about “sudden and extreme onslaughts of vandalism” or “day-long semi-protection.” What it does say is “A page can be temporarily semi-protected by an administrator in response to serious vandalism, in which the page is getting a large number of vandalism edits from so many different anonymous … accounts that blocking them individually is not a solution. … Semi-protection is a temporary measure used to stem vandalism on a page until the attack of vandalism is regarded as over. Some articles with a history of vandalism, such as George W. Bush or Jew, may be semi-protected on a continuous basis.”

It seems to me that this applies to Albert Einstein: The page is getting a large number of vandalism edits from so many different anonymous IPs that blocking them individually is not a solution. Any time semiprotection is removed the vandalism returns shortly; so the attack of vandalism cannot be regarded as over. Like George W. Bush and Jew, the article has a history of vandalism, which suggests that it be semi-protected on a continuous basis.

If is not fair to the editors who watch an article to rely on them to revert vandalism that you could easily block. If this unprotection stands, I for one will stop reverting anon vandalism on this article. And I suspect that a lot of other resident editors will feel the same. --teb728 07:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC) modified --teb728 22:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

teb728, I'm sorry the vandals are bothering you. :-( Having our articles open for editing without an user account is an important Wikipedia philosophy. Many of our most experienced editors started out by fixing a small error in an article as an IP address. Semi-protection was primarily intended for articles with few people editing them. They might have a defamatory text or blatant vandalism added and no one would notice for months. This is not a problem for high profile articles like Edison. FloNight 01:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Supercharger edit -- personal info

This edit has been reverted, but it included someone's phone number. Should it be removed from the page history? -- Coneslayer 00:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It might not be real, but I'll take care of it. Thanks for bringing it up. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sandyvandy

I put a warning on Sandyvandy's talk page regarding blatant vandalism of Al-Kateb v Godwin. They responded by vandalising my talk page. Does this warrant a block? Chovain 01:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This user just removed this section (only to be reverted by someone else) - can someone please block them? They're being a royal pain. Chovain 02:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Indefed, someone is checking for socks -- Tawker 02:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

John Reid

John Reid recently reinserted highly uncivil language bordering on personal attacks into template:wr3. Warning templates are generally applied by users with the substitution syntax, so that the current text of the templates is inserted into the edit history of the users who apply them. Consequently, the insertion of highly uncivil language is disruptive because it is putting the uncivil language in the edit history of the user applying the templates. John Reid also threatened me with a severe, unspecified, retribution if he were blocked for disruption or if I were to revert his edits: he states that "Don't bully anybody into thinking you have more in your hands than a mop. If you try to bully me, you will see I don't accept it lightly." and "I'm the best friend you've got outside your RW faction. You don't want to lose me." [25] Whatever the nature of John Reid's open-ended threat, I would consider it to be disruptive as well. John254 02:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Grandmasterka has reverted, I've protected it temporarily (no communication between me and Grandmasterka by the way, though I've seen him around) until yet another party takes a peek at the whole situation and determines how to respond to it all. Obviously, my protection may be unprotected/modified/etc... by any admin, no need to inform me, etc etc. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked John Reid for 24 hours for disruption ([26], [27]) and trolling ([28]). Ral315 (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Support block. Good move. We should not tolerate this. – Chacor 06:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems like overkill to me, seems no consensus was reached at the template talk pages. Catchpole 09:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of John Reid's behavior was really deserving of a block. To be honest, I'm not completely clear on the situation, but it looks like he and John254 are engaged in an editing dispute, which tends to produce heated rhetoric. I don't think his language on the template talk page corresponds to a threat, per se. I'm not going to lift the block (I've mentioned this to Ral315 on IRC), but I'm not sure blocking was the best course of action. --Slowking Man 09:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• This block is inappropriate. Reid wasn't trolling, and certainly not making "open-ended threats". Rather, this is a rehash of the ongoing debate whether removing talk page warnings is a blockable offense. Reid's version of the templates isn't very nice, but neither is "stop this or we'll block you". I would likely have unblocked if not for the fact that Reid asked us not to. Instead, I would suggest mediation between Reid and 254. >Radiant< 09:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• From what I can gather Reid objected to the 'you may be blocked for removing warnings' wording on the grounds that it isn't true (admins seldom block for such - especially as alot of users place highly questionable warnings). In place of that he was trying to redefine the purpose of these 'do not remove warnings' templates to cover people who habitually remove perfectly valid warnings and then continue the disruptive behaviour. His wording was over the top and I tend to think that such people are rare, blocked repeatedly, and thus don't really need to have warnings displayed on their talk page to identify them as trouble... it's all in the block log. Personally I'd like to see these templates go away and would have said so when they were TfD'd had I known about it. Every other day we have some kind of problem related to this 'users cannot remove warnings' philosophy coming up on this page. User talk pages exist to promote discussion... not for harassment or as a 'wall of shame'. The whole concept is just wrong. --CBD 11:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If someone were to TfD them again, I wouldn't mind either. A note here would be wise since the people who actually have the power to enforce the template language (but don't) hang out here. I don't see how it helps to have warning templates that threaten blocks that most admins do not support. Thatcher131 11:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• The problem with TFD is that, in this case, it's backwards. There appears to be no consensus on this issue either way. That means that we cannot make it policy (which would require consensus in favor) and neither can we delete the templates (which would require consensus in opposition). The prime solution, of course, is rewording the templates to match reality. >Radiant< 12:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep, that's exactly how the current nom at WP:TFD appears to be going. If anyone would like to help rewrite the templates, that would be cool. JYolkowski // talk 02:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Likely sock of Joehazelton

207.67.146.62 (talk · contribs) is likely a sockpuppet of banned user Joehazelton (talk · contribs). Consider the similarities to IP addresses such as 207.67.146.232 (talk · contribs) and 207.67.146.146 (talk · contribs). Also, compare [29] (anon) to [30] and [31] (Joehazelton). Is checkuser necessary? NatusRoma | Talk 03:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

He's not banned, but blocked indefintely. However, this looks like a simple range block could be done if it is really that necessary. Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I should have said that he was indef blocked. Two more newcomers with the same M.O.: 207.67.146.166 (talk · contribs) and 207.67.145.200 (talk · contribs). NatusRoma | Talk 07:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

UVic Wiki

I happened to come across the University of Victoria Wikipedia page and noticed that a 'Hempology 101' club was added to the page. However, it stated some illegal content [The use and drug possession] which is in contradiction with the Criminal Code of Canada. Should this be removed? Please reply in my talk page. --Cahk 04:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been taken care of by another user. Please ignore--Cahk 05:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a real club(there biggest), yes illegal, but waht does that have to do with anything?

Wikipedia is not censored. We can discuss illegal activities. I haven't reviewed the content, but let's not start a witch hunt to remove material deemed "illegal". User:Zoe|(talk) 23:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

HomeComputer

It should be noted that a whole section that tried to violate someone's personal privacy was removed. – Chacor 11:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User:HomeComputer's username is too similar to User:Home Computer. This is an unambiguous block under WP:U. —ptk✰fgs 07:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're more than able to see that my account[32], created on September 28, is a full week older than User:Home Computer's[33]? Apology accepted. --HomeComputer 07:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, User:Home Computer has contributions going back to June 2006[34]. Please submit a user name change request. Have a nice day. —ptk✰fgs 07:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Please follow this link, take note of what you observe, and help me understand how that can be. I'm not arguing...I just don't get it.--HomeComputer 07:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Click on the link number 86 above. It clearly states "22:49, June 15, 2006 Home Computer (Talk | contribs) (New user account)" Gdo01 07:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The link you are providing only shows when the User's talk page was first edited and not when the user first contributed. Gdo01 07:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

HomeComputer, what you are looking at is the edit history for his talk page, not his contribution history. Ben W Bell talk 07:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A ha! Here it is. User:Home Computer changed his or her name from User:DJSamwise on October 1, which was still three days after me. No matter. I'll submit a request to change my name as soon as I figure out how. Glad to put that matter to bed. Now, may we return to the real issue?--HomeComputer 07:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Miami problems

There seems to be an anonymous editor who is taking it upon himself to scream "NPOV" and "needs source" at Miami University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I had thought that the anon was changing his IP, so a block for disruption would be pointless, but after MiamiDolphins made the connection that this guy was annoying people at both articles, his IP suddenly changed, but it's the exact same edit. He's saying that there are weasel words, and that we should go by a four month old talk page discussion, even though those issues have been solved. I do not think that a block is right, nor do I feel that semi-protection is necessary at this stage, just yet. Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The IPs are as follows (note the similar style in edit summaries as well as USE OF CAPS)

• 71.111.186.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 134.134.136.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

134.134.136.5 seems to be a dynamic or shared ip. One of its contribs is to list of Intel chipsets which is apparently not the page the user would target. IMO semiprotection is warranted. ~crazytales56297 ^{O rly? Ya rly!} 04:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fake sockpuppets? (Karmafist & Primetime)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yungun seems to be attracting supposed sock puppets of banned users. WardOn13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and FlightCopy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claim to be socks of Karmafist, and Primetime4000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims, of cource, to be Primetime. I doubt those editors would both be suddenly interested in this minor musician. Any guesses about what's going on? -Will Beback 10:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

See also: [35]. FireyFireMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -Will Beback 10:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And Wordywiseman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who claimed to be WordBomb. -Will Beback 11:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, assumption of good faith would lead to the conclusion that these people really are the blocked users they claim to be... and therefor should be blocked. Problem solved? --CBD 11:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was thinking back to that AOL vandal, who sought to get blocked just to cause collateral damage to other AOL accounts. Is that still a problem? -Will Beback 11:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, it turns out that all of these accounts (and some others) were Karmafist socks. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/JoanneB Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Karmafist. Thanks for Jayjg for sorting it out. -Will Beback 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that there has been some other fallout to this issue and at least one person has been blocked for being a suspected sock puppet of Karmafist and that editor is User:People Powered. The information I have is that this editor is NOT a Karmafist sock.--MONGO 21:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If any account claims to be a banned user ... then ban the account immediately. There's no other even remotely acceptable action. --Cyde Weys 23:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW I've been told through an intermediary that Karmafist denies responsibility for this particular mischief. -Will Beback 06:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Koenraad Elst

Elst has declared his interest in the New Age movement. Here is the reference that motivated my first edit: [36] (see the description that arrives at the bottom. That description is from VOI, Elst's publishing house). Consequently I keep the word "neo-paganism", but cancel "right-wing" which seems to have triggered the reaction. I apologize sincerely for the misunderstanding. TwoHorned 11:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible bot?

I feel bad about this, and I wish I could unblock him soon. But a brand new user Foxwhox (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) suddenly comes up and starts editing at upto 9 edits per minute tagging dead redirects for deletion. It seems like it could be a special purpose bot account (unless someone is very enthusiastic and manages to click/type that fast). I have been going through CAT:CSD for over an hour and there was another new user tagging redirects for deletion: Zhanghai (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), though nowhere near at that speed, perhaps they are related.--Konst.able^Talk 12:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

He's claiming not to be a bot. That's quite the edit rate for a non-bot. Alphachimp 12:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems odd a brand new user is doing maintenance chors, I say unblock and keep an eye on him. Gotta WP:AGF as always.--Andeh 12:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. My gut tells me this is the bottiest bot ever to bot: it's a brand-new user doing administrative tasks, using full edit summaries (though, admittedly, the summaries are unhelpful), and working at an incredibly fast pace. I think we should wait for his explanation for how he's doing this so quickly before we unblock. -- Merope 12:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As someone who can make (and has made) 9 edits per minute with nothing more than judicious use of a tabbed web browser and a pre-prepared list of pages, and who has also written 'bots, I can confirm that 9 edits per minute is achievable by a human and deliberately slow for a 'bot. Uncle G 15:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, I often rock the tabbed browsing and whip through a bunch of minor edits in one go, but not with individualized edit summaries. Still, the point about a new user picking dead redirects as his first foray into WP is what really gets me. Who does that? -- Merope 19:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If there is no damage being caused then there is no danger in assuming good faith. HighInBC 15:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Dead redirects is one of the types of edits Maru was doing with his unauthorized bot. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki. Thatcher131 17:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Syeduo is doing the same thing.Geni 19:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

O no he is fixing Wikipedia ... wait ... its not causing problems and its doing work you don't want to ... yet there is complaints ... who would complain if some random guy decided to clean the city streets ... I really do not see what the problem is here, unless someone complaining cares to do the work themselves, it seems like a non issue, if the bot has problems ban it, if not why complain? blah blah WP:BOT I dont want to hear it, its about the spirit of the policy not the letter of it. --NuclearZer0 19:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I need my medication =). I really do not get the harm, but the above obviously could have been written friendlier and less sarcastic, my apologies for that. --NuclearZer0 19:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The weirdness is in that these are brand-new users. To use your analogy, a guy picking up trash off the street wouldn't be weird, unless he'd spent his entire life in a cave and this was his first day in the real world. Then you'd wonder how he got the idea and the knowledge to do those things. (Okay, crappy example.) It's not a bad thing, just a weird thing. -- Merope 19:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't quite picking up trash, either. This is more like someone from Nebraska arriving in New York City for the first time and making corrections to the bus schedules. Helpful indeed, but not typical behavior for a tourist. There are a couple of issues here. One is that bots require approval; to keep them from running too fast, to have someone else review the code, and to make sure there is a human available in case the bot screws up. A second issue is that if this is Maru, he has been warned repeatedly about unauthorized bots, and some of his bots in the past have made mistakes, that he was rather indifferent to. Further, Maru is a few days away from an Arbcom decision that he may not use a bot. (Which could have been avoid entirely if he had been willing to go through proper channels to have his bot approved; which mystifies me entirely.) I don't have a particular opinion about this bot, or even if it is a bot, but if it is a bot it should go through channels and if it is Maru, he should have to follow the ruling in his arbitration case. Thatcher131 20:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest bringing this discussion to the ArbCom's attention and presumably if they feel a need they will do a checkuser as well. JoshuaZ 21:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To address what some people have been saying. Bots are not always fully automated and unsupervised, it can be just someone running some manual scripts but editing at a fast rate. These all need community approval (WP:RFBOT) to make sure that there is no harm, which obviously has not ben done here. Apart from flooding CAT:CSD together with the other user I mentioned, and causing a massive backlog, there was no damage done in the current redirect tagging (all deleted now) - but what if he would have misfired? Or if at that pace of 9 redirects per minute would have continued for much longer, CAT:CSD would have been so completely overflowed that other pages needing speedy deletion (perhaps more urgently that dead redirects) would have been left undeleted for longer. Maybe it would be much more beneficial to just get admins to go through the redirects themselves without filling up CAT:CSD. Of course this issue was not discussed at all, while of course it is a good faith editor he needs to go through the proper channels for approval.--Konst.able^Talk 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is no approval process for a human making edits. I repeat: 9 edits per minute is achievable by a human. I, for one, can edit at that rate. It is also deliberately slow for a 'bot. If this is a 'bot, it has complied with the requirements to limit the rate at which it edits. Uncle G 11:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... a few days ago we had an apparent bot doing rollbacks on wikibooks (from an admin who had otherwise been MIA for many months). Kinda looked like a test to me (though again, it wasn't an unreasonable series of changes that were made, just rather startling to see so many rollbacks in the log within such a short period of time). I wonder if there's some new software floating about somewhere that's being tested out. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 11:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The Green Fish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & sockpuppetry

• The Green Fish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lokqs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Weedro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 83.249.79.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seems all to be the same user, according to their style of editing, behaviour, and article editing history. I came across this user after edits on Classical liberalism, Operation Gladio and Belgian stay-behind network. In the first this user was reverted by another user [37]. In the second article, Operation Gladio, this user removed a fact flag, and re-inserted material that is already available at Belgian stay-behind network [38]. In the latter case, this user tries to re-insert conspiricist information all linked to one source who is not an expert or writer about the Belgian stay-behind network. Is a checkuser warranted here, or should this be dealt differently? Thanks for any help. Intangible 13:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The return of quickpolls

A poll has been started on whether a certain user should be banned [39]. While I have no familiarity with the case or the user (who at first glance seems to be problematic, and has an RFC), I question the usefulness of a poll to decide upon a community ban. Thoughts, anyone? >Radiant< 13:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I also have no prior familiarity with the incident, however just to comment about polls deciding a community ban, I'm completely against it. A community ban issue should probably be the result of free-flowing discussion, not votes. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 13:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the incident either, however polling is a find way to aid discussion. As long it is not taken as straight voting. If you look at that page, yes they are polling, but they are explaining their votes.

I am sure that consensus will be based on those arguements and not simply a tally. HighInBC 13:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Er, no. By my count, at least half of the participants are not in fact explaining their votes. >Radiant< 14:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That is my point, by your count. Now if you see somebody saying that the way they counted a poll should determine consensus than that is wrong. The people who did not comment, did not contribute much to the discussion. However the method is still a good way to talk. It is not polling that is evil, it is using the results of a poll as a reason to do something that is evil. imho. HighInBC 15:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Quickpolls were widely considered to be a mess - this poll should probably be stopped with an explanation that that's not the way we do things here. --Improv 14:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but for more information please scroll up this very page to the discussion titled "Is a community ban appropriate in this case?" which is where this (talk of blocking, not the original dispute) all started in the first place. MrDarwin 15:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A few comments: first, the poll was initiated only after User:Brya had been blocked by an admin (see discussion above), with the agreement of several other admins but after the objection of at least one editor. The poll was announced in the discussion on this page as well as on the project page. Second, perhaps it wasn't clearly stated but the poll was never intended to be a vote to block or ban Brya, but rather a poll to see whether there was support for blocking or banning, an action that had already been taken. Third, most of the votes are indeed explained, if you take "agree with MrDarwin", after I had made comments that others apparently agreed with and saw no need to expand upon, to be an explanation of their votes. MrDarwin 15:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Darwin is correct. That poll was run concurrently with an ANI discussion (not in a vacuum) to gauge how other members of the community who are not usually invovled on ANI felt about the matter. Methinks too many people are allergic to the word poll, however it is a valid form of discussion. No one has said this was binding or the last word. pschemp | talk 22:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. While binding polls are bad, polls are not neccesarily bad. HighInBC 22:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User: 151.198.85.18

I've warned this guy over and over again and he just won't stop his constant vandalizing. Please block him. Mnpeter 15:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Try making a post here Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism after being sure he has been properly warned. HighInBC 15:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 31 hours by another admin. --W.marsh 15:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing on Deflation (economics)

An ip user from the 87.117.200.* range is editing disruptively on Deflation (economics). He is reverting to a version that includes unverifiable (read, innacurate) statements, and that attempts to push a fringe POV on economics. He is unable or unwilling to provide sources for his claims, though I have requested them multiple times. I would appreciate intervention. Thank you. JBKramer 17:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have provided sources to Mr. JBKramer, he's refusing to acknowledge them. He also called me a racist and threatened to "Spank me." I was quite shocked at the accusation and his threat to sexually assult me. 81.117.200.27 17:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This allegation is false. Review my edit history and block the disruptive editor, please. JBKramer 17:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to your latest IRC msg to me. Of course it's not on your edit history, but I kept logs. 81.117.200.27 17:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not on IRC. JBKramer 17:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are. Why must you distort the truth, which is also known as "fact creating" when those facts you are attempting to create do not hold water? I must protest your increasingly sexual overtoned language, your threats of assualt and sexual assault, your attempts to undermine the very system that holds our fabric together, and your oitose attempts to smear me before the community. Please cease and desist. 81.117.200.27 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

He is fishing, don't bite the lure, nobody is going to believe him without evidence. HighInBC 17:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not fishing. These allegations are very true. 81.117.200.27 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I doubt that these allegations are true, I can check because I'm connected to #wikipedia. I'll check it when I return to my main machine. Shadow1 (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, this was a private message, not in channel. 81.117.200.27 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, what's the nickname you were using at the time of the incident, and what's the nickname JDKramer was using? Shadow1 (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I was using 'HardKnockInTx' and he was using 'JBKramer' on DALNet. 81.117.200.27 17:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

On DALnet. Really. Why were you discussing this on DALnet? Shadow1 (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't set mode +i, so he was able to /who me by IP I guess. 81.117.200.27 17:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "official" channels are on freenode. Any other networks are not used by Wikipedia and we can't enforce anything based on actions that happen on other networks. Naconkantari 17:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, I was just bringing up the fact that I have logs of him threatening to spank me like a little "aryan monkey child." That's assualt and sexual assualt. 81.117.200.27 17:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Logs can be forged. Shadow1 (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know that. Thank you for letting me know. I brought this up to defend myself from the collective "not in good faith" attitude this group has shown me during this 30 minute long ordeal. 81.117.200.27 17:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith. The original discussion was about the edit war you and JDKramer are conducting on deflation, yet you claim you were threatened by JDKramer but cannot produce verifiable evidence. Shadow1 (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls, it only encourages them. HighInBC 17:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Editor is still abusing my talk page. JBKramer 21:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Naconkantari 21:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Persistent incivility and personal attacks

Jaakko Sivonen (talk · contribs), who calls himself at his userpage "A Finn and a nationalist" (a very rare breed, btw), expresses a regrettable attitude towards other editors who happen to disagree with him, resorting to accusation of vandalism and name-calling. He has been warned before about unwarranted vandalism accusations but the warning had no effect on him.

