Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive149

Disruptive actions of Alec U.K.

User:Alec - U.K.'s disruptive edits on a number of topics, and probable use of a sockpuppet previously reported to WP:AN/I (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive147#Disruptive_and_inconsistent_editing_-_Alec_-_U.K.) but was time-guillotined with no admin commenting or taking any action. Alec is back on respiratory/asthma related topics, acting outside of consenses with attempts by several editors to engage him in discussion to reach consensus (particularly ArmadilloFromHell).

Today these edits to Asthma with unencyclopeadic personal speculation as to what asthma might be misconstrude with, this attempt to again claim on 'Category:Respiratory agents' that asthma is not a disease (consensus clearly set out on Talk:Asthma#.22Disease.22. Also again trying to fragment topic with attempts to distinguish asthma, asthmatic, asthma attacks with switching of "asthma" for the term that redirects to this of "asthma attack" in Respiratory failure (see [1] here).

Could an admin have a look at previous WP:AN/I posting and the above items. Please either act, or if not appropriate for WP:AN/I then advise us of how we should be trying to proceed :-) David Ruben ^Talk 20:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Also of interest is User_talk:87.194.35.230 which is a suspected sock puppet. The editing style is identical pushing the same POV. Regan123 21:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop him permanently, I've no idea what his agenda is, but this is worse that blatant vandalism. A vandal you just keep reverting, since it's clear what's going on, in this case, by mixing valid edits with nonsense, it becomes much harder to deal with and becomes so time-consuming that his edits are left as is. I'm sure as a result, a lot of misinfromation has been added, this has gone way beyond WP:AGF - it's now a case of WP:ABF (and it's not the least bit funny) --ArmadilloFromHell 00:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

User:87.194.35.230 has made a further edit last night again stating the Asthma is not a disease which has been reverted by multiple editors on many pages before. The editing style remains identical. I am convinced this is a sock puppet. Also see here for an example of a circular redirect that I had to issue speedys on. Regan123 10:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Mall spam

Dvac (talk · contribs) created a large number of very similar articles on shopping malls, all of which were (quite by chance I'm sure) operated by the same company. I have nearly finished nuking all those which are of the style Foo Mall is a mall in Foo, Bar, built in 19xx plus a list of anchor stores, the official website, and a link to the property company. About thirty of them were created in alphabetical order, so help me. Many notes were left on the user's Talk page, I don't see any evidence of responses. In fact, I don't see any evidence of any activity other than adding directory data to malls. I blocked the account. I am a heartless bastard with no appreciation of shopping as a leisure activity. Or something. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering what was up this afternoon when there were so many malls in the speedy queue. I didn't touch any of them because the mall debate is one I'd like to stay out of (much like the school debate). Thanks JzG for wiping out them all and a huge thanks, as well, to Pascal.Tesson (talk · contribs) who tagged them all. Metros232 00:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A few (a very few) good subjects may have been swept up among the cruft. Apologies if so, any admin should feel free ot resurrect any such. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What reason is there to block this user and delete all his edits? They (the ones I can see) contain verifiable content and are written from a neutral point of view. Yes, it's unfortunate that they all belong to the same company, and yes, the writer is probably part of that company too, but damn. Do we encourage people to write about what they no about, and then block them because the material is outside one's area of interest? — CharlotteWebb 00:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I went ahead and tagged a few of the malls with speedy deletion tags which were removed by CharlotteWebb so I will make a group nomination for AfD. They seem to me to all be clear-cut cases of both A7 and G11. Pascal.Tesson 02:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not do it as a blanket case as what has happened here. In this case, many notable articles that meet general Wikipedia requirements are nominated for deletion based on little to no evidence. As with the ones in this case, I cannot see a reason to delete all of them since some are written in a neutral point of view and contain verifiable content. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason for deleting the articles and blocking the account is that he created several tens of articles on malls operated by a single company, in alphabetical order, all of which were directory entries and linking back to the property company's website. Numerous messages were left on Talk in an attempt to engage the user, but all were completely ignored. This is what we call WP:SPAM. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It is also what we call a conflict of interest and an autobiography. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 09:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• An article of the form Guy described really isn't that helpful. In my local mall I've seen at least 4 shops leave and new ones coming in their place. A long list of shops in a particular mall is simply not encyclopedic, and when you get that out, it's merely a substub with more links than actual content. Perhaps we need an example of what a featured mall article would look like, just like the few School FAs we have. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yup. And WP:NOT a directory - the articles I deleted were directory entries. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Realniggaztalk

Is this username offensive enough to merit action? -- Donald Albury 04:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, blocked. I can't see any instance where the word Nigger in any form isn't going to offend someone. pschemp | talk 04:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And I sent an article he created to AfD earlier today. Ah, well. I've got his talk page on my watch list, and my e-mail is activated. -- Donald Albury 04:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Kingdom Hearts

Can someone with a little better detective work take a look at Talk:Kingdom Hearts? It looks like DiamondDragon (talk · contribs) tried to create archives and it didn't go so well. From what I see, the user simply copied and pasted into archive 2...but I see no evidence of archive 1 being made with content, just the pages created for them. That's what drew me to them, the blank archive page for Talk:Kingdom Hearts/Archive1 was tagged for speedy deletion as empty content. Can someone figure out what happened? Metros232 04:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Look better? Key was that the first archive was put into Kingdom Hearts/Archive instead of Talk:Kingdom Hearts/Archive1, i.e. no Talk:... —Wknight94 (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

need immediate lockdown, please!