Today, he again accused users who disagreed with him in vandalism[40], and called his opponent "an idiot"[41].

After that he was sternly warned, but again to no effect as he continued calling the disagreeable to him edits "vandalising"[42] and issued a response where he persisted with his accusations.[43]

Since the user has been warned enough times and seems to not be getting it, a block may be in order at this point. --Irpen 18:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I second Irpen's request. Despite the previous warning, this user accused today of vandalism both myself and Irpen, called us both idiots (once, twice), responded to Irpen's warning in a very defiant tone, etc. He objects to calling the Grand Duchy of Finland (1812-1917, part of the Russian Empire) "a Russian-controlled puppet state" and insists on replacing Swedish names with the Finnish ones in an article about a medieval Swedish castle. Everyone who disagrees with him is either a "vandal", an "idiot", or a "Russian nationalist". I'm really disappointed that admins would readily block a long-standing contributor for expressing his opinions, while trolls are allowed to roam Wikipedia and shout personal attacks unimpeded. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm; perisitent incivility; regrettable attitude toward those who disagree with him; name-calling and accusations of vandalism; unresponsive to warnings about his behavior. Well, if it has got to the point of being disruptive I guess a block is in order. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him/her for 31 hours.--MONGO 20:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sosomk disruption of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Khoikhoi 2

Hi,

User:Sosomk is currently disrupting the said RFA by adding personal attacks and insults directed either against Khoikhoi or against people trying to either support him or remove his attacks.

Examples: [44], [45], [46]

Attempts to remind him of the NPA policy by Inshanee ([47]), User:Errabee and myself has led to nowhere (cf. our respective talks). Furthermore, he removed my remarks from his talk page with summaries like "cleaning crap": [48], [49].

Consequently, I would appreciate if an uninvolved admin could sort this out. Thanks, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record: when advised by User:Errabee to investigate my conduct before throwing accusations, Sosomk labeled me a Russian "Neo-Nazi" or "Neo-Bolshevik" skinhead. This is very insulting, especially from a user whom I don't know. If I had said anything like this, I would have long been blocked for 48 hours or more. Talk about double standards... --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but it looks like a couple of IPs are also doing the same thing (probably the same user). At least two have been blocked already by other admins. --Coredesat 19:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just blocked another (222.149.155.76). Please block these on sight and remove their edits. This kind of racist smear campaign should not be tolerated. Gwernol 19:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Barbatus reported Khoikhoi on AIV for no apparent (verifiable) reason. I removed it. --Coredesat 20:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, 203.115.1.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) done that, signing as Barbatus (I don't know the situation, but that could be an attempt to fling the shot at someone else!). Thanks/wangi 20:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Never mind, it was 203.115.1.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who messed up Barbatus' report of another vandal. --Coredesat 20:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I know, I got edit-conflicted after I realized it. --Coredesat 20:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked 220.218.159.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 220.228.145.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Thanks/wangi 20:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that the IPs were related to this user (it doesn't seem like his MO), but I've spoken with him and he has agreed to leave the RfA discussion alone. I also made it clear that one more personal attack would result in a block. I will monitor his edits and the RfA (which I won't participate in, so as to remain neutral). -- Merope 20:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that the two IPs I initially blocked for 24hrs were open proxies, i've indef blocked them. Thanks/wangi 20:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sosomk's behavior here is quite over the top. The personal attacks on the RfA, as well as the edit warring over them, and the very inflammatory comment Ghirla quotes above are bad. Further, he responds to warnings from two different editors with contempt for civility. While I pearticipated in Khoikhoi's RfA, this seems to me clear cut incivility and trolling, and I have blocked him for 24 hours Dmcdevit·t 22:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Distruptive editing by User:Worldhunt

The article on the World Hunting Association has been problematic, because editors apparently associated with the Association are desperate to eliminate all reporting of the widespread, high-profile criticism the Association has received. Previously I was involved in a long back-and-forth dispute with User:Pete1080. He started out simply vandalising the article but eventually he was engaged on the talk page, gradually grew more reasonable and finally a consensus appeared to be reached. That version was stable for many weeks, until User:Worldhunt came back on the scene. That user has repeatedly blanked criticism [50] [51] and maliciously altered external links to make them not work [52] [53], labelling some of these edits with a "minor" flag, and has persisted despite receiving vandalism warnings on User_talk:Worldhunt. I suspected judging by the name that he actually wished to dispute content, so asked him to take it up on the talk page. He has not done so in any meaningful way and has continued to vandalise, but he did make one comment describing my reverts as slanderous [54], so I have posted this request for investigation here rather than WP:AIV.--Russell E 19:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've issued a 24 hour block. Durova 13:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry on Linda Christas International School AfD

Could an admin please look into sockpuppetery on Linda Christas International School AfD

• Oppieangel2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be the same person as
• Butchalliran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thelystrom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tech27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GeorgeStanton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RolandPatina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ShirleyDobbins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Keepyoursocksdry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bestofseven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note Oppieangel2000's fairly disruptive edits to the AfD, eg [55] Pete.Hurd 19:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms all of these, and Synqopation (talk · contribs), Referee36 (talk · contribs), Julieismywife (talk · contribs), Buddydebrill (talk · contribs), and Manysummers (talk · contribs) as well. Dmcdevit·t 22:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I've blocked anon edits and account creation on an involved IP for a week, so there probably won't be any more. —Cryptic 22:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

All blocked indef except the main account, Oppieangel who is blocked for a week for massive sockpuppetry and disruption. pschemp | talk 22:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Drraymondridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has appeared, and has that familar style. Pete.Hurd 02:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Goodness. You'd think the socks would at least make an attempt to disguise themselves. Blocked. pschemp | talk 05:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they don't have a course in "crafty" at that !school, go figure. ;) Pete.Hurd 05:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You do mean "school," not school... Don't know too many schools that are for-profit unaccredited corporations, which lack campuses and are built entirely around bizarre 501(c)4 political lobbying committees and wikipedia spamming. If it weren't for the prohibition on original research, I'd write a serious article about these guys... :-)Francisx 08:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Back as 71.142.241.76 with same style and tone (blocking probably futile, amusingly naive in persistence) Pete.Hurd 15:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• BettyCharette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) *sigh!* Pete.Hurd 21:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Aha! inuse & protected, Naconkantari brings a mop. Pete.Hurd 21:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Green hornet and AfD sockpuppetry

CheckUser reveals that Green hornet (talk · contribs) has engaged in sockpuppetry to attempt to influence the outcome of AfD. Stratafriend (talk · contribs), Bluetie46 (talk · contribs), Mj the deletionist (talk · contribs), and Friedchicken88 (talk · contribs) which have been involved in editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strata (band) and Strata (band), are all the same person. I leave any decision in this matter up to the community. Dmcdevit·t 21:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Green hornet for one week for sockpuppetry usage on AfD's. Blocked all other sockpuppets indefinitely. Nishkid64 23:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Puppetmaster Mattisse repeatedly removing puppetmaster tag

I've put it back 3 times, she has reverted 4. 3RR? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 23:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked accounts are allowed to edit their userpage at will. It's only the indef-blocked accounts that get the tags about being "sock masters" or whatever. Which begs the question: is this a good circumstance to indef-block? I think it might be. --Cyde Weys 23:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I was considering a block, but I opted not to. I reverted back, and left a note on the user talk page. If the user continues to remove the notice from their userpage, then the user can be blocked. However, I do not believe a indef block should really be applied in this case. The user does make some positive contributions to the community. Nishkid64 23:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that as soon as Nishkid reverted, Matisse reverted, again: "removed harassment for fifth time byUser: Nishkid64 with User:Ekajati" Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm against any sort of block on this account. Mattisse is a good contributor, who has felt very got at by this whole process. A civil discussion is the way to resolve this. --Salix alba (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm considering just protecting the page so that it can only be edited by administrators for the time-being. The user has reverted too many times, and some other admin is bound to go crazy and block her/him for a while for repeatedly removing of the sockpuppetry messages. Protecting the page is the best option in my opinion. Nishkid64 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Salix, the problem with this user is that they won't talk. They're not discussing the matter in a civil fashion. I'm protecting the page to save Mattisse. Nishkid64 23:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, we don't use the sockmaster template as a scarlet A to brand editors who have made mistakes in the past. Per the comments above, we only use such templates on the user pages of permanently or indefinitely banned editors. I would strongly object to blocking Mattisse for removing a tag from his own user page when that tag shouldn't be there in the first place. In general, it's considered bad form to edit war over the contents of a user page belonging to an editor in good standing. I think it would be best to consider this a lesson learned for Ekajati and Nishkid64, and move on.

Obviously if Mattisse engages in disruptive behaviour (creating new sockpuppets, for example) it would be appropriate to consider a block. It's really not fair to block him for removing a template that shouldn't have been placed in the first place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. On top of that, the template was removed for over a month and during all that time, the admin who originally placed it did not complain. If Ekajati has a problem with Mattisse removing this on his own page, he should IMHO take it to User:Hanuman Das directly. Regards, Asterion^talk 00:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Nishkid64 has seen fit to revert to a version of the user page with the tag and protect that page with the template in place. I'd appreciate further review here, if only to know if I'm totally out in left field here. I don't want to go unprotecting and removing the tag as the first shot in a wheel war, but it troubles me that a couple of non-admins (Ekajati and Ryulong) were edit warring with another editor over something like this. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess the whole situation was a misunderstanding. I did not know when exactly to put a sockpuppeteer tag on a user page, and I frankly didn't think it was that big of a deal before you brought it up. If you believe that my actions were unjust, then by all means go ahead and remove the tag. Nishkid64 00:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding a block of this user: IMO not yet, but the user must be warned about the words they choose (see Ryulong's example of such an edit summary above). They may feel harassed, but this is becoming uncivil on their part as well. – Chacor 00:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see how an editor might be a bit peeved when other editors keep erroneously – albeit with the best of intentions – replacing a sockpuppeteer template front-and-centre on that editor's user page. I note that Mattisse removed the template twice without comment, including once after a bordering-on-snide edit summary from Ekajati ("puppetmaster template may not be removed, you made the bed...").

I'm normally a stickler for civility, but I really would hate to see this issue further escalated when a user is upset because we admins happen to have made an error. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Put me down as someone who thinks this problem would go away if the admins who like to play cops and robbers would stop worrying about whether or not someone removes a warning from their talk page. Ξxtreme Unction 00:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Per Nishkid's comment above, I have unprotected the talk page, and informed Mattisse that he can do as he sees fit with it. I will emphasize my earlier advice to him to avoid incivil remarks and sockpuppets. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by Hasbro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Hasbro has been making homophobic personal attacks to other users, see the following diffs:

• Oh yeah, I can't wait until this turns into another William II/Edward II/James I article, with LGBTQ freaks co-opting the content with paranoid theories about faggot coverups in the English Royal Family. Fuck you and grow the fuck up. Hasbro 09:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC) [56]

• Stop the libel and disruptions of Wiki to make points, which was the issue mocked. Fix the problem instead of make it harder on those who wish to take this encyclopedia seriously. Wiki is a dumpster if all you want is to let some people break some rules and other people have to follow other rules. I take allegations of homosexuality about English monarchs very seriously, but you don't care, do you? Faggot. Hasbro 13:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC) [57]

The first attack was towards an IP and the second was towards User:Vary, an administrator whom likely is being cautious as not to block a user whom is personally attacking him. Can some other administrator take care of this situation. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 00:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've given him a 24-hour block. Feel free to evaluate/criticize. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have indef. blocked. Homophobic attacks are as egregious as racist attacks. Would you have only blocked for 24 hours someone throwing the "n" word around? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to indef block, the username is a violation. It is clearly the username of an established toy company that that user clearly does not represent. pschemp | talk

Looks like he'll not be around much anymore anyway: [58]. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have am extra complaint.

When my user page was reverted: User:Mattisse‎; 18:53 . . contribs) (Revert to revision 73364465 dated 2006-09-02 07:33:12 by Netsnipe using popups) it was reverted to a point before the sockpuppet label was put on again, revealing personal information that I don't wish to be available for personal reasons and that I had removed long ago. So now I can't remove my own personal information that User:Ekajati chose to reveal. I was told that it was an administrator that was doing it (which I did not think an administrator would do without due process) so I did not believe that part. Nonetheless, what I want private is now there against my will and there is nothing I can do about it. Mattisse(talk) 00:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC) May I please be allowed to remove the part that wasn't there to begin with when User:Ekajati started this? Mattisse(talk) 01:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. Per the discussion above, Nishkid64 is okay with removing the template. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

strange user page

can someone please view the contributions by MLCamp (talk · contribs) and the user page Yuckfoo 01:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what are we supposed to be looking for here...? Are these related? --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: I think that the above post was by User:Yuckfoo and stated "can someone please view the contributions by MLCamp (talk · contribs) and the user page [of MLCamp]. I agree that the page is very strange and deserves a look. --N Shar 04:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The edits aren't constructive, but they're not particularly destructive, either. The user page is a red flag, though, and may need to be dealt with. Wikipedia isn't a free webhost. --Coredesat 04:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

69.50.208.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

As seen on the talk page, this user is repeatedly sending E-mails (a la spam, myself included) to many Wikipedia editors and administrators, attempting to change passwords. Some users have received no fewer than 100-200 messages simultaneously from this IP. It is an open proxy indeed, but you think there is anything we can do about this? // Pilotguy (Have your say) 01:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Block them with your email filters. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The email comes from wiki@wikimedia.org. That's not an address I want to filter out. They attempted three times to hack me about 40 minutes ago. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I got hundreds upon hundreds of these I'm guessing over 500, the last few days, even after my email was supposely disabled, I'm tired of this harrasment. Jaranda 03:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC) unsignedin.

Don't filter by address; filter by subject line. The clicker doesn't have the option to change the subject line. You'll never see them again. Antandrus (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're on a Unix-like system, simply add the following to your .procmailrc file:

:0
* ^Subject:.*Password reminder from Wikipedia
/dev/null

If you're not on a Unix-like system but your ISP is, then ask your ISP to create this .procmailrc file for you. —Psychonaut 01:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, he's bombed me with over 50 of them too. Harvestdancer 01:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I got another hundred right now and AOL doesn't have that opinion I believe, JaraxleArminus should really get a life as who does this type of trolling, that's the reason I got fed up with wikipedia. Jaranda 172.133.69.198 03:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This is truly ridiculous. It's as simple as limiting five password requests an hour, or something, to reduce most of the damage done by IP addresses. Hbdragon88 03:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

why not one per day? Can't think a situation where more would be necessary... ~crazytales56297 ^{O rly? Ya rly!} 04:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediawiki already has a feature which restricts the number of times per hour/day that a password reminder can be requested. However, it's not enabled on Wikipedia. You can voice your concerns or vote for this issue at the Mediawiki Bugzilla (Bug 7078). —Psychonaut 01:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Page recreation after deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Haunting of a House was deletion discussion that ended today, and two times so far the page has been recreated and speedily deleted again. Perhaps an administrator can protect the page from being created again. Harvestdancer 03:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• I just salted it for you. --Improv 03:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faye Gabriel

I'm not really sure what to say about this. Discussion started out civilly, until AQu01rius quite reasonably suggested a merge. Suddenly 4 suspected single-purpose accounts (two anon users) appeared on the scene to "vote" merge as well. Then another user posted a somewhat inflammatory comment, to which several users responded with comments. Then one of the possible single-use accounts removed those comments. I reverted to replace them. Now the discussion is heading rapidly downhill. Could we have some administrator intervention, perhaps? At least some investigation of the suspected SPAs would be nice. --N Shar 04:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Situation is getting more serious, with personal attacks being made by User:WalterWalrus3. --N Shar 04:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Man what a stupid thing to get in a hissy fit about. It seems to be okay now, I added my opinion and the page is now on my watchlist, joining the ranks of hundreds of dead AfD discussions still on my watchlist. Grandmasterka 09:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Lobbying in AfDs

I am not sure if there is a specific blocking policy for editors engaging in lobbying if CfDs and AFDs, but I certainly know that it is a practice that is frowned upon. See Smeelgova (talk · contribs) and her recent contribs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Usually the first time we just say 'Don't do that again, please', unless it's a particularly tendentious debate and the editor really ought to know better or has a track record of trouble. With repeat offenses we tend to get more irate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Would be nice if you offer this advise to the editor. I tried, but the editor saw it as a threat. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hopeless. You asked nicely enough, the user's response appears to be bluster and wikilawyering. Not a good reaction, and unlikely to be helpful to their case in any measurable way. Guy 12:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have had similar issues with the same editor in the recent past. He/she is part of what appears to be an orchestrated campaign to engage in tendentious editing on any and all articles about Werner Erhard, EST, Landmark Education and anything else even tangentially related to those subjects. To make matters worse, there's also several editors engaging in equally tendentious editing on those articles from the other side (basically, one group thinks Erhard is God, the other group wants to vilify him). It is an amazing mess involving at least eight to ten editors, and it's going to get much worse if some admin (or group of admins) doesn't step in and put a stop to it across the board pretty soon. --Aaron 13:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Time for an RfC or mediation, I think - this is too complex for a simple whack with the cluebat to fix. Guy 15:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I get tired just by thinking about it... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll pass on the mediation/RfC idea; the subject matter is of no interest to me, so it's not worth the living hell that would result from the initiation of any sort of dispute resolution. --Aaron 22:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• I GET THE POINT, I HAVE DULY TAKEN JOSSI'S ADVICE THE FIRST TIME HE GAVE IT. CAN YOU GUYS JUST ALL GIVE ME A CHANCE HERE? I DON'T EVEN REALLY KNOW WHAT AN RFC IS? JUST LEAVE ME ALONE AND PLEASE PLEASE GIVE ME A CHANCE TO LEARN FROM ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS PLEASE. IT SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE ALL GETTING ANGRY AT MY DISCUSSION, WHICH IS JUST ME TRYING TO LEARN, AND NOT MY CEASING OF ACTION THE FIRST TIME IMMEDIATELY AFTER BEING WARNNED BY JOSSI, WHICH I DID. ALSO DON'T APPRECIATE NOT BEING NOTIFIED ABOUT BEING DISCUSSED ON THIS PAGE. PLEASE SHOW ME THAT WIKIPEDIA CAN BE A WARMER COMMUNITY THAN THIS AND I WILL LISTEN IF YOU GIVE ME A CHANCE. Smeelgova 18:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

• I have gotten your advice, all of the above. I acknowledge that you are all a bit upset. Please give me some time to process and a bit of patience. User:Jossi and I seem to be getting along a bit more amiably, which is a good thing. Yours, Smeelgova 20:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

Is this disruption?