A whole bunch of shit is hitting the fan right now at Talk:Evolution, and it's really dunb shit. Please lock this page for an hour or so to let folks cool off. If not, things are going to spiral quickly and badly, possibly resulting in blocks for otherwise good editors. Consider this a 9-1-1 call. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You want to have a talk page locked? It looks like people are being a little hostile back and forth, but locking a talk page is pretty extreme... Georgewilliamherbert 07:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I know a bit about this group; things are getting ugly and it would be a serious shame for any of them to get blocked. The talkpage hasn't hosted any serious discussion in the past hour, just an increasingly tense situation. Just an hour's protection, to let things cool down? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

(I am not an admin, but...) It's not just procedural that first, you should contact people on their talk pages and ask them to calm down and take a bit of time off (which I just did to one of the parties). Protecting a page should only happen after other approaches including warnings to users and short blocks if necessary have failed. I can't blame you for wanting to try to calm it down a bit, but start at the right starting point: ask people nicely, on their talk pages, to calm down... In overall seriousness, this is nowhere near as bad as many other flame wars which we've let run without locking a page. Georgewilliamherbert 07:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully your comments will take care of it then. Thanks for your help. There was a crazy blaze of comments on the talkpage, coming so fast I kept getting edit conflicts when trying to appeal for peace. I guess I just panicked :( Thanks again. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

So, that's what a flame-war looks like, eh? I'd never been close enough to one to feel the heat! So I yelled for help, and it was a false alarm. In my city there's actually a hefty fine for calling in false alarms, so...who do I make the check out to? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 08:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The fine for this incident is that at some point in the future, when you see an argument break out and get too heated on a topic you aren't personally involved in on Wikipedia, you have to go to the heated debaters' talk pages and leave them friendly messages asking them to calm down and be patient 8-)

Have a good night. Glad the situation calmed down. Georgewilliamherbert 08:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

User:NRC ADMIN

I believe putting the word "admin" in your username is a no-no. Also appears to be a sock puppet created to influence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinosaurus Vs Rex. -Anþony (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Threeafterthree

User:Threeafterthree has, for many months, been attempting to remove any designation on biographical articles of individuals as "Jewish", particularly famous and respected people like Albert Einstein,[2] though he apparently has no issue with it if the person happens to be Harold Shipman, the U.K.'s worst mass-murderer.[3] In addition, he has been insisting on removing "Antisemitic" categories from various individuals considered antisemites, but insisting on adding the "Racism" category to various Jews and Jewish groups, and insisting that people like Leo Frank were not "innocent", but merely "convicted on circumcstantial evidence". All in all, it adds up to something quite ugly. If that weren't bad enough, he's been edit warring as an IP editor, for which he has been blocked 3 times in the past week and evading his blocks and sockpuppeting as a third editor. I've blocked all the accounts for a month, but I'm wondering if a permanent block is more in order. Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, reading your comments here, I would support an indefinite block on this user. Suggesting hatred towards a religious group is just not on. I think you have done very much the right thing here. --SunStar Net 00:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of suggesting hatred towards a religious group?--131.109.1.41 15:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Very odd. By what definition is a convicted murderer, whose conviction was never overturned, "innocent"? And I don't see any edits by this user to Harold Shipman at least as far back as 2002. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Very odd response. Frank is infamous for having been falsely convicted and, in fact, being an innocent man: The Leo Frank case is considered one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in the legal annals of Georgia... The degree of anti-Semitism involved in Frank's conviction and subsequent lynching is difficult to assess, but it was enough of a factor to have inspired Jews, and others, throughout the country to protest the conviction of an innocent man...Slaton reviewed more than 10,000 pages of documents, visited the pencil factory where the murder had taken place, and finally decided that Frank was innocent. He commuted the sentence, however, to life imprisonment, assuming that Frank's innocence would eventually be fully established and he would be set free... etc.[4] As for Shipman, did you bother clicking on the links provided? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, do you think that prior to your block Threeafterthree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was avoiding accruing a history of blocks through puppetry? It seems rather odd that he'd never been blocked before under his user name. (→Netscott) 03:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My point is, Leo Frank isn't innocent in the eyes of the law. You don't seem to have picked the best edits to criticize here. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The case is a famous miscarriage of justice according to everyone who's written about it extensively, to the best of my knowledge, and so there's no reason to keep removing the category. Threeafterthree has e-mailed me to say that the two other editors are people he lives with. I assume he means User:68.9.116.87 and User:Backroomlaptop.

There are similarities in editing style, articles edited, and general interests. Lots of Jewish-related interests, and specifically removing that people are Jews, even from well-known Jews such as Steven Spielberg (Threeafterthree removed that) and Elie Weisel (Backroomlaptop's first edit was to remove from the first sentence that Wiesel is Jewish, then add to the end of the lead that he's of "Jewish decent [sic]". [5]) Threeafterthree even removed "of Jews" from a quote which said that Martin Luther's work had tragic effects "on later generations of Jews." He twice removed "of Jews," [6] [7] saying he was correcting the quote, but the quote does say "of Jews." [8]

Also, Threeafterthree enabled 68.9.116.87 to evade 3RR at Kahanism. The anon added Category:Racism at 21:51 Nov 16, and reverted three times; then Threeafterthree arrived to revert at 02:57 Nov 17, despite having not edited since September 1. There's also one distinctive thing that Threeafterthree and one of the others do, which I won't mention here. I'd say they're all the same person. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are two versions of this document on the web. The one you link to from Canada has "of Jews", the American one does not [9]. His edit is correct for the reference at elca.org which was actually being cited in the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 10:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The link in the article is dead, so how do you know? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The link in the article is to the elca.org domain, even though they may have moved the page. So now you are saying User:Threeafterthree has psychic powers? Or are you saying he hacked that website and removed the words from the WP:RS just to make you look foolish? -- Kendrick7^talk 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, mentioning someone's religion first thing in the lead is really a matter of taste. I'd view articles starting "Antonio Banderas is a Catholic actor" or "George Bush is a Methodist politician" as fairly silly. Are you seriously complaining about this edit [10] on Steven Spielberg? -- Kendrick7^talk 11:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of "complaining" about any particular edit. The question is whether the accounts are run by one person. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Why block for one month? Why block backroom indefinately? This seems really excessive.--131.109.1.41 15:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

But the paragraph he removed was an unsourced tirade calling Steven Spielburg a worse anti-Semite than Mel Gibson, no? You have completely mischaracterized this as User:Threeafterthree "removing that people are Jews". When you are wrong about things that can be checked, it makes it harder to trust you on things which can not be checked. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Then instead of relying on one link, why not spend a few minutes looking through his contribs? Then you'll see the similarities for yourself. And please review CIV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How is Kendrick being uncivil? Because he caught your mistakes and mischaracterations of this user? This case is beyong flimsy. What did this editor do to you to warrant this? --131.109.1.41 15:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have a strange understanding of American law, Frank was murdered before all the flaws in his case were properly analyzed. "The eyes of the law" see these flaws even more so.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the cabal, and its usuall members who have shown up here together, again, have anything better to do than to witch hunt and block editors? Seriously guys, and gal, you are so transparent!--198.176.188.201 12:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And you are an insulting troll. Thank you for your for insults, please go back to ED or Wikitruth or whatever hell you come from. An infuriated Elaragirl^Talk|Count 16:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A one month block is a very long block. I do not support this block and think it should be withdrawn. If an editor poses an immediate threat of disruption, then you should block for a few hours or a day at most, during which time you should come to ANI to gauge consensus. Otherwise, you should do a discussion or warning on the user's talk page. In this case, I see no immediate threat, nor any attempts on Jayjg's part to warn or discuss and consequently feel that the block should be recalled. I make no judgment on whether the blocked user exhibited any anti-Semitic edits, only on Jayjg's implementation of policy, which I find flawed and unfair to the accused. -lethe ^{talk +} 21:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ring modulator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The previous ANI discussion regarding activity by this editor under his previous username is here. He has also been blocked under this user name for incivility. Yesterday he issued this warning to a new user for making and reversing their own test edit. He then contacted User:HighInBC, whom he thought was an admin, and asked for the new user to be blocked. HighInBC correctly responded that a block would be inappropriate given the nature of the test edit, and instructed Ring modulator that use of the blatant vandal warning was inappropriate in this circumstance. Hoping to not scare off the new user, HighInBC removed Ring modulator's warning, replaced it with a welcome message on the new user's talk page, and told the new user the message was placed in error. Today, Ring modulator placed this message on the new user's page, even though the new user had made no further edits. This seems to be harrassment in my view. The message was properly removed by User:Dina. Dina contacted Ring modulator, told him she removed the message and why. Ring modulator responded to Dina with this uncivil edit. Ring modulator has continued to use the blatant vandal warning inappropriately here. I feel Ring modulator should be blocked again for incivility and biting new users. Accurizer 12:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, I've indefinitely blocked Blindnimratt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for this edit (their first and only one) to Ring modulator's talk page. This is obviously someone's sock, but can anyone identify whose? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What appears to be trolling of some sort

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mandarin_Emperor_style_dildo please look into this right away ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 08:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've left a note on the Chinese noticeboard and asked someone to comment on the content of the Chinese sources of the article in question. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• It is more then that, there are multiple users, in the voting, lodged fake votes, 3 user all of whom registered today and have only contribution relating to this hoax article.
• user:WeiWei11 [11]
• user:GVixen [12]
• user:MingNei [13]

▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 09:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought that non-English language sources are frowned upon in the English Wikipedia? Anchoress 09:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

English-language sources are preferred, but in their absence, non-English language sources are perfectly fine. Assuming, of course, that they exist and are translated correctly. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Make that 4

• user:MangonelMan [14]

has nothing to do with "non-English language sources" its a hoax. ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 09:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Were you responding to me? Because I was responding to the note about inviting evaluation of the non-english language sources. Anchoress 09:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Anchoress, that not what I meant, there is something more then just a afd going on here, i'm not exactly sure what but it's very fishy, I was hoping someone would like into what is going on here look at the history of this afd and what some of the users are doing▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 09:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sirex98 is right about there being something fishy; MingNei is running quite the sockfarm trying to influence the AFD. I've blocked the underlying IP for a week (until the AFD is over) and will strike the votes from the socks, but I somehow expect this won't be the end of the socking. Essjay (Talk) 10:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone would like to block them, the socks are as follows:

• LionelNailer‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MingNei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ‎WeiWei11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MangonelMan‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GVixen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)‎
• Fredsavage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've already blocked the IP and struck the votes, if someone feels like tagging and blocking the socks, please do. Essjay (Talk) 10:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