User:Gene Nygaard has been moving lots of stuff around lately. His rationale was that articles which have Latin letters which are not in English alphabet should have redirects which have only English letters in it. Which is fine. And he created those "redirects" by moving the whole page. Which I think is not fine. He was warned by User:PANONIAN no to do that but he ignored him and proceeded by moving Chanoz-Châtenay to Chanoz-Chatenay. Now, I know there are some people who think English Wikipedia shouldn't have letters which are not from English alphabet, and there are those which think it should since it's native spelling and letters like â still are in Latin alphabet. But, what I wanted to ask was: if I think that Chanoz-Châtenay should be titled Chanoz-Chatenay, am I disruptive if I move the whole article (instead of just creating a redirect)? Aaaaand, am I disruptive if I move it the other way around? Because, it seems to me that current consensus on this matter is to keep the status quo, not to enforce one of this two solutions. Am I right? Or did the community come up with a policy on this since the last time I checked? --Dijxtra 08:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose WP:VPP is a more appropriate venue for this discussion. And yes, I consider Gene's moving spree disruptive. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

He's been pulling this stunt for a long time, despite multiple requests to stop. --Calton | Talk 09:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dijxtra describes "two camps", those who think:

• English Wikipedia shouldn't have letters which are not from English alphabet
• it should since it's native spelling and letters like â still are in Latin alphabet

I'm in neither camp. First of all, keep in mind that there is a difference between manual-of-style issues, and the naming convention issues which deal with assigning the one slot available for an article's name.

The names of Wikipedia articles may contain diacritics, but those versions are not always the appropriate name to use. Our Wikipedia article is not at România, though a redirect from there does exist. Our Wikipedia article is not at Hồ Chí Minh, though a redirect from there does exist.

However, there are also only some, in fact a very few of the possible thousands of different letters with diacritics available in Unicode as single letters or in the more problematic combining forms (and others in use not available in Unicode even then), that see any significant use in the English language.

As pointed out in 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."

In huge numbers of cases, diacritics have been slapped on article's names without any discussion of whether or not it is the appropriate spelling to occupy the slot available for an article's name. It might be; it might not be.

But when those moves have been made, then at least the redirect from the former spelling remains behind. Redirects don't solve all the problems; articles can still be hidden from many search engine searches as a result of these moves accompanied by spelling changes within the article itself.

Similarly, my moves for reasons along these lines don't disrupt anything. All the links to it still work. Entering the name with diacritics in the "Go" box still works. Nothing is broken, but in a great many cases something is fixed: former redlinks in other articles now get to the article. They will still get to the article even if somebody in the future moves the article again.

When article names do have diacritics, it is absolutely essential that:

1. Redirects are created from the spelling without diacritics (other common variants are a good idea as well). Redirects don't just happpen!
2. The indexing sort key be fixed so that articles will sort properly in categories, according to English sorting rules (note that without using sort keys, they do not sort in accordance with the rules of any other language either; they merely sort in Unicode number order). Categories don't just sort themselves automatically.

Gene Nygaard 09:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed: this is one of the reasons for having {{R from title without diacritics}}. Did you say there are more which require the same treatment? HTH HAND Phil | Talk 09:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You are accusing me of being disruptive? When you just moved a page, without fixing the sort keys for indexing in categories? Will you please go fix that at least; then we can take up your shenanigans there later. Gene Nygaard 09:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, Phil Boswell, what in the world do you think you are doing with this edit of the article discussed by Dijxtra in opening this discussion, where you have changed the indexing sort key from the correct [[Category:Communes of Ain|Chanoz-Chatenay]] to the incorrect [[Category:Communes of Ain|Chanoz-Châtenay]]. You are the one being disruptive, not me. Gene Nygaard 12:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to fix sort keys, do that. If you want redirects created, do that. Your moves of pages to wrong titles are disruptive, as the wrong titles are worse than the category sorting. Many people have told you so, but you have continued. Do you need to be blocked to understand who is being disruptive? Kusma (討論) 09:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

They are not "wrong titles". They are correct spellings in the English alphabet. We have every bit as much right to establish our own identity by using our own alphabet in our writing as the people who has no other way to establish their identity than to see how cute they can get with their letters. Most English-language newspapers, for example, choose to limit themselves to the English alphabet in most cases. It is much more disruptive to have it so that someone reading about something, someone, or some place in a newspaper cannot find an existing article about it in Wikipedia, than it is for some hot-headed chauvinist to enter his non-English alphabet spelling and get redirected to an article that doesn't use the squiggles in its name. Gene Nygaard 10:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

French diacritics are commonly used in English, so removing them is wrong. For example, "château" is listed in the OED. Kusma (討論) 11:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There are thousands of articles in Wikipedia which contain words that have diacritics in French but which do not have diacritics in the name of the Wikipedia article. There are thousands of cases in which removing existing articles from French words with diacritics would not be wrong, either. Gene Nygaard 15:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

See here for a long thread on this user. His position is summed up by this diff; if people do not fix indexing or create diacriticless redirects, he claims he is entitled to move pages to achieve this.

There is an overwhelming consensus that using page moves to fix redirects and categorisation is disruptive; see the thread linked above, and [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64]....

The fact is that redirect creation and index fixing is useful; however, we do not have carte blanche to fix these things with any method. Sticking to this method just because it raises awareness, when there are other less inflammatory and disruptive ways of achieving the same end is an abuse of WP:POINT. What is most sad is that if after creating a redirect with a page move he then moved it back to its original title, he would have achieved all his aims listed above and there would be no outside complaints (as page-naming consistency would not have been broken and no double-redirects or time-wasting caused), and this discussion would not be taking place. I think intervention has become necessary. Aquilina 10:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please, can we do something about this? In a lot of cases he's inventing new Anglicised spellings for things that don't even have an existing common form in English. Creating redirects and fixing sortkeys is good, and it takes no extra effort compared to moving the page. —ptk✰fgs 10:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have left a strongly worded message for Gene. Creating a redirect is trivial, doing it by moving the article is not trivial, and is pointless and disruptive unless consensus exists to do that for WP:MOS reasons. Guy 10:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There is past history here. Further, redirects against consensus, in either direction, are not disruptive, while movement is. So, if this user does not immediately stop moving without (or against) consensus, I'd support a block. Just as I did last time. I don't see that much has changed. The user did not get blocked but also apparently did not change behaviour. I don't actually care about the arguments pro/con, I care about whether the behaviour is disruptive. If the arguments are valid, non disruptive behaviour can nevertheless achieve the needed change. BTW I do not buy the "you didn't do A so I get to do B instead" argument. If A is needful, and doing so is not disruptive, while doing B is, do A. Don't do B instead, that seems obviously not the thing to do. 22,000 edits or no. ++Lar: t/c 11:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It is no different from, and certainly no more disruptive than, a zillion other undiscussed moves, many of which are wrong. For example, the moves of Cesar Romero by Gaudio[65] and Joint Task Force Guantanamo by Matt Yeager[66] and the move of Jaromir Jagr by Ryulong[67]. Gene Nygaard 11:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Those aren't the type of moves people are complaining about here. Moving JTFG back to Joint Task Force Guantanamo is a justified move, for WP:NC reasons - it's the most common name. Moving Çandarlı to Candarli is not a justified move however, because you did it just because there was no redirect, not because of any argument of usage. There is a clear distinction between cases here, and the second type is disruptive, and these are what you have been told to stop. Aquilina 11:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Those are exactly the kinds of moves being discussed here. In some cases, I have undone them; in other cases, someone else has. The point is, when there has been no determination of the proper wording to occupy the one slot available for an article's name, I am just as free to indicate my opinion and preference by making a move as anybody else is. Sometimes my preference prevails, sometimes it doesn't, but that doesn't make my move wrong in any different way than the undiscussed moves the other direction. Gene Nygaard 11:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As a complainant, I sort of define which types of moves I am complaining about. The ones based on usage arguments are fine. The ones based on the arbitrary presence of a redirect are not. Aquilina 15:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not see whats disruptive if he is not edit warring over it, he is doing the move to incite comment, if people move it he doesn't edit war and its apparent to him others feel it should be in the native spelling, if they leave it, then its obvious noone cared. He is just being BOLD, and since there is no edit warring I really do not see the problem, are edit histories being lost? are messages being lost no the talk page? I mean what exactly is the disruption being caused by the moves? the 2 seconds it takes someone to move it back? If he is fixing category listings in some cases then just leave it be, at least if half get moved back then at least half got fixed according to the categories alphabetizing. --NuclearZer0 12:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

He is creating work that others need to fix at articles that he is not actively editing. This is like changing British to American spelling, which is a blockable offense. Moving pages to incite comments is disruptive anyway. Kusma (討論) 12:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You say its disruptive, but what exactly is the disruption? What is being lost? is a page move really that hard to fix? Isnt he fixing the categories at the same time? If he was moving them to the correct location and losing redirects would that be disruptive, since its creating the need for other work to be done? If fixing some of these names create secondary work are you stating people shouldnt start something unless they can do it completely? I have in the past converted most of an article to cite news format for its references, is this disruptive because only half was in cite news then and I left work for someone else to finish it? If he moves a page and it gets moved back because of concensus what is the issue? he is not edit warring over them. Its like reverting a vandal, if he made 50 edits, do you revert everything or do you waddle through all 50 to find out which are legit and which aren't? Sometimes the mass edit way is the better direction isntead of starting and attempting to keep track of 60+ page move discussions. --NuclearZer0 12:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes they do cause disruption - some need admin intervention to repair [68], some cause mutliple double redirects [69] (which you are warned not to create), most leave practically every internal link needing redirection [70], some are just to little-used or incorrect transliterations [71] or out of step with every other article in its category [72] and overall it needs a small task-force of editors to watch over his contributions, repair all the problems which could have been avoided had he performed the changes in the way requested. And none of these moves was based on grounds of actual usage. Aquilina 15:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to add a note, JTFG is more common usage then Joint Task Force Guantanamo, I think people just do not realize that because they are looking up written mentions, where the person writing has to spell it out. Newspapers cannot simpyl refer to it as JTFG, much like they would write out Rolling On the Floor Laughing and not ROFL, its just proper to do it as such. However anyone who speaks of it will not be saying the full out words, but saying JTFG. --NuclearZer0 12:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"So and so did wrong thing X in case Y" is not permission for anyone to do wrong thing X in case Z. Moves without or against consensus, especially a lot of them, for articles you are otherwise not involved in, is disruption. Gene, you have been asked to stop. There is consensus that you should stop. Why is this not blockable if you continue? ++Lar: t/c 12:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Just don't throw in false statements like "against consensus". There is no rule that just because an article's name can possibly be written with diacritics, then it must have diacritics in the article's name (besides, there are often a whole lot of other possible variants involved, including more or fewer diacritics, anglicized descriptive identifiers ("fortress" rather than the foreign word "Festung" for example). Romania and Ho Chi Minh and Oscar Nunez and a whole lot of other articles show otherwise. Gene Nygaard 13:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is not a false statement when you are part of an overwhelming majority of a large number of users all telling you the same thing. Aquilina15:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Just creating the redirects is fine, as is going around fixing category sort keys. However Gene's recent page move behavior is simply not acceptable. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Just creating redirects to names with diacritics is "fine", too. That helps increase the chances the articles can be found, and that is just as effective in fixing redlinks in other articles as moving the page is. Furthermore, doing so does not screw up the indexing sort keys, as moving instead of creating redirects does, when the mover doesn't actually go and fix them. That does't mean that mass, undiscussed moves along those lines are, nor that such a move cannot be undone. Gene Nygaard 13:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems obvious from his contributions that Mr. Nygaard is a single-purpose account in spirit, if not in actual definition. He's a crusader, on a holy mission to purify the language from the heathen foreigners. That's probably a snarl of WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a soapbox, wikipedia is not a platform for defending the English language) and WP:NOR (Creating anglicized spellings for words which have not historically had them, just because "Ĉ" looks like "C", regardless of how it may be pronounced) somewhere. I'd recommend a community ban for him if he refuses to stop. And I'll bet a shiny, brand-new nickel that he refuses to stop. Ξxtreme Unction 14:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed solution

User:Ptkfgs has asked: "Yes, please, can we do something about this?". From what I've read now, it seems to me that comunity thinks that although Gene might have a point, he is proving it in a disruptive manner, which is forbiden by WP:POINT. What I propose now is a RfC. What good would it do? Well, it would clearly show whether community supports Gene's actions. Not his oppinion on non-English letters, but his actions. I suspect that the RfC would show that there is very little support for his actions. If that turns out to be true, the RfC should be considered as a final warning to Gene.

This is my first interaction with Gene, and I see that some of you have already been throught this discussion. So, if there's already been a RfC or if Gene was warned in some other manner, then I suppose we can take this directly to ArbCom.

What are your oppinions? Should we do a RfC, just warn him not to do that or take him to RfArb? --Dijxtra 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think we're actually proposing the third option, a community ban. There has been a previous rfc, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gene Nygaard, which indicates that there may be a behavioural pattern here, and so I'd support a community ban. Steve block Talk 15:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I should have checked. Well, what then, I suppose the second RfC doesn't make sence... so it is RfArb or community ban. I vote RfArb. --Dijxtra 15:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? That request for comment was totally, completely, absolutely of no relationship whatsoever to the current discussion. Gene Nygaard 15:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

In particular:

1. It had nothing to do with article names and naming conventions.
2. It had nothing to do with page moves.
3. It had nothing to do with diacritics in any way.
4. It had nothing to do with redirects.
5. It had nothing to do with category sorting.

All it involved was a couple of people who wouldn't accept the proper capitalization and plural of the kelvin as a unit of measure, even when I included citations as to what was proper.

Gene Nygaard 16:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It was brought for "Imposing style preferences against consensus" (relevant), as well as incivility (which is related to this issue too: [73]). Relevant, if indirectly. Aquilina

No, you are just trying to use ad hominem attacks, trying to throw in something completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand rather than discussing the issues involved. I don't know why you have an ax to grind against me, but don't be making unsupported, false accusations here. Gene Nygaard 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, I didn't bring the RfC up, although I was aware of it, and when it was brought up I made clear above it was only indirectly relevant. But what I wrote was neither false nor unsupported, because it was directly taken from this paragraph. Aquilina 18:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason we should require ArbCom when there is clear support for a community sanction. I propose that we ban Gene from unilateral page moves to "fix" diacritics, citing as precedent the SPUI case and others where page moves to support a particular view of what constitues the "correct" title have been decided to be disruptive. If he refuses to accept a community sanction then we go to ArbCom. We can propose a community sanction via an RfC, I guess. In the short term I see no problem with blocking him for a time if he continues the disputed behaviour. This should not prejudice his starting a debate on moving any given article, if there appears to be good reason to do so, but unilateral moves are out. Guy 15:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, so we could ban him from moving articles. If he feels an article should be moved, he can propose it WP:RQM. I just don't think we should indefblock him, that's all. I guess that ArbCom case would end up with him getting a ban on moving anyway. Yes, a ban on moving is the bes option, I think. --Dijxtra 15:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• We use RfC to see what the consensus is - to be honest, I think enough people have commented here and at the previous AN/I thread, and on Gene's talk page to make the consensus abundantly clear. Seeing as an active member of Arbcom has already asked him to stop [74], and there has been a previous recent user conduct RfC it might be worth taking straight to RfArb. Aquilina 15:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Matthew Brown (Morven) accepted my response to him without further comment. Gene Nygaard 15:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Not replying does not necessarily indicate "acceptance", even though it does not preclude it. Aquilina 16:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, but it doesn't matter. Whether he in fact did accept it or not, it is very relevant to the reasonableness of my subsequent actions. Gene Nygaard 16:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• • ...although after reading Guy's comments above, the SPUI-type sanction works for me too. Aquilina 15:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A ban from page moves and specifically allowing/encouraging him to continue making useful redirects without the disruptive methodology would be something I could support (IANAA). -- nae'blis 15:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Support. Suggested tweak:

Gene Nygaard (talk · contribs) is banned from any page moves unless there clearly is an existing consensus (as decided/evaluated at the whim of the blocking admin, subject to review) in place either on the corresponding talk page of the aticle, or clearly referenced in the edit summary with a clickable link, and specifically encouraged to carry out useful redirects and category alphabetisation. The ban is to be enforced by short blocks at admin discretion, blocks to increase in duration if behaviour does not change, with an ultimate permanent ban from the community as last resort.