All socks are permablocked Alex Bakharev 12:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I made a mistake at interpreting what was going on as far as peoples reactions here, please see my talk page where I gave a timeline leading up my mistake understanding MacGyverMagic first reply here, my apologies to MacGyverMagic and the rest of you. ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 12:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a blatant hoax, admitted as such, it's a sock farm, and, frankly, a complete waste of everyone's time having to supervise it. It's clearly going to be deleted, and so I've closed the AFD, speedied the 'article', and protected it from recreation. If anyone objects, I've no problem with you reverting this (though I can't see why you would). Proto::type 12:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppet reposting

First see AFD [15] here: three articles were deleted at AfD: Advanced commando combat system is now up as a repost. I have tagged the article for speedy deletion and have warned the perpetrator User:Teacherteacher on their talk page. However, it IS a sockpuppet creation of a deleted article. Does this warrant a block for teacherteacher? Note: Teachteacher also spammed his link on CQB and Martial arts, which was how I found it, as I monitor CQB (note: awe and the AfD was one of my first too...look how noobish I was!) ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldn't block someone for a single repost. More than one and it becomes a problem. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I should have been more clear: I wasn't suggesting it for the repost: it was for the new account creation, afd avoidal and reposting, and the linkspam combined. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 11:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• How are you so sure it's a sockpuppet? Was the other account blocked? I'd try a block for linkspamming if they persist. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry claim is based on an almost identical article with inclusion in the exact same wikipedia entries that it was included in last time. As for the other account, I have no clue. It was back in february of this year, I don't remember the result of it. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Please Help!

Admin Glen S has made a totally inapprobriate block here. Please Unblock. There are Two very good reasons. 1- The users are not the same and 2-Just as Important the reason given was evading of block! But the the previous block of 31 hours had already EXPIRED!! 3- As far as I know users do not always choose their ISP address so it wouldn't be intentional (this is moot since these two people are not sock puppets)

Please see time diff: (over 31 hours had pasted even for the sake of argument it was the same IP address user which it clearly was not) [[16]] [[17]] Please unblock User 119.60 and notify/Warn User:Glen_S of his terrible mistake. Thanks I have done nothing wrong except contribute and voiced my fair opinion on My talk page. I have reason to believe that Glen_S's block of this user therefore was a pretext and possible racially motivated for attempted contributions to the Michael Richards article, which would be a is a serious violation of WP. Thank you. 71.111.117.65

I keep getting harassed/blanked, WIKIStalked and reverted by User:NetScott also from my userpage and ANI page. Please warn or block him him. see [[18]] Thanks for your help with this intimidation. Its like a cyber lynching of people who are different or something. It is very unfair. Thanks for your help we should support diversity not discourage it! 71.111.117.65 13:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This repetitively abusive editor is evading previous blocks. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#NetScott_harassment also see User_talk:71.111.119.60 and User_talk:71.111.115.155 (you may need to review the histories of those talk page for they may be targetted for blanking by this editor). Now this editor is admin shopping (spamming): spam1, spam2, spam3, spam4. (→Netscott) 13:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The word disruption comes to mind. (→Netscott) 13:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I, Freestylefrappe am back

I am back. I was formerly User:Freestylefrappe, but this is my new account. No longer will I be using the Ya ya ya ya ya account, or any of my other sockpuppets. --Horbeine 15:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Indef-blocked by Pilotguy. Move along, please, nothing to see here... Guy (Help!) 15:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Peripatetic / Beaumontproject

I have a complaint by email from User:Peripatetic that he is autoblocked as a result of a block I made on User:Beaumontproject. I can't see this; and I'm offnet for the weekend; so if someone else could take a look? Thanks William M. Connolley 18:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• It appears this user was hit by an autoblock on an IP he shares with Beaumontproject because the third checkbox was checked to avoid Beaumontproject avoiding the block with another IP. I've killed the autoblock. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Illegal blocking of User:Bowser Koopa

A user by the name of Bowser Koopa has been blocked from wikipedia without proper warning. User:AuburnPilot was the one who reported Bowser Koopa to User:Metros232, who immediately blocked Bowser Koopa and labeled him a "vandalism only" account. I am addressing this because Bowser Koopa only vandalised ONE page and was warned for it. He only received one warning of his actions. He goofed around with his talk page but received no warning or anything(he only received a hint). AuburnPilot then told Bowser Koopa that the talk page was not "his" and that anybody could say whatever they want and that Bowser Koopa could not delete it without their permission. He then went to AuburnPilot's talk page and posted a fake vandalism warning as a joke, yet it was deleted without Bowser Koopa's permission and AuburnPilot reported him to Metros232, who ignored the fact Bowser Koopa never received a final warning and blocked him indefinately. Not only was one rule ignored, but another(deleting a message on a talk page without permission) was also committed. There is major hypocrisy here that I want to stop. I am requesting Bowser Koopa be unblocked and given another chance, and for Metros232 to be accountable for his mistakes. That is all.-User:Captain Insano shows no mercy

These users are clearly the same. They have similar edit summary styles, refer to each other in similar manners, sign their posts the same ways, etc. I guess it depends what people want to make of this fact. Regardless, edits like this are totally unacceptable. You can't say "Well I shouldn't have been blocked because I wasn't warned", because you shouldn't have made those edits and it doesn't take reading policies to understand that. And you were warned, but thought it might be funny to vandalise the warning. As such I've blocked this account too. Enjoy. --Deskana talk 20:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And just so you know, {{bv}} is a final warning. And you vandalised after it. Go figure. --Deskana talk 20:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, considering Koopa's 3rd edit was a request involving Bowser Koopa and Captain Insano, something was always suspected to be a little out of whack. Thanks Deskana for blocking Insano too. Metros232 20:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Before being blocked this editor made 7 edits to articles. 4 were vandalism, and 3 were non-encyclopedic POV rants. All were reverted. Let the blocks stand. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

hit and run vandal blanking User Pages

Here's today's action by 70.110.173.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

1. 20:25, 24 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tariqabjotu (←Replaced page with 'those are stupid pictures')
2. 20:24, 24 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jacek Kendysz (←Replaced page with 'are you a polak?')
3. 20:23, 24 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:FrancoGG (←Replaced page with 'j]')
4. 20:22, 24 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Squirepants101 (←Blanked the page)
5. 20:21, 24 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Rjensen/Archive 4 (←Blanked the page)

this appears to be the same vandal who uses several different IP to harrass editors who criticized Stevewk for his blanking of much of the Abraham Lincoln article. Thus we have: for For 70.110.223.254

1. 16:42, 22 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Midnightcomm (←Replaced page with 'koi')
2. 16:41, 22 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Busterd (←Replaced page with 'kjiu')
3. 16:40, 22 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Abraham Lincoln and the American Civil War
4. 16:39, 22 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Rjensen/Archive 4 (←Replaced page with 'gffg') Rjensen 20:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked by now. In the future you can use WP:AIV when reporting vandals for a faster response. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Kennethtennyson

I direct the attention to JFD and Kennethtennyson, who closely follow me committing harrasment under WP:stalking. Kindly observe this, this, this, this and I can provide a lot more.

If you take a look into the record you'll see that when I make an edit into any article first. The group follows me there and stalks me. One member of the cabal in particular, kennethtennyson has contributed next to nothing in any actual article in which he stalks me. All he does is, walk in here, violently revert and then log out.

Kindly note Kenny tried to fake the content in the Encyclopedia Brittanica citation , remove a citation and a section without any explaination whatsoever , removes an entire section without one word of explaination and fraduelently claims that the citation has anything to do with Sengchou and Huiguang .

This has become very painful. Kindly stop it as early as possible. The amount of WP policy violations they get away with is amazing. Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 21:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Ashibaka unblocking without discussion

Ashibaka had unblocked User:Myrtone86 against consensus developed on this page [25] and without so much as trying to discuss this with me, the blocking admin. I clearly stated the block was to prevent further disruptive edits yet he is claiming it was "punative". This is not the first time he has done this and seems to be protecting the user. The user was clearly editing disruptively and has been warned in the past. I really have a problem with Ashibaka's actions here and total lack of even trying to discuss it. pschemp | talk 04:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is applicable here but the top of the page says, quote:

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.

Cheers, Yuser31415 ^{reply!|contribs|help me improve} 04:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't, the block was a result of a discussion on this page and this is a continuation of a discussion already on the page if you read carefully. This is where we discuss behaviour *between* admins. It does need the attention of other admins, since only they can stop admin actions. Mediation is not needed for people who wheel war. pschemp | talk 04:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. Sorry for bothering you ;) Yuser31415 ^{reply!|contribs|help me improve} 05:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agree, Ashibaka should know better. Not appropriate. – Chacor 05:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Notice Myrtone86's block log, where Ashibaka continually saves him from preventative blocks that were the result of his actions. My good faith has run out for Myrtone and we don't need more enablers around here. Grandmasterka 05:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree, while it's possible Ashkiba was unaware of the discussion here, there was a clear consensus to block. I therefore support pschemp's reblock as well. Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, hey look, I'm famous.

Ashibaka had unblocked User:Myrtone86 against consensus developed on this page [26] and without so much as trying to discuss this with me, the blocking admin.

And you first complained about this user on ANI, then complained about me on ANI, without so much as telling the user (in the first place) or me (in the second place) about it. If you're going to report an incident here, how about you tell the people involved that they've caused an incident?! Maybe you wouldn't have even had to block Myrtone if you had simply told her about this page!

I clearly stated the block was to prevent further disruptive edits yet he is claiming it was "punative". The user was clearly editing disruptively and has been warned in the past.

I rearranged your justification, hope you don't mind. The user did this once before, like six months ago or something. I got the idea the user doesn't quite understand what the templates are for, but she's not abusing them and she was not at all likely to cause further damage.

This is not the first time he has done this and seems to be protecting the user.

The user e-mails me every time she gets blocked. I guess she found me because I'm close to the top of the list of admins. I check over her block, decide she is being a nice person making a lot of good contributions and just a few mistakes, and let her edit again. She has not once gone back to causing trouble, and frankly you are the first person to complain, not because the user was a danger to the encyclopedia, nor because I negatively impacted the project in any way by reversing your block, but apparently because I didn't respect your admin authority.

I think this user poses no danger to the project, you disagree. That's okay. You posted on my talk page telling me that I was totally and obviously wrong and you were going to reblock, and I didn't argue with you. You obviously know better than me. I yield. But you seem to have your panties all in a knot over a relatively minor disagreement. What's up with this "Don't be so flipping disrespectful to your fellow admins"? I didn't say you were doing a bad job adminning. My chain of thought was, "good user, well-intended block over a legitimate mistake, user wants to get out of jail and edit again, I'll just fix things up for everyone". I even checked and noticed I had unblocked the user a few times before, so I left a warning.