What do you think? In my view, ArbCom action is not required, consensus is clear already and they have plenty to do as is. ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. If there is a clear consensus on the page move, there are other 1025 administrators to move it. This guy is on a verge of being baned from the community altogether. I say we block him for 24 hours for every entry in his move log starting from now. If 1025 administrators don't think there's a consensus on moving something, I don't think we should let him move it. He is a fine guy, 22000 edits is a great thing, but he just proved that he shouldn't be alowed to move pages. Period. He moves a page, he gets 24 hours. --Dijxtra 16:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There has to be an exit strategy... does this ban last forever? That's why I suggested clear consensus. If he is absolutely banned we will never know if he has changed his ways. That said I'm not driving here, just supporting what I see consensus forming to be and I am, as we all are, open to discussion, I would think. Community bans or article bans are an area we are still feeling our way about, so I'm not sure where this would be recorded even... seems impolite to hang it on his userpage forever, but it will get lost here quickly. No idea what to suggest (maybe there already is a page and i forgot) ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

We can put him on 6 months probation. See, determining consensus for a move can be a bit tricky. He can always say "I thought that was a trivial move". He has a bunch of space for gaming the system out. If we forbid him moving the pages for 6 months, he'll get the habit of not moving the pages. And then in 6 months he'll think twice before moving something he shouldn't. I still think that an absolute ban for moving the pages for 6 months is the best possible solution. --Dijxtra 22:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose

Crying because there is more work for others to do is not solving anything. Just cleanup after the moves and ask the user to be more careful in the future. There seems to be much drama over nothing. --NuclearZer0 16:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, decide. Is it "nothing" or "more work for others". If somebody makes a mess, sure, you clean up after him. But you don't do that, you also discipline him so he wouldn't do that again. --Dijxtra 16:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What about your original point, Dijxtra? You said, "Aaaaand, am I disruptive if I move it the other way around? Because, it seems to me that current consensus on this matter is to keep the status quo, not to enforce one of this two solutions. Am I right?"

For example, User:Calgacus (move log has engaged in a flurry of moves such as the one for the article at Kenneth I of Scotland (Calgacus move). Is that acceptable? What could possibly distinguish that case? Gene Nygaard 17:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

One difference, of course, is that I have never engaged in wholesale moves such as Calgacus has. I've never moved more than a few in any category, even when there were hundreds I could have moved. Gene Nygaard 17:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about you. Not Calgacus. ++Lar: t/c 17:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sign me up, Lar. Might want to detail the specifics of the ban, but yes, I'm all for saving arb-com time . This seems appropriate. Nobody here is talking about an outright, indefinite ban immediately. Gene is simply being put on notice that the community feels there are behavioural issues here, and these are the steps the community will take to ensure the issues don't create further disruption. Steve block Talk 17:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Sounds like a good solution to me. Write it up. Put the notice on AN and User's talk page. Log it here. Wikipedia:Community probation. --FloNight 18:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• I wholeheartedly endorse this product and/or service. --Ξxtreme Unction 18:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Predictably, support. It's a shame it had to come even this far. Aquilina 18:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I didn't realise Gene was moving so many pages, and my experiences with those few I saw were not pleasant. One note: add a time-limit (everyone can reform), don't block him from moves pernamently.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Implementation of Gene Nygaard article move ban

I have placed a notice at Community Probation and on Gene's talk page outlining what consensus seems to be calling for above. Any admin can, after careful review of the facts in the matter, and a finding of a non consensual move, and with proper notice here and to Gene, enact a short block to enforce this ban if necessary. If this actually does not represent consensus please revert me. Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 19:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Community ban for ParadoxTom

In his nearly 200 edits, ParadoxTom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited exclusively and obsessively the Jews for Jesus page and its talk page. Amazingly, in his month and a half here, he has managed to rack up seven distinct 3RR blocks for that same article, beginning on his first day here, two of which for one week each. He has of course been warned over and over again to no avail. He calls other editors' edits vandalism in order to justify his repeated edit warring [75] [76] [77], and many other times. He just deceptively reverted a denial of his unblock request. Aside from the accusations of vandalism, ParadoxTom has also engaged in incivility [78] and personalization of the issue: characterizing his conflict as a battle against other editors like Hums sapiens and Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg. His entire presence here is disruptive, and I recommend we consider extending this latest one week block to a permanent community ban. Dmcdevit·t 09:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Holy freaking god I count a single article edit on anything other than Jews for Jesus. Let's community ban him, for his sake more than anyone else's. Grandmasterka 09:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Community ban. Unquestionably. That is, a ban fomr that article and a block if the user fails to respect the ban. I have asked at User talk:ParadoxTom#Community ban whether the user will accept this or whether we should simply show him the door. Guy 11:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to get him to agree to conform to 1RR on that article, and he refused. So I doubt he'll accept the idea of a community ban on that article. But I support the idea.

On a related note, if you look at the history of his talk page, you'll see that User:Justforasecond has spent a lot of time egging him on, and encouraging him to game the 3RR rules (eg the old favorite argument "3RR doesn't apply to vandalism, therefore just describe the other side of whatever content dispute you are in as 'vandalism'"). Tom is surely responsible for his own actions, but I think this case demonstrates the importance of greeting new users and making sure they get good advice, instead of bad advice. Nandesuka 11:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked this user so he can engage in mediation, and informed him that if he violates WP:1RR on Jews for Jesus I will impose the discussed community ban without hesitation. Nandesuka 12:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I support this action. The minute he violates 1RR, off to the community ban train he goes... --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

New vandal User:Julius Broyne spamming user talk pages

Julius Broyne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who apparently has only had an account for a few minutes, is going around dropping nonsensical templates on various user talk pages (I just got hit with a {{defwarn}}), and is claiming on his talk page to be a bot of User:Tawker. Would someone please block? Thanks. --Aaron 10:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I blocked it him immediately. This was the second (I've seen) tonight. The first was Plantgerd making the same claim, Konstable got that one. Keep an eye out Glen 10:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! --Aaron 10:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

note: Tawker's bots follow a naming scheme: they are always prefixed with Tawkerbot. I recall a similar bot impersonation problem with Hornwynn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was claiming to be Linuxbeak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 's bot. ~crazytales56297 ^{O rly? Ya rly!} 05:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism & Trolling by User:Peksneak

Newly created user, first edit was vandalism to Template:SockpuppetCheckuser following trolling on DRV by opening "The Cult of Briefsism" and "Third briefs". Claims to be User:InvisibleSun on his userpage. Perhaps a returning vandal? CharonX/talk 11:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to leave a note here... I have blocked him for impersonating User:InvisibleSun.--Konst.able^Talk 12:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I blanked his spurious DRV and RFPP requests. --Aaron 13:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA vote spamming

I would like to know if vote spamming in WP:RfAs is permissible, as was done by various (also anonymous) users in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Khoikhoi 2. All anon users seem to have been blocked. However, there is one registered user, User:Mustafa Akalp, who hasn't. He is a Turkish user, who right before initiating his spamming, decided to become incognito by moving the Turkish flag from his userpage ([79]) to a subpage ([80]). He later posted several vote-bullying messages that request users (in Turkish) to vote Strong oppose, as seen in the following diffs: ([81],[82],[83],[84],[85],[86],[87],[88],[89],[90],[91],[92],[93],[94],[95],[96],[97],[98],[99]) There are many more (check contribs). •NikoSilver• 13:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Mustafa's spamming should be rollbacked and the guy blocked for disruption. This is the worst thing that may happen on RfA: the nomination may be derailed for good. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

IMO, it is questionable whether the votes brought through the vote stacking made by Mustafa Akalp can be considered legitimate; probably they should be discounted from the vote, as is often done with the disruption of polls. And yes, the spamming should be rollbacked to set an example, and its author blocked.--Aldux 13:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone translate the turkish comments in some of these posts? Thatcher131 14:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Here is my point of view and replies;

Here is first alert message for about campaign is not allowed ; message from Gwernol

Here is ,my response to that admin.

I stopped to send any message to any user anymore. see my Contributions. I will check the rules more detailed. It seems some complexs, to make a campaign in the vote in any country obviously free, but not in wiki. I will learn and discuss the rules asap.

I will send some messages to some admins about my alleges before; see this,

see this, see this This my oppinions is not new..

Flag about in my page. It is a comic idea, to change flag.Why flag is distruptive for my alleges. My alleges not belong today(as you see above) and flag was there in all times.

Here the reality about flag; Old version was animated one that User:Tekleni had complained about copyvivo to an admin User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise, I took an alert from that admin User_talk:Mustafa_Akalp#Copyright_violation and I send my first response first response and second response

Now I transferred ( not delete!!)flag to my sadbox to replace a new pure-self made animated flag.

That is the reality.

Regards to all. Note; I can help for translations on my messages. Mustafa Akalp^TC 14:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm rolling back the spamming now. This type of behaviour is never acceptable. I'll leave the decision on whether or not to block up to others; a stern warning may suffice depending on the translation of the comments. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Naconkantari beat me to most of them. Oh well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Agree with reverts. Agree with possible block depending on comments. Noting here that there's been a bunch of IPs going around adding nonsense regarding this RFA to articles, which should probably be blocked on sight until at least the end of the RFA. – Chacor 14:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)~

• Here is the traslations of Turkish to English;

Lütfen acilen oy kullanın: Please come in vote urgently.

User:.. admin olmak için oy topluyor.-User.. in vote to be admin. Lütfen hemen oy kullanın.;Please come in vote immediately. Görüşlerinizi yazın.; Wtite your oppinions. İşte benimkiler; Those is mine.....Görüşlerin iletilmesi çok önemli; It is important to put oppinions/poit of wievs.

.Selam.:Regard. İlgili link..;related link

It is possible to have traslation from another source of course.

As you see, I never invite any body to an oppose vote .I required their oppinions at vote page.

Regards Mustafa Akalp^TC 14:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

First you included your own opinion in your spam messages, which shows a clear bias. More importantly you have selected which editors you advertize the RfA to. This introduces tremendous bias into the process and is unacceptable. Gwernol 15:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting out of hand. He is now continuing his spamming activity in the Turkish WP. Contribs. •NikoSilver• 15:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My bad. :-( I didn't check the times. The usual wrong assumption that something is done when you see it done, and not when the timestamp reads. My apologies to all involved. However, these contributions in the Turkish WP above can be used as evidence for Aldux's proposal above. ("it is questionable whether the votes brought through the vote stacking made by Mustafa Akalp can be considered legitimate; probably they should be discounted from the vote, as is often done with the disruption of polls.") •NikoSilver• 16:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

---

(Having received an e-mail from Mustafa). While agreeing with all said above, I'd propose to the community that the block is lifted. I think that 48 hours for the first offense is way too much, and blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive; the crime he commited is serious and took a while to repair, but I don't think he was really aware how much it was against the rules. The thread above shows that Mustafa was civil and kind in response, as is my experience in contacts with him so far. I do agree what he did was way out of line, but I have a kind of understanding (if not sympathy) for what he perceives as team-tagging in Turkey and Greece related articles. He has simply chosen a very bad way to combat it, and (I hope) he learned his lesson. Duja 12:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I disagree. I may not be fully neutral on the issue, as I supported his nomination, but I feel that no tolerance must be shown to blatant attempts to disrupt a Rfa; IMO, it must be clear that all such attempts to carefully select the editors on a national base so to sink a rfa must earn a block.--Aldux 12:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Aldux. I also received an email from Mustafa Akalp which clearly shows he does not understand that what he did was wrong. He claims: "my messages is not include any comment to receivers for 'opposite vote'" despite the fact that his messages all included his strongly worded oppose in them. He openly admits he was trying to taint the RfA pool "I sent my messages to some users that possibly had problems previously with Khoikhoi" and sees nothing wrong with this action. He genuinely believes he has proved his case against the candidate despite not providing any evidence. This is an organized witch hunt against Khoikhoi where allegations alone are expected to be accepted as evidence of serious wrongdoing. We must take a firm stand against this. I strongly oppose lifting this user's block, and personally consider a 48 hour block to be too short. There is plenty of reason to believe Mustafa Akalp will continue to disrupt Wikipedia's processes and articles as he doesn't understand what he did was wrong and has open and clear biases. Gwernol 12:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would support shortening the block (I've already asked jossi to consider it), merely because I'd like to give him the opportunity to withdraw his comments from Khoikhoi's RFA before it closes. If he doesn't wish to do so, then a longer block may be in order, but I think we should give him the opportunity. Yomangani^talk 13:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd support this but only with the specific condition that Mustafa Akalp agrees to withdraw his oppose on the RfA and apologize to Khoikhoi for his accusation. I don't see the benefit of lifting the block unless he agrees to this beforehand. Gwernol 13:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi's RfA is to be completed within 24 hours. I don't think it's necessary to unblock Mustafa until the deadline. His behaviour was not acceptable and he should have ample time to reflect on this. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Shorten the block? No way! I'd support lengthening it to indefinite. We don't need any nationalist struggles on Wikipedia. That's the worst kind of disruption. --Cyde Weys 14:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just received another email from Mustafa Akalp in which he claims his spamming was intended to "reach consensus" and in which he makes the claim that "from a neutral POV, No body had accused with like an allege before, in the history of wiki. More than 10 different users have this allege. This allege will have a stamp on this Rfa for ever." (by "allege" he is referring to his allegation that Khoikhoi was orchestrating edit wars by email off-Wiki). It is clear to me that Mustafa Akalp sees nothing wrong with his actions, is intentionally attempting to blacken the name of an editor in good standing and is an inveterate WP:POV pusher who will do anything to oppose those who are trying to maintain WP:NPOV. He has clearly declared that he will not remove his oppose contribution. I support an extended block or indefinite ban on this user, per Cyde. Gwernol 14:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I may dazzle you with this comment, since I am the one who initiated all this, but I'll go ahead and say it (and it is not a pretence of goodwill): Mustafa probably hasn't understood that vote-spamming is bad, because nobody explained it to him adequately (forgive me if I miss something). I suppose that if we explain why the community has decided that this practice cannot be tolerated, he will reform himself, as he shows many signs of goodwill (i.e. self translation of Turkish messages etc.) I am willing to proceed in doing this but maybe I am not the most welcome e-mail correspondent of his! I propose that someone does it, and if he is convinced to strike his unfounded comments from the RfA, he can continue to edit. That's my two drachmae! •NikoSilver• 14:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the problems with his actions have been explained to him in meticulous detail over email (he sent email to me, I replied). His response is above, a firm belief that he has done nothing wrong, is trying to maintain WP:NPOV and reach WP:CONSENSUS. He genuinely does not understand the notion that spamming people known to oppose the candidate with his Oppose statement in the email might in some way bias the RfA proceedings. He also clearly stated that he intends that his allegations will leave " a stamp on this Rfa for ever". He simply won't admit any wrongdoing and has no intention of removing his comments. Someone this far from the vision of neutrality should not be participating in Wikipedia. Gwernol 15:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I support an indefinate block in this case, and in the case of all knowing vote spammers, especially in such a serious case as an RfA, and especially when used to display such a nationalist agenda. --InShaneee 15:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also consider that an indef block is appropriate in the case of such a serious disruption. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Consider my previous comment retracted then. After all, we use cents now! :-) •NikoSilver• 15:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

He has been clearly told that his actions were wrong; and he appears to be unrepentant, and by his last messages, continuing his groundless accusations. As for that all this was done to "reach consensus", i.e. calling all the fellow Turkish editors he knew. He simply refuses even to remember of a simple thing called WP:AGF. For this I support Gwernol and Cyde's positions.--Aldux 15:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If that's the consensus, then, I'll go ahead and extend the block. --InShaneee 19:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I just would like u to remind that Mustafa is not a native English speaker and certain things might get lost in translation :)).. I share Nikos' opinion on this.. He is a relatively new user and I don't think that we are being able to communicate with him effectively. I voted strong support for Khoi, OTOH I think that we shouldn't just bang up on people who might feel differently, especially if they r not native anglophones.. Instead we should try to improve mutual communication.. Believe me, there are much more serious nationalist POV pushers here, but they are native speakers and know their way around, so they never get caught; Mustafa however is relatively naive coz of the language barrier and hiw rookieness.. It would not be fair just indefinitely blocking him just coz of that. As for the vote spam.. He also sent me the same msg as email even though he knew I was a Khoi supporter beforehand from previous discussions.. I voted support and I find racist the suggestion or implication that all Turks r against Khoi's membership for whatever reason, TR users voted support more than oppose.. People have the intelligence to make up their own mind u know :))) Baristarim 21:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to request the rest of the users here to give Baris the chance to explain to Mustafa why vote-spamming is not tolerated in WP in his own language. Baris, if you don't know either, it is because the participation in the polls has to be from all wikipedia in a proportional way. Specific groups may have made up their mind for or against an opinion, and inviting only those that you presume will share your views is not permissible. As I responded to you in the RfA, it is not a matter of racism or IQ. It is a matter of POV, and there are many smart guys out there with a strong POV. In case the other users agree, you will have to convince Mustafa to retract his unsubstantiated accusations for Khoikhoi in the RfA, and acknowledge that vote spamming is not permissible. •NikoSilver• 22:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with the inef. block. First off, I don't think it's appropriate for a first offense. Most importantly, I believe that Mustafa is a good editor, and has contributed positively to articles such as Imbros. Does anyone mind if I unblock him? —Khoikhoi 02:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

He can be told to behave better and be given a last chance I think. I support it mainly because of the extreme, damning irony involved in Khoikhoi unblocking this guy. ;-) Grandmasterka 08:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Khoikhoi, Niko and Baristarim for their efforts at giving Mustafa another chance here. I've had previous dealings with Mustafa and have found him generally good-willing and prepared to learn, but of course quite strongly hampered in his interactions on Wikipedia by his rather poor command of English. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sock of Indefblocked User

• I'm gonna go out on a limb here (/sarcasm) and assume that JennyCanuck (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of indefblocked user JohnnyCanuck and by extension VaughanWatch. I'm gonna cross my fingers and hope that this isn't a sign that he's back for more, but in the meantime, an indef block here would be helpful. -- Chabuk 15:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You can add 67.71.85.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to that list as well. -- Chabuk 15:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

User:A Link to the Past

If someone doesn't address the trolling by this user at my talk page and Talk page archive, I'm seriously going to get pissed off. With edit summaries like [100] this saying "Did I make the baby cry" is not helping me with my anger problem. I suggest someone warn him about it. — Moe 19:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've left a note on their talk page. I'd suggest that you not resort to personal attacks like this or you will be blocked as well. Naconkantari 19:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats the reason I posted here, I didn't want to make any personal attacks, but he revert wars on my userspace in two differant places over a AFD thats already over, it's getting out of hand. — Moe 20:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just blocked A Link to the Past for 24 hours. -- Steel 21:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

And unblocked. [101]. -- Steel 22:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible mass spamming by User:194.200.167.69

194.200.167.69 (talk · contribs) has included links to www.bloomsbury.com in a huge number of articles. My worry is that (a) the biography provided for each author is very short and not terribly useful and (b) that it's a commericial site designed to sell books. All the examples I looked at the website in question served no useful purpose except to promote Bloomsbury's book sales.