I really have a problem with Ashibaka's actions here and total lack of even trying to discuss it.

If you are so up on discussing things today how about you try discussing this with the user responsible rather than huddling around in the admins' Masonic lodge to decide what to do, then simply telling the user "bam, you're blocked, problem solved". Also, maybe you could tell me when you start a discussion about me. Maybe this would solve some problems as well. Ashibaka tock 07:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think conflicts such as this can be avoided if an admin, whenever undoing a block made by another, notifies the blocking admin of having done this. The blocking policy also recommends that. (Radiant) 11:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oh God, not again again. Now we apparently have two incorrigible editors. Endorse reblock - I would have if Pschemp hadn't - and I strongly suggest Ashibaka refrain from unblocking this particular user anymore. "The user e-mails me every time she gets blocked. I guess she found me because I'm close to the top of the list of admins" - no, it's probably because you've twice and now three times shown yourself to be a soft touch who won't bother doing the courtesy of checking with your fellow admins before you overturn their efforts to protect the encyclopaedia just because Myrtone can be polite when he/she wants. You're 43rd in the list of administrators, I doubt Myrtone has chosen you at random each time. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd say this isn't really about Ashibaka per se - Myrtone is hardly the only user who effectively cannot be blocked because a sympathetic admin will overturn any such blocks by default. This perennial issue seems to stem from wikiculture. (Radiant) 14:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Sam Blanning-- you're right, and I've asked Myrtone to use the {{unblock}} template in the future instead of e-mailing me. Ashibaka tock 18:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Myrtone used to mail me a fair bit as well but since I've never unblocked, has cut way back. I've never unblocked because I found the blocks to be justified, this user, good intentions or not, is disruptive and blocks seem to be the only way to get a change. Support reblock, suggest that Ashibaka should post here, email or otherwise contact the blocking admin in future before unblocking. Overturning another admin is something not to be done lightly and merits discussion. ++Lar: t/c 11:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse reblock as well. Agree that unblocks such as this should be discussed -- Samir धर्म 11:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Lady Nemisis

User is a new account with obvious familiarity with Wikipedia offering article-for-hire services. I have no real problem with article-for-hire businesses in theory; HOWEVER, one of this users first major actions was the creation of an AfD discussion for Arch Coal which was the subject of a contentious scandal involving ANOTHER Article-for-Hire business, called MyWikiBiz. See the Signpost article dealing with this issue The similarities seem TOO MUCH for coincidence; an article-for-hire account that is trying to involve themselves in an article that was the main point of contention for a prior article-for-hire scandal? Not sure what to make of this, but it should be watched CLOSELY. --Jayron32 05:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

She just left what I interpret is a taunt on my talkpage. We may need to get Jimbo Wales in this unless the MyWikiBiz incident is considered a precedent and the community responds. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, the user is now blocked. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's one of our usual trolls (Rainbowwarrior1977, Courtney Akens, etc. etc. ) Antandrus (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd assume so -- who the heck would hire someone who misspelled their own handle? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL, What a shame, I was just working up a really good, frothy head of wrathful indignation. The response to this whole situation, including the initial comments, deletions, and block...makes me kinda proud to be a wikipedian :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that the taunt referred to by Physicq210 above contained the phrase "Why the long face, pussycat?", which was also used in a post yesterday by now-blocked User:Isitcozimblack of "Short Shorts and High Heels" fame above. Newyorkbrad 06:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"She" left word on my talk page as well. This in-duh-vidual has obviously been here before (he said, stating the obvious). - Lucky 6.9 06:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: look at User Talk:Lady Nemisis. It appears that they are trying to be unblocked because they actually took cash to fix an article, and are now unable to do so. Too bad, so sad.... --Jayron32 17:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

LMAO! I still think this whole thing is TTBS (Typical Troll Bull-Shit), but either way, ya gotta laugh :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't end. Looks like Lady Nemisis has been unblocked, and has added the following tripe to her/his own talk page. Read the dif here: [27] Really now, can we block this user indef once and for all??? --Jayron32 04:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

They've been indef blocked and the talk page protected from editing. Nothing else to see here, please move on. Naconkantari 04:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon/to do: Some sort of Personal Project Page?

I came across Lebanon/to do and don't really know what to do about it. It appears to be an article in progress? But it's obviously tucked away without a proper entry title and page. The state it's in now is more of a polemic than encyclopedic. I'm keeping an eye on it for the moment but I remain perplexed about its purpose and legitimacy on Wikipedia. Thoughts/advice? --Pigman (talk • contribs) 23:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The To do subpages are crosslinked to the Main Article's talk page to provide a minor "Bulletin Board" type system of "Plz do this lol kthz" things. (Basically a todo list) I am completely unaware of why there is an article todo page rather than solely a Talk To Do page. 24.89.197.136 23:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)/Logical2u on enforced wikibreak

The problem Paul had (I think) was the page wasn't a subpage, it was its own article. I've moved it onto Talk:Lebanon/to do. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It messes up the Talk:Lebanon page pretty badly in its current form. Is it OK just to delete the whole thing except the actual todo list? --Dual Freq 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean that what I did has somehow messed up Talk:Lebanon? Also, what exactly are you asking to be deleted? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

NM, I see what you mean. I've moved that person's essay to their own talk page. Hopefully that's fixed it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarah, Yeah, that was what was confusing me. Because it didn't seem connected to Lebanon in a direct way, such as having a link back to the main page or talk page of Lebanon, which I'm used to seeing on sub-pages. It certainly wasn't a complete article. And the general lack of wikifying, which I wouldn't expect from an article on Lebanon. It just struck me strange and worth noting. Sorry if it was a bother. Cheers. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 03:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Vanity page creators bypassing new page patrol

I debated whether or not to leave this comment here, for WP:BEANS reasons, but decided it was better to have people knowing about it and being on the watch than just letting it go on.