Will someone with tools please revert these edits? Mikker ^(...) 20:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• seems to be a bigger problem than just that IP (bloomsbury.com )[102] Hu12 21:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the spam blacklist would be a possible solution. Naconkantari 21:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

VinceB

Despite warnings, a well-known vandal User:VinceB recently blocked for sockpuppetry has been repeatedly changing geographic and personal names into their Hungarian versions.[103][104] When I put a vandalism warning template on his talk page after he blanked whole sections of a different article,[105] he just removed it from his talk page and pasted it on mine. Although he has removed all the warning templates from his talk page, he has a long record of vandalism (up to test4) and personal attacks (up to npa3). Since he did not learn a lesson from his last block, I would like to ask you to block both him and his proved sockpuppets (see the list of IPs at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/VinceB) again, before he does more harm.Tankred 21:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

48 hour block issued on User:VinceB. No recent activity on the IP addresses so I haven't blocked them. Durova 21:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing problems at article Salman Khan

Hello, everyone, I have several problems over at the Salman Khan article with User:LuckyS. I try to add references and remove dodgy sentence structure, but get reverted. [106] [107]

Also, comments on my talk page,[108] as well as on Salman Khan's talk page [109] are kinda rude and I get actually stalked: whenever I write something on other people's talk pages, there are comments from Lucky too. [110], [111], [112], [113]. Could someone help? --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 00:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I also would appreciate some help or advice in dealing with this user. He reverts all my changes to the article as vandalism, insists that there's a conspiracy against Salman Khan, and tells me not to edit Bollywood articles because I'm not Indian. I've tried to jolly him out of this truculent attitude [114] and all I get is more attitude [115]. Zora 05:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Smeelgova (talk · contribs)

Can someone neutral give some feedback to Smeelgova (talk · contribs) about the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of creating articles on books that are rather non-notable, as well on that user's style of writing that is pretty close to advertising?

These are articles on books added recently by this user:

• Crazy Therapies (book) (in AfD)
• Recovery from Cults (book)
• Combatting_Cult_Mind_Control
• Bounded_Choice
• Captive Hearts, Captive Minds

Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Also this one:

• Les Sectes

Response

• Crazy Therapies (book) (in AfD) - AFD will most likely deal with this one.
• Recovery from Cults (book) - I did not create this article. Actually, all I did on this one was add an infobox and some references, that doesn't seem to be grounds for bringing this up here.
• Combatting_Cult_Mind_Control - User:Jossi and I seem to have come to a consensus on this one on the talk page, I will edit it more as per some of his suggestions, but I need to take a short break from Wikipedia. Thank you for your understanding.
• Bounded_Choice
• Captive Hearts, Captive Minds

Yours, Smeelgova 00:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

Comments

Cutting and pasting dustjacket copy, blurbs, and book reviews (Crazy Therapies (book) is a pretty good -- or bad -- example of this technique) is NOT the way to go about writing an article. --Calton | Talk 01:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have responded to criticism in multiple areas and voluntarily edited said articles per suggestions from other editors. When properly cited, I did not know that it was not okay to cite above information. Thank you for the clarification. Yours, Smeelgova 03:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

• You were not "citing" information, you cobbling together "articles" out of found bits. --Calton | Talk 07:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, if that's what you perceived, then I apologize. I did not realize that citing in such a manner would be perceived as such, but I am still learning and will change as kind advice and suggestions are given. Smeelgova 07:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

• You know what, as I am still relatively unfamiliar with the whole AFD and notability process, I think the best thing is to let the whole AFD process play out (without recruitment of course) in its natural manner. Thus, I will learn and attempt to use better templating when forming new book articles, and if need be, they can be sent to AFD for the situation to resolve there. Trying to learn, listen, and adapt. Yours, Smeelgova 07:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC).
• the book Recovery from Cults (book) was created by user:Ed Poor, not by user:Smeelgova. I had submitted the article for AFD because of what I perceived as a lack of notability, but it survived AFD. Andries 09:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

History of Pakistan

The following quoted paragraph from Pakistani historian Dr. Ahmad Hasan Dani website PAKISTAN - History through the Centuries is in dispute.

Pakistan, the Indus land, is the child of the Indus in the same way as Egypt is the gift of Nile. The Indus has provided unity, fertility, communication, direction and the entire landscape to the country. Its location marks it as a great divide as well as a link between Central Asia and South Asia. However, the historical movements of the people from Central Asia and South Asia have given to it a character of its own and have established closer relation between the people of Pakistan and those of Iran, Afghanistan and Turkistan.

PAKISTAN - History through the Centuries

This page is being repeatedly modified by some contributors. I have requested arbitration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration

00:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this claim is an opinion of somebody that is stated in the article as factHkelkar 00:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Not an issue for this forum, use WP:3O Ashibaka tock 01:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Although this is off-topic for this forum, there's another problem: the link is to a Geocities site. Ahmad Hasan Dani is a respected scholar, but we really don't know whether this is an accurate representation of his opinion. Durova 01:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Periodic Table

on the periodic table article there is vandalism "IM A RETARD NAMED JOEY", i am not sure what to do, but felt it should be reported.--24.62.164.113 01:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Just removed it. Feel free to remove vandalism yourself when you see it; it's always appreciated. Opabinia regalis 01:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

(several edit conflicts) It's been reverted. See also help:reverting for how to take care of this yourself, if interested. --W.marsh 01:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I put a warning on the users talk page, test2-n... HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul Ainslie

The article on Toronto councillor Paul Ainslie has been repeatedly vandalized by User:Yumm99. I have reverted the edits each time (5 times in 3 days) but it is getting annoying. Can someone please place a warning against this user. Atrian 01:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I placed a test4 warning on the talk page. Any editor can place warnings: the place to find them is Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Regards, Durova 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Probable sockpuppet

Egher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) nominated User:Psychonaut/User watchlist for deletion as an attack page one minute after being created. Apparently sockpuppets of User:JarlaxleArtemis have been doing similar stuff. TimBentley (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Porn spammer on Commons

Found a porn spammer on Commons, mass-inserting pages full of links on top of existing articles. The user in question is this IP. Oddly, they only seemed to do two pages before stopping. I reverted both the edits, but I'm not an admin on Commons and couldn't block the user. Maybe the sites in question can be added to the spam blacklist too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That should be reported here — Moondyne 04:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Blacklisted. Naconkantari 04:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Most people don't care enough to report it at all. Some people care enough to report it somewhere. Very few people are in the category that they care enough to report it someplace, don't know better than to report it here, and care enough to, without any futher motivation, act as if they are your paid subordinate and post it where you designate. WAS 4.250 04:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think Moondyne meant it that way. There are better and worse places to report these things, and I think (s)he was just meaning to point you at the best place to get things done about it. Take care. --Improv 05:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

User:203.219.181.10 (again)...Vandalism only

203.219.181.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I previously posted a heads up about this static ip used solely for vandalism on Wikipedia [116]. The vandalism still persists, and the user continues to accumulate warnings on their talk page. Neil916 (Talk) 04:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

User: BhaiSaab’s block and allegation of provoking anti-Semitism

I noticed that BhaiSaab was blocked for “a week” mainly due to User talk:Hkelkar#Ahmadinejad. BhaiSaab has requested for unblock.

Here is the description of the reason for block:

You have been blocked for 1 week, mainly due to User talk:Hkelkar#Ahmadinejad. Since Hkelkar is a declared Jew, and Ahmadinejad is a well-known holocaust denier and virulently anti-Semitic, I can only presume that you are trying to provoke something from him. Add to that, a lot of edit-warring and general fighting.

BhaiSaab’s request for unblock is the following:

Ahmadinejad is not anti-Semitic, so what's your problem? Does denying the holocaust automatically make one anti-Semitic and would this ever take place if he was anti-Semitic? Considering that Hkelkar goes sprouting opinions about Ahmadinejad all over the place, then you don't allow me do the same I would consider this a double standard. Another admin reviewed the same edits and I received no block, then you come in and look at the section on Hkelkars page without seeing what he did elsewhere, and decide to block me. Very irresponsible.

First of all, I should mention that I, for one, do not support Ahmadinejad in anyway. He can be very well, and in many cases rightly, criticized but fair is fair. I don’t agree that he is anti-semitic. Some may think he is but that’s a POV. As Bernard lewis writes anti-semtism has some marks:

He writes:

There is a well-worn platitude that we have all heard many times before: it is perfectly legitimate to criticize the actions and policies of the state of Israel or the doctrines of Zionism without necessarily being motivated by anti-Semitism. The fact that this has been repeated ad nauseam does not detract from its truth. Not only do I accept it, but I would even take it a step further with another formulation that may perhaps evoke surprise if not shock: it is perfectly possible to hate and even to persecute Jews without necessarily being anti-Semitic.

Anti-Semitism is something quite different. It is marked by two special features. One of them is that Jews are judged by a standard different from that applied to others. We see plenty of examples of this at the present time. But there too one has to be careful. There can be different standards of judgment on other issues too, sometimes even involving Jews, without anti-Semitism or without necessarily being motivated by anti-Semitism… The other special feature of anti-Semitism, which is much more important than differing standards of judgment, is the accusation against Jews of cosmic evil.

Thus we should distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. I haven’t seen Lewis mentioning new anti-Semitism in Iran but rather among Arabs. Ahmadi nejad is definitely anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic. Ahmadinejad’s denial of holocaust, while definitely unjustified, only meant that why Arab’s should pay the price of west’s anti-Semitism. I think

Aside from these comments anti-Semitism shouldn’t become a catch phrase to condemn someone. There are academic scholars who share BhaiSaab’s view (like the distinguished academic scholars of Islamic studies, Montgomery Watt). These are his words:

I do, however, think that the US is following a very dangerous policy in relation to the Middle East. The root of this trouble is that the US gives too much support to Israel. They allow them to have nuclear weapons and to do all sorts of things, some of which are contrary even to Jewish law. Jewish families occupy Arab houses without payment. That is stealing. I think that the US should be much firmer with Israel and put a lot of pressure on them, though this is difficult because of the strong Jewish lobby. Unless something is done there’ll be dangerous conflict in the Middle East. Such danger would be less likely to arise if all three Abrahamic faiths - Jews, Christians and Muslims - paid greater respect to what God teaches us about living together.

.

I would be thankful if the bhaisaab’s block could be removed. BTW, It seems that it was the other user who first brought up this issue and not BhaiSaab.

Thanks, --Aminz 05:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• I just reviewed this unblock, wherein I discovered the following niceties for which BhaiSaab was blocked: Ahmadinejad I think he's an awesome guy. (which I agree was meant to provoke), Israel shouldn't be on the map in the first place. and Israeli prosperity is a result of leeching off the United States. I declined the unblock as I viewed these comments as inappropriate. Agree entirely with the blocking admin -- Samir धर्म 05:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel tells quite a tale as to Ahmadinejad's side of the story, and BhaiSaab knows that he is talking to a person who is declared as a Jew User:Hkelkar. As for claims that I am pro-Hindu or something I also blocked User:Subhash bose for religious inflammation (calling Muhammad a pedophile) and User:FairNBalanced also for a week (uploading Allah=pig photo) in the past. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

To Samir: Samir, please note that 1. it seems that the other user brought up the issue first. 2. The majority of people in Iran voted for ahmadinejad. So, please respect it. There are people who think he is a nice guy. 3. Israel being on the map is the POV of many people. I personally think Jews and Muslims should live peacefully together, but maybe under a common goverment. 3. He said: "Israeli prosperity is a result of leeching off the United States" during the discussion. --Aminz 05:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen, see, I am an Iranian. I want a proof for your allegation of anti-semtism against Ahmadi Nejad who is a living person. Fair is fair. He is ruining many things and undefendable in many cases, but he is not an anti-semitic. I think I have the right to ask why you called him an anti-semtic. --Aminz 05:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• One week strikes me as excessive. User:Hkelkar was dishing it out pretty well him/herself: [117], "oooooooooooh! I'm so scared!I hope he is as awesome when he tries to "wipe Israel off the map" and gets blasted into a hole in the ground.Hkelkar 01:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)" , [118], "We'll see who tries to harm Israel. Israel is too prosperous, wealthy and successful to be threatened by some mad mullah.Israel has first world technology, art, science. Israel doesn't ram planes into buildings or behead journalists on television. No medeival dump with a theocratic mullah running things can be a threat to the holy land. Nor any other Arab/Persian/whatever country for that matter.Hkelkar 01:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)", [119] "Like I said, we still win. You still lose.Hkelkar 01:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)". (→Netscott) 05:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that Hkelkar was leading the discussion and BhaiSaab was merely responding. --Aminz 05:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

While Hkelkar's comments were not appropriate, they do not justify BhaiSaab's in any way -- Samir धर्म 06:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to analyze this issue in its context. Hklekar was the initiative and that's important. BhaiSaab's comments were short and in response to his comments. And again, I know that it might not be appropriate to write so in wikipedia, but BhaiSaab has a POV which is not far from that of some renowned academics. But I agree that he shouldn't have wrote them on Hkelkar's talk page, but again, the initiative was Hkelkar. --Aminz 06:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that context is important. However, this is not a POV block issue, it is a block for inappropriate comments, which BhaiSaab made, regardless of the context thereof; the bottom line is that his comments were inflammatory even if he was provoked. As such, I think the block was appropriate. I have to leave but, I agree that the comments of Hkelkar should probably be reviewed as well -- Samir धर्म 06:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't justify BhaiSaab's statements, but I think the fair thing would be to block both. Hkelkar's comments were obviously provocative. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Samir, apparently those were the last in a line of inappropirate commentary by User:Hkelkar. Have a look here. Hkelkar's sarcastic use of terms like, "Halaal?" and "..should regard me as the Mujaddid.." and "infidel" while referencing User:BhaiSaab appeared in the lead up to BhaiSaab's blocking and I suspect there are other examples of such commentary as well, Aminz? Equally inappropriate commentary should merit equal punishment no? I see a 12 hour block for User:Hkelkar, but no 12 hour block for User:BhaiSaab (obviously he got a week). (→Netscott) 06:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

To be frankly honest, in this sphere of editing it is basically close to worthless to police for mild personal attacks as it is more or less standard amongst this lot. I have already blocked HKelkar for the ad hominem Jihad references. So that leaves religious and racial inflammation, which BhaiSaab appears to have done. Hkelkar's personal jibe is more or less the norm in this area. Things which are meant to raise the ire of others by insulting religious figures or ethnicities is what matters more. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen, I agree with you about the propensity for personal attacking in the sphere of these topics and the virtual pointlessness of trying to police this but are you denying the religiously inflammatory nature of User:Hkelkar's commentaries? (→Netscott) 06:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

But it is clear that Hkelkar was actively provoking BhaiSaab. BhaiSaab mentioned his POV(which by itself is a POV), which he shouldn't have mentioned. A week is too much seeing that Hkelkar was blocked for only 12 hours. --Aminz 06:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

(leftshift after edit conflict) Let's make something clear. This is not about Ahmadinejad, and this is not a mere political dispute. This is about BhaiSaab's behavior and being uncivil. Let's note that this user did not think twice before using offensive language. Holocaust denial indeed constitutes antisemitism (and not "anti-Zionism"). I strongly support Blnguyen's decision on this matter. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

We can discuss it whether Ahmadinejad's denial of holocaust was anti-semitism or not, but did BhaiSaab deny it? He just said Israel shouldn't have been in the map in the first place. That is not a good comment to be made in wikipedia, but why is it anti-semtism? --Aminz 06:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I also support Blnguyen's actions - BhaiSaab's comments were completely uncalled for. Hkelkar is a seperate issue - his frequent appearances on WP:PAIN to report people show a pattern of provoking others, that however, is a matter for RfC not a reson to unblock another editor. Shell ^babelfish 06:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

May I ask you if you consider prof. Edward Said an anti-semitic? Again, I think BhaiSaab comments were not proper but not anti-semitic. A week is too long, given that he was provoked. --Aminz 06:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about the comment "Does denying the holocaust automatically make one anti-Semitic". To Aminz question: please read New anti-Semitism. Meanwhile, let's note that this was only one of many offensive things that BhaiSaab said. And for the record, I don't recall ever seeing contribs by Hkelkar (talk · contribs). Please let's not make this a political talkbox. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have seen New anti-Semitism and I think the views of some scholars such as Lewis are downplayed, or not properly reflected. BhaiSaab didn't really said much offensive things. His comments were short responses to Hkelkar. This discussion shouldn't have take place in the first place and it was Hkelkar who started it. --Aminz 06:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm an anti-Zionist (heck, I'm an anti-nationalist) and I'm not an anti-Semite. I don't think BhaiSaab should be given extra punishment because an admin doesn't like one of his political positions. This isn't to say that BhaiSaab is a model editor, but then neither is Hkelkar. We're seeing Indian domestic politics erupt in WP and it's an ugly sight. Zora 06:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, anti-Semitism means a discrimination against the jews simply because they are jews. BhaiSaab's argument wasn't hanging around the fact that Israel was formed by Jews but that why Israel was formed. It is a political position and has nothing to do with anti-semtism. --Aminz 07:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe I haven't read well all of the details of this but where has User:BhaiSaab denied the Holocaust? Obviously he's pro-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who himself alludes to such thinking) but can one not be generally pro something while concurrently against certain aspects of that thing? (→Netscott) 07:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Errr, this isn't about BhaiSaab's political opinions. It's about him making in this case an ethnically inflammatory jibe – irrespective of what anybody thinks of Ahmadinejad, he is inextricably associated (regardless of anybody's opinion of him) as being anti-Semitic, Holocaust denying and Hitler apologist and the use of the jibe could only be seen as an attempt at ethnic/religious bloodboiling. Such incidents as the Muhammad=pedophile comment by Subhash bose and the Allah=Pig comment by FairNBalanced have also been met with a one week block.