A lot of vanity pages are being put into the mainspace by people creating them first as user pages, where we almost always ignore them, and then moving them into the mainspace after a few days have gone by (or until their accounts have aged sufficiently for them to do this). Here's a couple examples: [28], [29]. In the last couple days I've gone through the move log for about the last week, and killed a bunch of these. (Some like Cupton I left because he's not obviously CSD A7.)

It would be great if the new page patrollers and recent change patrollers also patrolled the move log regularly. I'm trying to remember to do it.

A couple things from the developers might be nice:

1. Include pages on Special:Newpages (mainspace) which are moved there from other spaces;
2. A filter on the move log so we could see things moved between spaces, especially into the mainspace.

Thanks all, Antandrus (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on this. Some of these vanity pages, especially Cororate Spams, are like bloody cockroaches...no matter how many you stomp on, there's always more in the shadows. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Good call, thanks for the note. This has come up before: see bugzilla:5189. Snoutwood (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent: thanks to Jeff G. It's been noticed before.  :) Antandrus (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, do go and vote for the bug, as that (can, maybe, sorta) show how important the community feels a certain change is. It's no guarantee that it'll be fixed, but every little bit helps. Snoutwood (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I discovered this weakness nearly a year ago but didn't want to champion a fix for fear of spilling the WP:BEANS. I managed to file the bug above, but it went unnoticed, much to my dismay. Now that we all know what the deal is, lets vote for the bug, please. Vanity pages are one thing, but the potential for serious abuse is astounding. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

out of wikipedia contact???

Question: Is there any guideline or policy regarding the appropriateness of a wikipedia editor getting another editor's email address through contact from the email function (we had collaborated back and forth regarding some edits several months ago), and then using that editor's email to invite them to various dating services etc? I've gotten a couple of requests from another editor, to join dating networks, social networks, and other such things. It's getting a little irritating, and I'm wondering if there is any official guidelines or policy regarding it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking that any action be taken against the other editor (hence why I'm not naming him), I am just curious as to the policy behind it. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no policy that I'm aware of, but its obviously inappropriate. I wouldn't mind blocking the user, personally, as they're abusing a Wikipedia function. Have you talked with them about the issue? Snoutwood (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I sent an email once the last time I got an invitation a couple months back asking it to stop. I never got a response. So I guess you could say I've attempted to talk, but I haven't successfully achieved that yet. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would say that that activity warrants a block. There's not much to be done, though, unless you'll post who they are so that they can contribute their side to this story here. Not that I don't trust you, but check and balances and all that. Plus, it's hard to do anything without some cursory information about who to involve or do it to. Snoutwood (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Editor is Mohammed Salim Khan. I'll forward the respective emails to you if you like. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate I've got no beef with the editor. I just have enough spam to deal with already and I think this may be an exploitable hole in wikipedia policy that needs to be filled somehow. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted that you have no beef with the editor; still, however, it's not O.K. Is that their actual username? They're not showing up in Special:Listusers. Snoutwood (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the user's email "name". Give me 2 minutes, I'll dig up where the username is. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[30] , user User:Salimswati. Be careful because there are like a dozen users with similar names that are a combination/permutation of the words Salim and Swat.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, see the below links: I don't actually know which one it was that I talked to. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it really an abuse of Wikipedia function? From how I read it, the OP volunteered her/his email address in a previous exchange, and that information is now being mis-used. Anchoress 02:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but they used the email this user feature to get Swatjester's e-mail address, and then used that address to spam him. In my mind, that's indirect abuse of a Wikipedia feature. Snoutwood (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see what you're saying, but it seems like a dangerous precedent. I am totally on board with sanctions against certain editors who engage in off-wiki stalking, but I think (speaking as a non-admin) that we (as editors) have to take responsibility for giving out our email addresses. The OP said s/he had 'collaborated' with the other editor in a 'back and forth' exchange, which IMO says that they had productive contact, which means this is in effect a friendly off-wiki contact that went a bit sour when the OP started getting emails s/he didn't like. I am on the bulk email lists of several editors thru wiki contact who now send me christmas greetings, e-cards, and jokes. Can I get them blocked? Cuz it seems like the same thing to me. Not dissing the OP btw. Anchoress 03:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Our "collaboration" was his original email saying "Why did you nominate my article for deletion" and I explained it "It was a duplicate article, highly POV, and almost unrecognizable as being written in the english language it was that poorly written." That was the extent of it. He persisted, and I sent him one more email explaining myself again. That was the last contact I had until his (I count 4 that are still archived on gmail, and I think more are on my other laptop) spams. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Some strangeness: I remember vaguely noting this the first time, but there is some real weirdness with this user. I chalk it up to being a pakistani national on the en wiki, but he's made like a half dozen usernames, and multiple copies of similar articles. See [31] top of the page for a brief summary, but there is [32], [33], (now redirected) user name one, username two, user name 3, user name 4, user name 5, user name 6, user name 7, this article copy of the user pages, which I've prodded, user name 8, user name 9. That's an indirect search of "swat pakistan hospital". Something is really weird here. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• If it's casual invites, I would say it's unintentional spamming, which it is best to just kindly tell the person to stop. If this is done out of malice, then I think it qualifies as Wikipedia:Harassment. - Mailer Diablo 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe it would be malicious, but it IS continuing after I've asked it stop. I've received three in the past month. I'm assuming good faith here, I'm not asking for blocks for the user, I'm not claiming malicious intent or anything. I'm simply noting that this does seem like a fairly large loophole with harassment potential (in my case it's merely annoying, its not at the level of harassment yet.) that should be fixed somehow, and seperately that the dearth of usernames and article clones that the Mohammad Salim Khan's have made are rather strange and worthy of attention. Like I said, the user identifies himself as a pakistani national, and his english is very poor, so I'm chalking most of this up to bad grasp of the language and customs. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Persistant trolling