In the case of Hkelkar, the type of behaviour he engages in more or less the norm in this sphere of editing we are talking about. Both sides more or less assume bad faith, accuse the others of being out to get them, siege mentality, sarcasm, calling each other bigots, extremists, fundamentalists, arbitrary sock allegations etc. - see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:AMbroodEY/Fundy_Watch andWikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Category:Patriotic Indian Wikipedian's Guild – as such this kind of behaviour is more or less ignored or else we would have no coverage of India-Pakistan religious politics articles. I have found it useless to police people for this type of behaviour (See my talk archives – if anybody wants to start trying to police this area properly, then they are welcome to try), so the line is basically when somebody makes racial insults or religious lampoonery akin to the Muhammad cartoons etc in an attempt at bloodboiling. In the case of Kelkar (a declared Jew) here, he has claimed that the other users are doing an “Ahmadinejad” on him – this is the standard in this area of editing - to claim that users with opposing POV have an agenda. I do not see how this is equivalent to what BhaiSaab, bose or FairNBalanced have done.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Subhash Bose case but as far as User:FairNBalanced is concerned the comparison of User:BhaiSaab to him isn't fully justified imho. User:FairNBalanced had been inserting himself into a group of Muslim editors and making religiously hateful edits for a long time prior to his final insult with the AllahPig image and it was for that reason that his weeklong block was merited. I've seen the ridiculous Muhammad=Pedophile idiocy bandied about repeatedly (User:Mike18xx comes to mind) and not seen blocking for it but merely warnings. In a similiar vein Andy Rooney recently made the argument that it was ridiculous that the American government should be hypocritically saying that other countries like North Korea and Iran shouldn't have the bomb. One could argue that he supports these countries because of this... but in reality that's false because his opinion is that no country should have the bomb. User:BhaiSaab was certainly baiting User:Hkelkar with his pro Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and anti-Zionist commentary but I don't think his having done that was much worse than what User:Hkelkar himself has had a pattern of doing. (→Netscott) 07:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I blocked Bose was new and I blocked immediately for that one, because that kind of inflammatory hate-speech isn't allowed. As for FairNBalanced, I had never heard of him and when Crzrussian reported it, I blocked immediately and asked people who appeared very familiar to adjust as necessary as I didn't have knowledge of what his past was. I am not comparing the records of BhaiSaab and FairNBalanced, I am referring to their singular acts. I asked people to modify FairNBalanced's block based on their knowledge of his past and nobody did anything. I don't feel that your comparison to N Korea is valid. People on WP repeatedly show their political opinions on political leaders all the time and nothing happens. I myself have been aware that BhaiSaab feels that Israel is illegitimate since August and declined a block request from his sparring partners. What happens here is that the uncontrollable norm of incivility, AGF violations, personal jibes, bogus accusations of misbehaviour and mudslinging etc in this area has crossed into the RED ZONE of making ethnic or religious jibes, which is where the magnitude of the block comes in. These guys have been doing the standard niggling tactics for 2 months. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab just said that Israel shouldn't have been formed in the first place and that Ahmadinejad is nice. That's it. --Aminz 07:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone supporting this week long block provide a diff showing solid proof of anti-Semitic commentary/trolling on the part of User:BhaiSaab (anit-Zionist commentary is readily apparent)? Thanks. (→Netscott) 07:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are two that strike me as uncivil and intentionally offensive: Israel shouldn't be on the map in the first place. Israeli prosperity is a result of leeching off the United States. But I can imagine for someone who doesn't know the History of anti-Semitism, these won't ring a bell. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for you response Humus sapiens. Those are undeniably anti-Zionist statements but can you honestly argue that they are undeniably anti-Semitic? I see confusion on the part of commentators here between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism... the arguement to new anti-Semitism is a weak one as the whole phenomenon of "new anti-Semitism" is debatable given the arguments of folks like Norman Finkelstein (see this). (→Netscott) 07:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Humus sapiens, thanks for sharing your thoughts. As far as I know anti-Semitism didn't happen in Muslim lands. Muslims were not treating Christians and Jews differently in any way, and traditionally Jews and Muslims were closer to each other than each of them was to Christians. It was only after the establishment of Israel that we observe this unfriendly conversations between Jews and Muslims. Otherwise, they were very close to each other, (and I would like to think they are). That's all I know about the history of anti-semitism. --Aminz 07:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect.My own matrilineal ancestors came to India from Iraq to flee the persecution of Jews there. This was in the 18th century. Read about the history of the Baghdadi Jews in India, particularly David Sassoon.Plus, the Jews in Pakistan were ethnically cleansed together with the Hindus during partition in 47. Read about the now nonexistent Peshawar jewsih community. Khushwant Singh's "Train to Pakistan" also talks about the ethnic cleansing of the Pakistani Jews. None of this had anything to do with Israel.Hkelkar 07:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

For the reference to my comment, please see Mark Cohen (1995). Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton University Press. p.xvii ; Lewis (1984) Jews of Islam p.85 and Carl Ernst Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World, UNC Press, p.13 All I said was quite factual. --Aminz 08:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

All right. Let me add my own two cents. It is my goal to make scholarly and well-referenced edits to wikipedia.However, I am a human being with human flaws, including the tendency to get provoked. Bear in mind that it was BhaiSaab who started the talk page conversation regarding the holocaust denier who's currently running Iran.I reacted aggressively, and for that I am regretful.However, let me add some more facts.Prior to the talk page incitement, I was on #wikipedia-en chatting about an unrelated matter when Bhaisaab showed up and PM'ed me. He made some of the most frightening comments I had heard in my life, up to and including polemical attacks against Jews (not Israel, but Jews as a people). A lot of these statements are considered as anti-semitic. I did not react well to those statements and was in a very agitated state.

However, since these statements were made off wikipedia, I ask that it be entered into evidence only as context. The context establishes that he intended to provoke me with inflammatory comments following the outcome of an edit war in another article (which, when thankfully stopped by administrator intervention, did not leave the situation in his favor). His support of the holocaust denier's call to eradicate Israel is a follow-up to that off-wikipedia conversation. When I first referred to the holocaust denier who's presently running things in Iran, I was addressing neither the user BhaiSaab nor the holocaust denier in the first person. Ergo, the comment, not directed at any specific person, does not count as an incitement. The only way it could have incited BhaiSaab was if he already had the view that any reference to the holocaust denier in a negative vein had to be responded to aggressively and with malice against the one who made the statement, and I cannot be held responsible for such an attitude.

Plus, regarding the apparently overwhelming support for BhaiSaab, I ask reviewers to dig a little deeper into the users who make such statements.Specifically, the block logs, and the temporal correlations with their reactions to the blocks and those of BhaiSaab in prior incidents.Also, glean from all this the apparent "Quid-pro-quo" system where BhaiSaab has similarly raised a stink when some of these users got blocked.Plus, cross-reference the users who speak "on his behalf" and the members listed in the Muslim Guild page, as well as the edits of these users in earlier debates, some of which are quite prejudiced against specific ethnic and religious groups and point to a level of hate that I had not expected to see on wikipedia. Correlate those ethnic groups to the ones involved in this issue, either directly or peripherally, and you will see that there is far more to this matter than meets the eye.

Now, like Pontius Pilate, I shall wash my hands of this matter altogether. Do whatever you please.Hkelkar 07:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"...Some of which are quite prejudiced against specific ethnic and religious groups..." Is it a personal attack?--Aminz 07:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, a personal attack from me? On whom?Hkelkar 07:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus, cross-reference the users who speak "on his behalf" and the members listed in the Muslim Guild page, as well as the edits of these users in earlier debates, some of which are quite prejudiced against specific ethnic and religious groups and point to a level of hate that I had not expected to see on wikipedia. Dear Administrators, the only person talking on the behalf of BhaiSaab is me, and I am the only member of Muslim Guild here. Kelkar says I am quite prejudiced against specific ethic and religous groups which I consider a personal attack on myself. --Aminz 07:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my statements were very carefully worded. I did not say that there was a connection between the Muslim Guild editors here and prejudiced comments. There are several users speaking on BhaiSaab's behalf. If A is a subset of C and B is a subset of C then that does not mean that A=B. See Venn diagram to understand this point better.Hkelkar 07:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Subhash Bose used to this type of Venn diagram stuff tooTerryJ-Ho

The logical fallacy in this claim is obvious if you can draw some Venn Diagrams.Your argument is problematic. The contrapositive of a logical statement WOULD be true if you have firmly established that EVERY INSTANCE OF set A leads to EVERY INSTANCE of set B, and you haven't established that at all.None of these so called "scholars" (with no background in mathematics or logic it would seem) have.(Netaji 11:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

Yes many wikipedians like to use logical arguments. So every logician on wikipedia is my "sock" ^__^.Hkelkar 19:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Not many work in the same laboratory,study in the same university,work almost on the same set of articles with similar perception,use similar sources,are common friends,express the same love for Zionism,act in the same aggressive manner,lie indiscriminately.One can recognise Bakaman's language,Bhaaisaab's language,Zora's language before reading their names.TerryJ-Ho 20:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BhaiSaab#Wikipedia:Administrators.27_noticeboard.2FIncidents.23User:_BhaiSaab.E2.80.99s_block_and_allegation_of_provoking_anti-Semitism

Thanks --Aminz 08:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Posting an IRC log is a policy violation: see [120]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not a channel log, its the log of a PM. --NuclearZer0 00:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I support the admins actions here. The language the blocked user used was completely inappropriate and completely against the spirit and the letter of the law on Wikipedia. A week block seems fair. Elizmr 20:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I also must voice my support for Blnguyen's and Samir's action. Nothing justifies BhaiSaab's behaviour; I have been attacked, insulted, provoked in far worse ways, and have never dreamed of awnsering them how BhaiSaab has, earning him is well deserved block, that I invite not to shorten. Yes, Hkelkar's behaviour is very far from exemplary, and may deserve also a block, even if it is, sadly, normal behaviour in certain areas of wikipedia. And yes, holocaust denial is antisemitism.--Aldux 23:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well this isnt the first time BhaiSaab has made anti-Israel/Semitic comments [121].Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

And not the first time HKelkar has used provocation TerryJ-Ho 18:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well BhaiSaab has been blocked a multitude of times (9 to be exact), mostly for contentious edits and revert warring. It would be 10 but for the fact that he misled an admin to believe I had vandalized an article (while he was doing the blanking) under the canard of "copyvio". Terry, if you havent forgot, you yourself have given users nice names like "fascist" and "paid agent".Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of Administror's right by User:Nlu

User:Nlu have abused his right of an administrator in the page of Goguryeo.
Because User:ABCBBCKBS had removed the entire section of Modern Politics, I reverted it to a previous version.
In addition, the previous version, which I reverted to, was similar as the version edited by [[User::Nlu]].
Even I reverted to the version that is similar as the version by Nlu, he said that the Modern politics violate the POV.
, and then he removed the entire section of Modern politics. Please compare the three version by me and Nlu.

 1. This is my reverting due to User:ABCBBCKBS [[122]]

 2. This is the previous version by Nlu[[123]]

 3. This is the version of Nlu by his abuse of administrator's right. [[124]]

The section of modern politics is entirely removed.
He warned me to block my id if I revert the article that has modern politics. I dont think that it is fair. I have dicsussed about this, but he dont want to discuss about it. see ( User_talk:Nlu.)--Hairwizard91 06:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

He is not abusing his Administrator rights. Please read WP:BLOCK, WP:DEL and WP:PROTECT before using such a word. Only under certain circumstances can admins be sanctioned for "abuse of Admin powers", and I see none of it there. Please provide specific diffs which demonstrate a clear breach of administrative protocol, with proper reference to what is stated in the Wikipedia admins policies, and then maybe something can be done. Also remember that this is not the Wikipedia complaint department - if anyone else feels this section should be deleted because it is a perfect example of what ANI is not, go ahead. Daniel.Bryant 07:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is not difference between version. The version edited by me was identical with the version that Nlu had edited. But, now he says that the version edited by me viloates the POV rule even though my edited version is identical with the version had edited by Nlu.--Hairwizard91 09:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

And how does that make your complaint qualify as "administrator abuse", as opposed to "normal abuse"? Normal "abuse" goes down the dispute resolution path, which is exactly where this should be headed. It is not admin "abuse", because they didn't use their admin powers to act in an "abusive" manner. Period. Daniel.Bryant 13:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I have no idea why Nlu reverted you. I think its time we block him for his sneaky vandalism. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

He warned me to block me from Wiki editing at the first reverting, and as follows

This is your last warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's NPOV rule by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Goguryeo, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Nlu (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
But, I think it settles down now. Thanks--Hairwizard91 04:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Likely return of banned User:Courtney Akins

FYI, I have opened a check user case on new user User:UCF Cheerleader who I strongly suspect is a sockpuppet of community banned User:Courtney Akins. The RFCU case is here. The similarities are exceptionally strong: User:Courtney Akins received a community ban for trolling and disruption. This user (likely a male) portrayed himself as an attractive stripper from Florida, uploading a suggestive photo of "herself" to her userpage. She then created an article on a porn series (Throat Gaggers), posted strange questions to the Reference Desk [125], created an article on 19th. century Britain (Early conceptions of the Channel Tunnel), while claiming to be a History student, flirted with admins [126] and started an RfA.

Now up pops User:UCF Cheerleader who is a "hot 19 year old cheerleader from Florida" with the userpage picture to prove it. "She" creates the article on a different porn series (Housewife Bangers), posts a strange question to the Reference Desk [127], started AfD-ing article about 19th. century British MPs [128], and is now flirting with users and hinting at an RfA [129]. Thanks, Gwernol 12:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Lovely. Best thing to do in this case is probably add {{User wikipedia/Administrator someday}} to her userpage, as it seems to doom everyone that uses it to never becoming an admin... (j/k) Seriously though, until the checkuser is back, I'd just say keep an eye on her if you're worried. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A strong similarity in pattern of edits can be enough to establish likely similarity/sockpuppetry, without actually needing a CU to confirm it. Also, if the user is being disruptive, per se, it doesn't matter if they are a sock or not... ++Lar: t/c 00:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. --Aaron 02:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems misguided at best... Perhaps not technically disruptive but a user that new hasn't the history to be properly reviewed. ++Lar: t/c 04:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Moot point. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Stalking_by_another_user, this user has been blocked. I support the block based on review of contributions and actions. ++Lar: t/c 05:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User:UCF Cheerleader was indef blocked as an obvious disruptive sockpuppet of User:Courtney Akins, as has User:Harthacanute3. We should watch out for other new users showing similar behavior - flirting with admins, interest in or creating articles on porn series of minor notability, inappropriate editor review and/or RfA, spurious AfDs on 19th. century British MPs etc. Gwernol 18:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User: Kuban kazak

There has been a faked, staged photo percipted as a real one in the article Russophobia, I provided a direct source for the fact that it is a forgery, but Kuban kazak reverted it, accusing me falsely of vandalism, which is also a personal attack. It is clear to me that he is working for a Russian nationalist agenda and tries to make up atrocities by putting up fake photos. You can see from the edits which photo is the one in question. --Jaakko Sivonen 13:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

My dear friend AN/I is not the place to tattle. First of all if you believe the image is dubious the first place to go is the talk page of the article and explain why you think, then modify the caption with something like this image is believed to be forged(ref). Partisan blanking IS vandalism. --Kuban Cossack 13:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I did give the source in the first place and advised to check a page with more information. There was no grounds for a vandalism charge. --Jaakko Sivonen 13:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Blanking IS Vandalism unless there is a full Consensus, and please accusing me of nationalism is a strict POV and is against WP:CIVIL and WP:Neutrality. --Kuban Cossack 13:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm going into teacher-mode now: please proceed to dispute resolution, as the above is not the intended use of this page. Follow the instructions on the dispute resolution page, and reach a solution. You do not need help from this page. Please move on. Daniel.Bryant 13:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I second Daniel.Bryant's advice. Guys, please stop accusing each other of vandalism. What you have is content dispute. Jaako, you also accused me of spreading russofilic and anti-Finnish non-NPOV propaganda on Russo-nationalist base after I pointed out to you that your continuing attempts to suppress Swedish (sic!) names of medieval castles in Finland and Russia do not conform to our policies. Trust me, every famous WWII photo (example), in any way sympathetic of the Sovies, has been declared a fake in this project by those editors whose agenda is to picture Russians as subhuman beasts. Why should we believe an obscure book you pointed out, when you describe yourself on your user page as "a Finn nationalist" and engage in tendentious editing? How do we know that it is a reliable source and not a revisionist booklet? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Could everyone please stay civil here, and can this discussion please take place on the articles talk page for now? It does appear that Jaakko has provided evidence of the photo being a fake and I tend to agree that it should be removed or labeled as such, but it would be best if editors involved with the article worked it out on the article talk page. This was not vandalism as he clearly stated in edit comments why he was removing it. Still, after a removal and a revert of the removal it would have been best to start a conversation rather than removing it again. --StuffOfInterest 13:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Wise words. Move to the article talk page, and post nothing more here until you actually need administrator intervention, and then only as an absolute last resort. So can we all move away from clogging up WP:DR with complaints, and negotiate a solution on the article's talk page? And don't forget, it's extremely bad form to give vandalism warnings, or accuse other people of vandalism, whilst in a content dispute. WP:VAND even says so. Daniel.Bryant 13:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The image should be removed only if reliable (per WP:RS) sources are provided. There is no lack of sources claiming this image is a fake. Yet we don't remove it from articles, unless reliable sources substantiate the conspiracy theory. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The book in question is a popular high school history book, not an "obscure one", and there is no reason to doubt it unless you give other reference. Thus, it is reliable. You have not given any evidence to support it's authenticity. In addition, the Soviets did a lot of propaganda on exactly these kind of things, are you denying that...? That photo's purpose is to show Finnish prison camps as somekind of Nazi-style concentration camps which they were not: they are comparable to the Amrican internation camps for the Japanese. BTW this is general knowledge in Finland, so no god damn conspiracies. --Jaakko Sivonen 13:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please take this comment to Talk:Russophobia or the talk page of the image, WP:AN/I is not the place to discuss this, if need to I am prepared to begin a mediation btw. --Kuban Cossack 13:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• What is "Ei helvetti, mikä typerys! Mene levittämään kuvottavaa russofiliaa muualle!"? El_C 20:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"No hell, what stupid! More propagating sick russofilia elsewhere!" (Finnish) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you use an online translator for that or something? -Lapinmies 16:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Yidnek

New and very persistent account with poor editing skills, in the past two days continually changing the National Anthem of Ethiopia on the article Ethiopia and other such half-baked antics, refuses to engage in even one word of discussion. Left warnings on his talk, which have been ignored. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain in more detail? This user linked to a BBC audio file, which seems like a reliable source. Per WP:BITE I hesitate to block a user who's very new and appears to be making cited edits. Perhaps a friendly note about WP:3RR would be more appropriate. Regards, Durova 18:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have already left the 3RR template on his page. I know he is new, but he has been asked to respond or explain on discussion many times and has refused, just simply repeated the same edit, every hour or so for the past two days. (First as an IP, then with the account). Since I can't get him to discuss, I don't know what else to do, so now I am coming here. I have not seen any source other than him to suppose that Ethiopia has changed its anthem from Wodefit Gesgeshi, Widd Innat Ityopp'ya. On occasion he has changed other bits of info in the Ethiopia infobox beside the anthem. He could at least explain why he is doing this non productive edit so insistently. To his credit, he has not edited since the last time I warned him, a few hours ago. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Bring it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR if the problem continues. Durova 18:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Aquilina half-done moves

In light of Aquilina's participation in the discussion above, I don't appreciate bitching complaining in his edit summaries about "half-done moves"[130], especially when after Aquilina's move of that very article to Žilina District we now have that article misplaced and out of order in Category:Districts of Slovakia.

Will someone please go tell Aquilina to fix his own "half-done moves", here and any similar problems he has created. Gene Nygaard 17:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What's out of place in the cat? It starts with "Ž", not "Z". Thanks/wangi 18:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The good news is, there's no obvious problems with your eyes. But surely you've been around long enough, wangi, that a whiff of coffee or something could get the rest going. Just go up above where Aquilina shows himself to be quite aware of the problem, where he starts out "The fact is that redirect creation and index fixing is useful . . ."

Perhaps taking a peek at the navigation template that appears on the top of many, many categories, above the subcategories listing, would give you a hint. See, e.g., Category:French writers or Category:Brazilian footballers or Category:1924 births.

Just go see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics)#Category sort key

• "When a diacritic is used in a page name, categories are used with a category sort key based on the variant without diacritic, regardless of alphabetization rules in the originating language,"

Then, of course, you might follow the link there, and go read about the sort key and sorting at Wikipedia:Categorization. Note also, of course, that not including the sort key does not result in the category being sorted under the rules of any language whatsoever; rather, the characters are sorted only in Unicode number order. Of course, sorting doesn't stop at the first letter, either. In that same Category:Districts of Slovakia, Bánovce nad Bebravou Districtis out of order not only in the English sorting appropriate here, but would probably be out of order in the sorting rules of any language whatsoever, and certainly out of order in the Slovakian language as well as in a huge number of languages. Note also that even in Slovakian language sorting rules (appropriate, for example, for the Slovakian Wikipedia), Žilina District is missorted in its category. It has been fixed to sort correctly in sk:Kategória:Okresy na Slovensku, however—using the same methods Aquilina needs to use to fix this problem he created here.

This is repeated many other places in Wikipedia as well. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Alphabetical order (which is by incorporation a Naming Conventions rule as well as a MoS rule, see WP:NC)

Now, will someone please get Aquilina to fix it. I'd likely have a hard time being civil about it myself, given his history with me. Gene Nygaard 10:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Blissful mind

Blissful mind has vandalized two userpages after the users reverted his vandalism to Kermit, Texas and the current events portal. See [[Special:Contributions/Blissful mind]. Please block him, as he has repeatedly been warned. KazakhPol 18:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

New user with only 4 edits, but all vandalism and 2 user page attacks...I've issued a 3 hour block. Durova 19:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Softie :-) Guy 20:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay maybe...BTW, do you think this one week block (my very first) was too lenient? [131], [132] Durova 21:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats by 69.107.88.17

User:69.107.88.17 on Talk:OmniCode. Threatening legal action against Wikipedia if his company isn't mentioned, among other things. Already warned him with "no legal threats" on the discussion page. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't edited since the warning was issued. If he continues, he should simply be indef blocked. --InShaneee 19:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've left a templated warning (Threat2) regarding this. While the user is undoubtedly (and understandably) troubled by this, and Wikipedia is sensitive to his plight, there is a very good reason why we don't allow legal threats on the site. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

64.1.162.26 (talk · contribs) seems to be a sockpuppet address, and has continued the legal threats. *Dan T.* 22:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, blocked. Any further accounts threatening legal action on Omnicode's talkpage should be blocked on sight. I've also removed his ranting about legality and suing this site from the article talk page as irrelivant discussion. --InShaneee 22:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Dragonball1986

Dragonball1986 continues to add pointless content to pages, calling it vandalism in his own edit summaries, then reverts himself as if he's a different person. Furthermore, he often adds spaces just to comment using edit summaries, only to revert himself again. There's also the numerous ownership issues he has with basically any image, going out of his way to stuff them anywhere he can for no reason. I'm tired of trying to reason with this editor when all he does is file negative comments away on a selective warning archive page. I'm not suggesting he be blocked, but some kind of warning from someone he might actually listen to would be helpful to say the least. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Insane. Blocked for 24 hours. --InShaneee 19:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he suffers from Dissociative identity disorder ? ~Kylu (u|t) 19:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Or editcountitis. Durova 20:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Empire

Moved to gibberish name by Nukemason (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count). Gazpacho 20:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Durova 20:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the page to its original title and deleted the redirect that resulted from moving back the page. A question for other admins: should the pagemove vandalism be deleted from the article history, or not? IIRC, that's standard procedure for WoW pagemove vandalism. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 20:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Not an admin, but this appears to be a one-off expression of frustration based on the move summary, rather than WOW-style vandalism. Deletion probably not necessary, though if the editor recovers their head and asks for such... -- nae'blis 21:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I imagine that there's no real issue with deleting vandalism pagemoves from the history, as it's not anything that contributes to the current state of the article. I'm curious about why though in this case, since it probably isn't going to be WP:DENY (if the user isn't converting to full-time vandalism). ~Kylu (u|t) 16:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Foobra

Could an admin please take a look at today's contributions from User:Foobra and determine what action, if any, should be taken. The edits that initially caught my attention were questionable changes to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, but today's other contributions appear problematic as well. Something is going on but I'm not sure what. Newyorkbrad 22:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In previewing this edit, I see that coding "User:Foobra" in brackets brings up the "Wikibreak" template, which also seems odd. Newyorkbrad 22:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked by User:FloNight. Durova 22:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Stalking by another user

User:Ryulong has been systematically following me around and reverting my edits on other people's talk pages. He has no business doing that. I asked him to stop but he hasn't. UCF Cheerleader 02:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you have only contacted me once, and I've removed comments that were strange, particularly asking whether or not you should have anal sex with your boyfriend. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

UCF is probably a sockpuppet/troll. —Centrx→talk • 03:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh? I hadn't heard of such a thing.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ryu, do you have all of the noticeboard pages watchlisted or something? I for one was a little unnerved to see a response to my 3RR report within minutes of it being filed, as well as the rapid slew of responses after my initial comment to your comment. Hbdragon88 03:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There are IRC channels at which new edits are shown. At one, WP:AN3 and WP:ANI are both watched for edits (but I do have ANI on my watchlist). I have IRC set up so that if my username pops up, I get notified.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, that's pretty cool. Hbdragon88 03:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, a check of your contributions list will show that you reverted several of my edits in succession, including my request for Editor Review. Why did you do that? And why did you call me a "longstanding troll"? I don't know anything about this Akins account. Furthermore, its not up to you to decide what comments other people leave on other people's pages, is it? You basically lied to everyone when you said you only reverted "strange" comments as any check of your contributions will show. What they will show is unwarranted "stalking" if anything. Please stop it. UCF Cheerleader 03:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked UCF based on looking at his "contributions". —Centrx→talk • 03:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I was going to indef block based on that diff if Centrx hadn't already -- Tawker 03:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Pedro Zamora and Judd Winick

Can someone block the vandal who keeps hitting the Pedro Zamora and Judd Winick articles? User:208.251.92.67 and User:65.241.54.173 (Likely the same person, since both IPs trace to Los Angeles, and are used by someone making the exact same changes), keep deleting material from these two articles, including the accompanying photo in the case of the latter, even after I and another editor keep reverting it, and refuse to engage in dialogue on the appropriate talk pages. Nightscream 05:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Pedro Zamora sprotected. pschemp | talk 01:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This may have some relevance to Dollys (talk · contribs) who was on a campaign to recreate Brian Quintana (Afd'ed here in February), repeatedly recreating it, ignoring all messages about G4 and Deletion Review, until the article was salted. Apparently, there's some ongoing feud between Winick and Quintana about Zamora. Dollys' Talk page messages (like this one) assumed that editors involved were somehow involved with our "Jewish friend Judd Winick". Fan-1967 21:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

TV Newser & Ponch's Disco

I have filed this case for mediation, but these guys are taking this to a new level. Please see The American Card Catalog article and the discussion for more details. I do not care to discuss anything with these individuals (or perhaps socks) any more. Just get them to leave me alone please!! I have removed their warnings from my talk page because they are completely bogus. I do not have a problem with being "warned" if it is for just cause.Tecmobowl 08:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Tecmobowl is acting like one of the vandals in the Spotteddogsdotorg/Scott Brown sockpuppet ring switching from television to baseball and staying away from his main targets of abuse. The patterns are obvious, even down to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents posting and playing innocent. I first suspected him a few weeks ago. TV Newser Tipline 09:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Don't think i've ever edited a tv page. Looks like people seem to agree with me though on his/her talk page. I don't care to continue discussions with this user, I just want to make the information out there reflective of the wiki standards. --Tecmobowl 09:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Tecmobowl has never once edited a TV article, the hallmark of a SpottedDogs sock. These sock allegations are completely out of the blue, have lasted for weeks, and just make no sense. I have asked TV Newser before to cool it with the sock allegations and it just hasn't stopped. I have blocked user:TV Newser for 24 hours for disturbance. I welcome review. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Support. Baseless claims are disruptive and highly uncivil. – Chacor 09:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorse as well. These actions were pure harrasment, with no evidence. Daniel.Bryant 09:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• TV Newser is part of the CFIF/Splash cabal that sees socks everywhere. They think I am a sock and will claim that me defending Tecmobowl is more evidence that I am a sock and he is a sock. I am not a sock, he is not a sock and he as only made good edits and really understands the concept of wiki. TV Newser, CFIF, and Splash should all be banned forever! Belly Flop Patrol 09:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Another stupid ridiculous baseless outbreak like that would probably see you banned forever. – Chacor 09:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In fact, looking at your contributions, you've only pretty much acted like a troll today - your first edits in a month. Very suspicious. – Chacor 09:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I just got edit-conflicted at an AFD this new guy just participated in, by someone who signed as Tecmobowl. I definitely smell possible sockpuppetry here. – Chacor 09:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • What exactly are you accusing me of? Wouldn't be surprised if this was TV Newser or a buddy. --Tecmobowl 10:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hallmarks of a standard troll. I welcome any admin to have a look. – Chacor 10:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what's going on with Special:Contributions/85.214.27.102, but it looks potentially relevant to this whole situation. Impersonator or troll of some sort? Luna Santin 10:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever it is, IMO that IP needs to be blocked. The way to settle this whole thing would be an RFCU. – Chacor 10:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 24 hours. Now I'm off to bed, will try to investigate further tomorrow. I appreciate all the input from Chacor and Daniel, and the investigation by Luna and Chacor. Thanks, all, and good night. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 10:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm so totally confused, is Chacor accusing me of something or not? That being said, is it safe to say that unless something is done to one of the pages in question, I can leave this issue alone? --Tecmobowl 10:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone signed as you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FEMA Trailer. Was it you logged out? If it wasn't, then we're dealing with IPs trying to cause further havoc here. – Chacor 10:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nope, that wasn't me. This is me signed out71.56.127.218 10:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, don't get drawn in to this people. Belly Flop Patrol (talk · contribs) is clearly a sock since he knows far too much about a situation he's never been involved in. I've indef blocked. TV Newser is flying off the handle as usual, and needed to be blocked. End of. -Splash - tk 10:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with that block, as well as the earlier one of Newser. Newser appears to be trolling here. His post here uses diffs from Tecmobowl's reponse to the constant talk page reverts as evidence that Tecmobowl himself is the harassing one. Not funny. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Jackp sock active again

User:203.57.68.20 is a confirmed Jackp sock, and after a month-long block, has returned to edit the same articles that got Jackp blocked in the first place. CRCulver 12:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Gah. I got tricked again! I keep on forgetting that Jackp has a known IP address and mistake him for an AOL sock. Every time I lift an autoblock on 203.57.68.20 such as I have done for Frank Skilton (talk • contribs) and Xanthoxyl (talk • contribs) (both with non-Jackp related editing histories, but stop right after the block is lifted), Jackp reappears on the IP address. I've reblocked the IP on AO for 6 months. In the meantime, can someone please refer the address to Checkuser to see how many sleeper accounts there might be. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Endgame1 (talk · contribs) again

There was a similar post here regarding this user. The thread died out when it appeared that the user was leaving. But he did not leave. Since then he has continued his bizzare edits - [133], [134]. At present the message on his user page reads "I QUIT - I WILL DO MY OWN RESEARCH AND NOT SHARE BECAUSE I AM VERY SHELFISH.". It would be better if some admin would take a look at this matter again. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

He looks like he has begun to vandalise since he posted his intention to quit. I've reverted and warned him, but I can't keep an eye on him today. Can somone else do this? --Kbdank71 13:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. He has continued despite his warnings. I have an eye on him for the moment. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Very shellfish? Danny Lilithborne 22:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. Nearly everything he does has been reverted by someone (like massive tagging of archived pages for speedy deletion!) and the rest are inane votes on mfd with no reasoing. If he keeps this up after the block expires, he needs to be blocked even longer. pschemp | talk 01:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Very shellfish? Presumably it means he'll clam up and not move a mussel. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This user knows entirely too much about Wikipedia process for how new they are. Any other banned users with this bizarre behavior? Grandmasterka 21:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Endgame has already been indefblocked by Tawker (talk · contribs). About banned users, I don't know. He was in hibernation for a few months and then suddenly came up with those wierd questions on my (ongoing) RfA. But I don't recall ever coming across any user related to me with similar patterns of editing. So it must have been a coincidence. - Aksi_great (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Woodking24 (talk · contribs)

This seems to be single-purpose account used to spam articles with links to furniture companies in India. I had issued a spam warning to him ealier in the year which was later removed by them. I don't think this account is going to be used to make any contructive edits to wikipedia. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. pschemp | talk 01:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User removes comments from the talk page.

User Clevelander constantly removes my comment from a talk page [135], [136] saying I am trying to evade block (although there is no block to evade). The talk page history shows this is not the first time he removes comments of other users.--Nixer 16:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Nixer there's a tag right on your user page that reads: It has been established that this user is the puppet master of one or more abusive or block / ban-evading sock puppets as proven by this Checkuser request. Who are you trying to fool? -- Clevelander 18:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for notice--Nixer 18:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

...and you removed a tag that an administrator placed on your user page. Do you really think that this will make you sound in any way credible? -- Clevelander 18:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

He is not an administrator (just a POV-pusher and vandal). I am not blocked.--Nixer 18:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, both of you stop. Cleavelander, Nixer was not evading a block as you claim and you shouldn't have removed his comments. His block had expired which was obvious by the fact that he could *edit*. Please do not remove other people's comments again. The rest of argument is silly and needs to end. Nixer hasn't used sockpuppets for awhile, so its fine for the tag to be removed. Its in the edit history anyway and we don't need to keep branding people if they've refomed. pschemp | talk 00:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably Clevelander mixed me with another user in the same talk page.--Nixer 09:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Giguli

What is with this user's page? Are they trying to put advertisements on their page? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, a sysop removed it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Atomaton

I explained it to him in great detail on his talk page here: User talk:Atomaton. He responded by repeating his controversial unsourced assertions about a living person here. I reverted it and am now posting this here so others can deal with it. I am now out of it. WAS 4.250 20:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

More accurately is that:

• I was asked to participate in a controversial discussion, (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jamie_Lee_Curtis_urban_legends) I made a comment, the gist of which was that whether it was true or not, it should *not* be included in the article. I did not comment in the article itself for obvious reasons. The only reason I commented on the talk page was because I watch the BPL page, and was *asked* to give my opinion, not for any other reason.
• User WAS at some later time (five or six hours) removed a portion of my comments fom the talk page. He did not comment in the talk pages as to why, nor did he comment on my own talk page.
• I left polite, but firm feedback for WAS on his talk page. In a nutshell, I said "You edited (removed a portion of) my comments on the Jamie Lee Curtis page. This is not acceptable. I'm happy to discuss any differences of opinion I may have with other editors, but I won't accept other people editing my comments because they disagree."(See User_talk:WAS_4.250#Jamie_Lee_Curtis). I also reverted the edit to my opinion on the talk page.
• User WAS replied relatively quickly, explaining his rationale on my talk page. (see User_talk:Atomaton#Jamie_Lee_Curtis_and_Nikki_Craft) He said "So you want to pick a fight with me over my correct use of WP:BLP while you use it to delete sources instead of claims and your edit subjects are troll bait (but I have not reviewed your edits on those sex pages). Altogether a troubling pattern"
• I responded, explained that I was not offensive, only establishing limits. I acknowledged that I understood his rationale and respected it. (and a great many other things).
• I also responded on the Jamie Lee Curtis talkpage that I was offended to be *asked* to offer an opinion, and then told my opinion was politically incorrect when I did. [[137]]
• This was reverted, by user WAS and part of my previous comments re-edited again. [[138]]
• On my talk page, I told user WAS "Anyway, I respect your opinion on the matter and won't comment on the Jamie Lee Curtis issue again. I only wanted to point out that it was rude to ask for my opinion, and then say that my opinion was politically incorrect."
• I removed all of my comments entirely from the Jamie Lee Curtis talk page.

All in all, it is my opinion that WAS was extremely rude. He implied I was trying to pick a fight with him, implied that my area of specialty was somehow not appropriate for editing, and just generally seemed to be pushy for no good reason when he could have just been polite, and assumed good faith on my part. I respect that his intentions, to protect the biography of a living person, as well as the image and integrity of Wikipedia was pure. As a member of that project I understand the sensitivity. I had no idea that I would be treated so roughly by responding to the request to offer my opinion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jamie_Lee_Curtis_urban_legends Biography of living persons noticeboard.) Apparently the only comments desired were ones that carefully avoided discussing the subject. Someone might want to post that on the talk page to avoid other people from being burned without warning. Atom 20:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Two things here. First Atom, policy cleary states unsourced claims can be removed from anyplace on wikipedia. You yourself admitted you have no source. Therefore, WAS's action was correct. If you don't agree with the policy, start a discussion on the policy talk page, but in the meantime, you must abide by it. Second, WAS, your statement on Atom's talk page was clearly made to put Atom on the defensive ("I also notice almost all your recent edits are sex related. So you want to pick a fight with me over my correct use of WP:BLP while you use it to delete sources instead of claims and your edit subjects are troll bait (but I have not reviewed your edits on those sex pages). Altogether a troubling pattern.") and you should have made a more polite comment rather than accusing Atom of various and sundry crimes. In short, neither or you handled this well but the removal was correct. pschemp | talk 21:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't argue the removal. What I stated was fact. Disclosing the source would by contrary to my goals of saying that there was some reason it was important. It isn't. I don't think it should be in the article whether it is true or not. I agreed that I did not offer a source, and hence agreed to abide by policy. That is why I retracted my comments. I would have retracted all of them but user WAS had already edited some of them out before I finished replying to his comment. I don't suggest that the policy was applied incorrectly, or that it should be changed.

What I objected to was being slapped around as though I was some vandal, merely because I offered my opinion when asked. My original comment/response was really not intended to be malicious. In responding the the BLP request, I was merely pointing out that I knew it to be true, not trying to pass on any gossip or rumors. In restrospect saying that wasn't really relevant, and didn't need to be said.

I felt that I was polite, and assumed good faith even though he could have been more diplomatic. The only reason we are her on this page is because user WAS felt obliged to comment on it, even after I ceded his point on my talk page and removed my comments. (disregarding what he implied in his comments). Atom 21:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Spambot is back (somewhat)

Ok, latest spam attack on my userpsace is User talk:Cool cat/archive/2005/w/index.php. Please sort it out. :) For previous discussion on the matter see:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive138#Spambot_attack_on_talk_archives
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive139#Spambot_alert

--Cat out 23:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Page deleted and IP bloked for 24 hours.--Doc 23:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Cat out 23:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Cool Cat/Archive/2005/wiki/Discussion/ too. --Cat out 00:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

These IPs should really be blocked for a minimum of 1 month; most are likely zombies or open proxies. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I started a Spambot tracker.

From what I understand this bot isnt just targeting my userspace. Unfortunately, I can't view deleted pages. So, I welcome compiling of a list of similar activity elsewhere on that page.

I just dont want to start a new thread explaining the issue since the bot doesnt seem to be about to go away.

--Cat out 00:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You can find most of the spam that slipped through the cracks using Google, an example would be [139]. Though we really need to equip our antivandalism bots to take care of these things. MER-C 03:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

More spam: [140]. MER-C 04:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest reporting spam IPs to WP:OP encase they are proxies or compromised. Thanks.--Andeh 20:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Editor using uncivil edit summaries

The pink panther (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) used quite an uncivil and WP:BITE edit summary on this this diff five days ago. I formally had her listed as a suspected sock of User:SPOV because of the incredibly similar userboxes. She also reported an autoblock because of User:reallytinyprint, who is another suspected sock (for the same reason). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 01:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm not sure that AN/I is the proper forum for this complaint. Please use WP:RFCU to report suspected sockpuppets. Also, I think a warning would suffice for an inappropriate edit summary, and isn't really something to post here about, especially nearly a week after the incident. Thanks! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 01:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I left a note on this user's talk page about using caps-locked edit summaries.--Konst.able^Talk 01:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Tremolo666

This seems to be a vandal-only account. This person has written nothing but hoax articles that are all up for deletion either at AfD or PROD. Mr Spunky Toffee 01:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for taking the time out of your day to let us know! In the future, however, please use WP:AIV for vandalism-related issues. In this case, I don't think that the user has actually done any vandalism. The user simply seems to be a bit unfamiliar with notability policies. Thanks again! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 01:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Incivility and threats from User:Yas121

User:Yas121 has been generally ranting about "Zionists" and carrying on an increasingly vituperative campaign of incivility, personal attacks and threats in edit summaries and Talk: comments. Examples include "Rv childlish edits grow up!" "Don't revert factual stuff to satisfy your zionist agenda!" "here at wikipedia we like to take the pro-israeli-(zionist)-bias a little further than the rest." "Head over to Hamas....(Where Admins such as Jayjg have taken an oath to Rev/Block anyone who may disagree)... Yes it may read like a damming report written by the Israeli PR machine...but they still call it an encyclopaedic article!!!" "Jayjg, where would the Zionist cause be without you...as usual you Rev clearly explained edits to fit your zionist agenda. One day you'll get yours...". Is a permanent block in order at this point, or a shorter one of a week or so? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg! First off, I think it's great judgement of you to list this incident here, given your involvement in the incident. In briefly looking at the diffs you provided and the user's contribs, I would suggest a longish block (two to four months) for the user to chill out and reevaluate if he wants to postively contribute to this project or to continue to antagonise other users and attempt to interject his POV. If he returns and changes his ways, then great! We'll have another dedicated volunteer; if he comes back from his block and continues to negatively affect Wikipedia, then I'd have no problem with an immediate permanent block. I hope this helps! Cheers hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 02:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Support about a month long block or so to reconsider his actions. – Chacor 02:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Two-month long block would be an appropriate response. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. --InShaneee 02:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Behaviour of User:Wikid77 on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FEMA Trailer

Can an admin please take a look at the behaviour of Wikid77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FEMA Trailer? I find his persistent "updates" to be snappy, sarcastic, unnecessary, andd mostly uncivil. – Chacor 02:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I left a warning. --Coredesat 08:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's rather strange how newbies know more about the wiki concept than sysops... {{afdanon}}'d. Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 09:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Desperately Need help on blanking and POV editing of Tamilnet by User:snowolfd4

I have been making some edits to Tamilnet which have been repeatedly reverted with POV and propaganda from the ministry of Defence, Sri Lanka without any qualifications of the text by user User:Snowolfd4. I have added a list of justifications for my changes. But this user has never bothered to answer them and gone ahead given very terse statements for his reverts. This is pretty much vandalism. I have in turn added citations from a reputable source, namely a journal article on Tamilnet.com by Whitaker, Mark P. "Tamilnet.com: Some Reflections on Popular Anthropology, Nationalism, and the Internet" Anthropological Quarterly - Volume 77, Number 3, Summer 2004, pp. 469-498 George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research. He has reverted my citations claiming in effect that this peer-reviewed scholarly journal article is the following:

According to Official WP policy Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference.

He has claimed pretty much all the sources, including the journal article not to be a reliable source, with very very dubious edit summaries. I desperately need administrator intervention on this. This is getting to be very frustrating when a user claims that a peer-reviewed scholarly journal article is an unreliable source and then goes ahead and blanks legitimate cited contents. He has already been blocked for edit warring and has a history of POV pushing and blanking. Elalan 04:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Blanking out verifiable info is def'ly vandalism and this needs to be warned clearly. This is an attempt by user Snowolf to show all articles showing the other side of an issue as derogatory or false. This is a much serious concern for Wiki's 5 pillars. Pls intervene. Thanks Sudharsansn 19:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Infact my talk page is being vandalized here Pls help. Thanks Sudharsansn 19:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Incivility complaint re: MONGO

Dispute resolution: This page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process.

This is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If you came here to complain about the actions of a user or administrator, or if your problem is a content issue and does not need the attention of people with administrator access, then please follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include: mediation, requests for comment, and as a last resort requests for arbitration.

User:SafeLibraries.org's inappropriate username

Wikipedia usernames are not intended as vehicles for linkspam. However, every edit that User:SafeLibraries.org makes inserts another link to http://www.SafeLibraries.org into Wikipedia. As this user now has 1099 edits, he has now inserted at least 1099 spam links into the edit history of various pages. This continued linkspamming is disruptive. Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames recognizes this problem, and states that

Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies, groups, or include the URL of a particular website are discouraged and may be blocked.

User:SafeLibraries.org was asked to change his username on July 31. So far, he has stated on two occasions that he intends to do so [148] [149], but has most recently implied that he will not change his username. However, no user acquires the right to an inappropriate username by long use, provided that the username was inappropriate when it was created. Heavy use of inappropriate usernames simply represents a greater injury to Wikipedia than inappropriate usernames which are indefinitely blocked on sight. Therefore, I suggest that User:SafeLibraries.org be blocked indefinitely. John254 14:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Usernameblocked. -- Avi 14:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer you didn't block yet. (See the block log, the messages to the user, ect) The user seems to understand now why the username needs to be changed, and seems willing to do so. If not, I can always reblock. Prodego ^talk 14:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh... And so this makes the linkspamming OK? Just trying to understand. BusterD 15:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand the "link spamming" is that every time the account edits it leaves the URL in the page history. However, these pages aren't even counted as links by search engines (only pages with /wiki/ in the URL are cached by search engines). Of course, a username change would change the history pages anyway, so... I was in the middle of discussion with this user, and he said he would change his username, and I would assume that is in good faith. Also, I left a note to John explaining what I did, but he decided not to leave me a message, as I requested he do if he had a problem, but instead made a report here. Prodego ^talk 15:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Since users can edit their talk pages even while blocked, User:SafeLibraries.org can specify a new username on his talk page. A bureaucrat can then change his username and unblock him. Until his username is changed, however, there is no need to continue to allow him to edit. John254 15:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As John said. Also, BusterD, the name is inappropriate regardless of "spamming". See Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate usernames. Once the user posts a request for a name change on User talk:SafeLibraries.org, any admin will gladly unblock him so that he may post on Wikipedia:Changing username. -- Avi 16:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Does he need to post a request on Wikipedia:Changing username personally? If a request is posted to Wikipedia:Changing username on his behalf, with a link to the diff from his talk page as evidence that he is requesting that his username be changed, I believe that the bureaucrats would act on it. John254 16:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. I'm a sysop, not a b'crat, so I'm not 100% sure. We can always try . -- Avi 16:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Site seems like self-promotion, and behavior appears unreliable. But if the user name change is agreed, problem looks solved. Curious: how did this get to 1100 edits before blockage? Was no time frame agreed upon in first contact? This seems open and shut to an outsider. Thanks again–I'm trying to decode what is done on these pages. High-entry level of knowledge. Understand most but need to read more. BusterD 16:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There are tens of thousands of wiki editors, some things are bound to slip through the cracks for a while. Thankfully, the majority of editors and sysops have wiki's best interests at heart so it is a pretty robust self-correcting environment. Thanks again! -- Avi 16:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorse block. He was already given the opportunity to change his username multiple times; if he wants to continue editing now, he should get a new account. --Cyde Weys 20:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sandover, Senate vote, and habeas corpus

User:Sandover has started adding the following paragraph to the biographies of a number of Senators:

On September 28, 2006, [senator X] voted (with a Republican majority) to suspend habeas corpus provisions for anyone deemed by the Executive Branch an "unlawful combatant", barring them from challenging their detentions in court. X's vote gave a retroactive, nine-year immunity to U.S. officials who authorized, ordered, or committed acts of torture and abuse, permitting the use of statements obtained through torture to be used in military tribunals so long as the abuse took place by December 30, 2005. X's vote authorized the President to establish permissible interrogation techniques and to "interpret the meaning and application" of international Geneva Convention standards, so long as the coercion fell short of "serious" bodily or psychological injury. The bill became law on October 17, 2006.

For some individuals, he's actually created whole sections to discuss this. So far he's added it to the bios of Joe Lieberman, Sam Brownback, Chuck Hagel, Mary Landrieu, Susan Collins, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey_Graham, Gordon Smith, Pat_Roberts, and others. Aside from the fact that the wording is prejudicial and not supported by the sources, it seems to me that this kind of boilerplate insertion is spamming for political purposes, and a violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Will he insert this paragraph into the bios of every single senator who voted for this? Is this particular vote of each senator notable in some way? Have reliable sources actually commented on these specific votes of these specific individuals?

Not only is Sandover adding the material to articles, but he is also reverting anyone who removes it. I suggest that this behavior is disruptive, and that Sandover should stop doing this. If he wants to list every senator who voted for the bill, he should do so in the article on the bill. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

He continues to add it to articles, for example Olympia Snowe. He's now inventing his own reasons as to why each specific vote is "notable" in some way; clearly a case of original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention he appears to be adding any dispariging news links to the articles besides just this. --InShaneee 17:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Password Request Bug

Hopefully, this means the password request throttle has been implememnted, but I'm not very familiar with bugzilla, so maybe someone else could take a look? [150]

I don't know Wikipedia release process well, but all that necessarily means is that there's been a change written and accepted by the MediaWiki maintainers. Actually getting that into the "live" copy which runs Wikipedia may take a little longer. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks active to me. Prodego ^talk 19:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Actually blocked users are blocked from making password requests now rather than a limit being set on how many can be made per day, but whatever works is fine with me. pschemp | talk 20:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Behavior of User:Iwazaki in the Velupillai Prabhakaran page

Iwazaki (talk · contribs) is on a vandal spree and also a personal attack campaign. With scant respect for fellow editors, this user is continuing to add content to Wiki not complying to NPOV, Verifiabiliy, Civility or simply anything else apart from the fundamental policy of 'anyone can edit anything' policy of Wiki. The user has also been issued a final warning for Civility but continues his spree of personal attacks and diplomatic vandalism. Check this Iwazaki Talk page Infact he questions the very claim of Civility to the admins who have issued warnings to him in the same page as above!!

To add to this, the user is quoting incidents from the newspapers that he has read someday. sometime ago!! Here Iwazaki has framed up two entire sections of his own, literally without any citation at all refer here. The citations he has pointed to refer to a newspaper article which he has read sometime ago and is not a piece of evidence which can be verified by everybody who would be reading that article. It is something like 'I-saw-that-in-news-once' kind of a link. It is a blank newspaper name link which isn't a hyperlink or anything at all. Check the talk page for his spurious justifications and more personal attacks [151] He is also reverting it to his own versions also making sure he isn't under the 3R rule.

For your convenience, I have created a list of a number of such attacks from the report concerned, and listed each as linked to the diff from which they were copied...

1. "written by someone with a kindergarten level knowledge",
2. "Speak for your self, all my comments here are in reply to what others asked..Whether they are related or not, i normally wont disappoint anyone who asks questions from me.A habbit which comes from my fathers side!!" - He is talking about his upbringing on a Wikipedia Talk page.
3. "I bet your self had a rough time ,esp about the copy-righted pictures..So before advising and playing with sarcasm why dont you look after your self ?? i mean afterall u needed advice" - This is really too much.
4. "Since you have done such a poor job in this article,and its not surprising considering your pre-school level knoweldge of hostory and amazing logic !! And this kid is here to make things better."
5. "if you have problem with that, please purchase the book and read it."
6. "it would be really nice if you work on your reading comprehension skills..All my points remain valid and u only have one kindergrten level article to back up what ever you claims",
7. "i mean afterall u needed advice from a probably another pro-srilankan to grasp the idea of copyright policies here in wikipedia..",
8. "i have an enormous respect to wiki and its editors..But like in every society ,there are a few here joking around..And for them i have no respect..Since i take my history very seriously, i dont want kids to come here and screw things up.kids should grasp more knowledge before coming here.",
9. "didnt i tell you to speak for your self ?? what you have written here is not only in low quality ,but lack truth too.some of your sources are highly ambiguous, and do not qualified to be in the article.And thats what this kid do here, pointing out your "hypothesis" to save the standards of wikipedia..You have shown here so many things, lack of "reading conprehension skills" , "kidergarten level logic" , "lack of knowledge in srilankan crisis" and most importantly "lack of(or NO) knowledge in our history"..So shouldnt you think ,better to get some history lessons in school ,before even coming here to edits ??",
10. "YOU dont need to take a day-nap to see that truth..",
11. "and unlike some i dont have any hidden agendas.I honor my state, SLA or anyother thing, with a reason..And condemned them too, with reason..Since you have done such a poor job in this article,and its not surprising considering your pre-school level knoweldge of hostory and amazing logic !!".

...Please be advised that this is not a complete list and has been jointly compiled by User:Crimsone.

This seems to be going on for almost a month inspite of several friendly suggestions and also Admin warnings. This is a serious problem in that page and quite naturally it is spreading to other pages too. This user doesn't like Wiki policies as per some of his replies to Admin warnings and friendly suggestions by fellow editors and I really don't know what he is upto after his aforesaid statements which are listed. Quite understandeably all his actions are outside Wiki's 5 pillars!! Kindly help. Thanks Sudharsansn 19:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Again (didn't notice this earlier) - there is a world of difference between "jointly compiled byCrimsone" and "includes a list compiled by Crimsone used to show the user which edits he had recieved a final warning for and why". Please be more accurate in your language when describing such things, as your statement implies my taking of sides in this latest report, which is most certainly not the case. I do not wish to be drawn into a content dispute that I know little about, nor an ongoing incivility dispute between two editors I have no real connection with. All I have done is given a list of comments to the user that made them in explanation of a final warning given by an admin in response to a WP:PAIN report. Many thanks --Crimsone 21:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, pls do pardon my ignorance in editing this list. No offense meant, I just felt the urgent need for admin intervention in this issue. I had only appended to this list as I had done there. If there is anything I need to do with regd to the list here, do let me know. Pardon me for my ignorance and the copy-paste. :-) Thanks Sudharsansn 23:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Jgp blocked

I have blocked User:Jgp indefinitely for restoring the ED link to SchmuckyTheCat's User page. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Before he was blocked by Zoe, I asked Jgp to revert the page back and he curtly refused. While I'm disappointed that this indef block was necessary, his conduct was completely indefensible. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have my doubts he'll be back regardless, but indefinite blocks seem more than a bit harsh. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, an indef block looks like overkill to me. User:Jgp doesn't look like a troll or someone who has never done anything useful for the encyclopedia. --Conti|✉ 21:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Any user who has made it clear that they will not abide by arbcom decisions has no business being here. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I give you a list of folks to indefinitely block, then? Back to reality, though, he has no prior block history and a legitimate complaint, and while profane defiance isn't the way to change things, an indefinite block seems completely out of control given his history and the circumstances. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

An indefblock for an editor in good standing is extremely out of line. It appears he only did this restoration of a link once and now he's indefblocked and has quit the project because of the indefblock.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

He is indef blocked, not permanently blocked. If he announces that he will abide by the ruling, instead of calling it "fucking stupid", he can be unblocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The decision is "fucking stupid," and he's entitled to that opinion, as is anyone else who holds it. If he continues to re-add the link despite warnings and this block, then feel free to extend the block further. To indefinitely block on the first offense with no prior issues whatsoever is completely absurd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you read User:RyanFreisling's comments above? He was asked to remove the link, and he refused. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

And RyanFreisling has about as much cache in such a discussion as I do. Please read my point again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

An indef block does not mean permament. If the user takes a break (no socks), makes it clear that he understand what he did wrong, asks for a second chance in proper place, then there is a pretty good chance he will be given one. Best to let a bit of time to pass, though. --FloNight 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. No one has to implement arbcom decisions, but no one gets to interfere with those who are. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Leoboy725

I believe that this account qualifies for blocking as a vandalism-only account. His most recent edits include insertion of photographs of people that he uploaded into the prostitution and prude articles in an evident effort to defame the people depicted [152] [153]. My report on WP:AIV was removed by a user who is not an administrator because User:Leoboy725 has received "no warnings". However, Wikipedia:Vandalism does not actually require that users be warned prior to being blocked for vandalism. Furthermore, users are commonly blocked without warning for extreme cases of vandalism, such as inserting the photograph of a person into the prostitution article for the purpose of defamation [154]. John254 21:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Zoe warned him, and I speedily deleted the images he uploaded as vandalism. --Coredesat 21:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Trouble on the Andy Stephenson DRV

The deletion review on Andy Stephenson is starting to turn into the conspiracycruft circus that the AfD was. It might need a few other admins to help keep it under control. --Coredesat 21:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Oyo321

I'd like to request another admin to review whether the edits today of Oyo321 (talk · contribs) constituted improper personal attacks. (I believe they do, but I think an uninvolved admin should review the situation.) Further, if we have an admin who can read Korean, please check to see if the Korean writing the user has been writing on some talk pages constitute personal attacks, since I have no way to check those. --Nlu (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• A request for assistance over on WP:RD/LANG will probably find you a Korean speaker fairly quickly. There's no reason he/she has to be an admin as long as he/she can report back here on what they read. --Aaron 22:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

A few more eyes are needed...

The situation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tree of Life diff is really getting over the top. User:pschemp got involved as an unimplicated admin, but an RFARB took place almost immediately, and it's not fair to ask her to wade in further.

Note that User:Brya is banned, and his/her comments on his/her own talk page have been copied into the wikiproject talk space, where he/she cannot respond. The previous discussions had been archived, now brought back and added to. A cool-off period seems in order, and bringing in some cool heads and objective pairs of eyes would be a great help there. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 22:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Image question

This woman on a toilet (non-nude) was uploaded and inserted into the prostitution article as "A typical North American whore."

It has GFDL-self, which appears to invalidate WP:SPEEDY criteria. How should this image be processed? Gotyear 23:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The image was being used solely for vandalism. Deleted per CSD G3. --Slowking Man 23:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:IFD I would say list it there as UE (Unencyclopædic) and OR (Orphaned). But if it was just being used for vandalism, a CSD:G3 would work even better. -- Avi 23:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I was looking solely at the image criteria. Thanks both! Gotyear 23:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:StalinsLoveChild

First of all, Hello to you all. Straight to business. I've had a minor tiff with StalinsLoveChild (talk · contribs · count), and although I admit that I am at fault (and will accept any comments on my conduct), I've a bit worried through his comments on my talk page and on his own user and talk pages. It looks like he could be evading a previous indefblock, although i'm not entrely sure how to go about finding this out or if it's even a problem. Most worrying is his final message on my talk page - "I have had numerous past accounts on Wikipedia, which usually get shut down due to the ignorance of people like you not knowing what's best" - combined with his User page, stating that "If my userpage gets deleted AGAIN I will be extremely angry - and this time, you SHALL FEEL MY WRATH. ". Is this a problem? I don't profess to know much about indefblock polciies, and if they can create another account afterwards to evade the block? it doesn't look like he's learned his lesson, regardless. Here's to a quick reply, HawkerTyphoon 23:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)