Analyzethis (talk · contribs), clearly not happy with discussion on his link at Talk:University of Mary Washington, is launching an IP attack on me and A. B. (talk · contribs). So far I've blocked about 6 or 7 IPs, 5 in the last 10 minutes. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Analyzethis‎ hasn't been too helpful. So does anyone have any suggestions on handling this? Short of semi-ing my user page, I'm at a loss. Thanks, Metros232 02:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The IPs are mostly Korean so far, and not from Analyzethis' home area. They may be proxies, but if so, there will never be technical evidence to confirm the alleged sockpuppetry. Do you have other strong evidence that the user is behind the attacks? If so, post an explanation and see if an uninvolved admin will agree to block the named account. Otherwise you'll just have to keep blocking the IPs. Thatcher131 03:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the user has been targeting me and A. B., the two people heavily involved in keeping the link out of the article, and a promise that IPs would come to add the link back [34], not really any evidence to support it. In addition, the first wave of IP edits came 40 minutes after Analyzethis was blocked. That's about all I've got. Metros232 03:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ones that look like open proxies should be indefblocked though, right? (I've personally been a bit puzzled by the WP:OP project and when it is and isn't okay to indefblock an IP - how much proof is needed). —Wknight94 (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The IP is scanned by a web-based tool to see if common ports used by proxy servers are open. If one or more is detected, the IP is blocked. Naconkantari 04:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Back again with 221.145.192.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which I blocked for 48 hours. Metros232 06:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

And 75.51.230.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) also blocked for 48. Metros232 06:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

And 61.82.12.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which Antandrus (talk · contribs) blocked as an open proxy and 58.149.155.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which I blocked for 48 hours. I have now semi-protected my user and talk pages as well as A. B.'s. Metros232 06:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Did I cross the line?

There is a user who some time ago (top of the last archive of my talk I think) posted a message tha went something along the lines of "I see you're a smoker, I think you should stop" I added a lenghty and quite tongue in cheek reply that basicaly said thanks for the concern, but please stay out of my personal life.

Yesterday, that same user came back and osted again. I'm actually onn a bit of a wikibreak right now because my illness has the better of me at the moment, and so I'm prone to snapping (perhaps I should leave a messagebox? lol). However, reading his message, I saw red and couldn't resist replying. I tried to keep civil, but also wanted to be perfectly blunt about it as it seems that the message didn't quite get across the first time. I'm a little worried that I may have crossed the personal attack line unintentionally at the moment (possibly because I'm worrying needlessly, or possibly because it comes close - I'm not the best person to judge that at the moment, which is the exact reason I'm taking a break right now. Could somebody please review my comment here and let me know? I'd ask at editor review, but it's only a review of one message I'm hoping for rather than my whole contib history. Thanks Crimsone 02:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that's fine. If it was me, I would've just removed the comment from my talk page. Snoutwood (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say your reply was quite reasonable. RichMac (Talk) 04:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

Rather than take this to WP:RCU, I'd like someone to check out the situation and determine an appropriate course of action.

Kurt Benbenek was created by Otis Fodder (talk · contribs) who, when the article was taken to AfD, deleted both the AfD notice and blanked the page itself. Tennyson Miles (talk · contribs), whose account was created just five minutes later, left this message on my talk page just a few minutes after I left a comment at the AfD page (not knowing it had been blanked). When I realised that the page had been blanked and reconstructed it, User:Tennyson Miles immediately re-blanked the page -- his second ever edit (the only other being the message he left at my talk page).

This smells very much like sockpuppetry to me, so I'd appreciate it if someone took a look for me. Thanks! Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 07:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Tennyson made their third ever edit, here, which was to blank the article in question. Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 07:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Page "Metrocenter Mall" was deleted without notice, needs to be reinstated

I have been editing pages on shopping centers in the Phoenix, AZ area, where I live, and the San Francisco Bay Area, where I grew up.

Today I found that the page "Metrocenter Mall" was deleted by admin JzG citing (WP:CSD G11, spam,) as a reason. I would beg to disagree with the conclusion as 1) Metrocenter is a major shopping center in Phoenix, one of America's major cities and 2) using such criteria would disqualify several dozen articles on shopping malls. Shopping centers are a topic of great social, cultural and economic significance in the USA and worldwide and deserve coverage on Wikipedia. Articles on them should not be deleted. Please strongly consider reposting the article, and/or I will begin a replacement article within 48 hours.--Msr69er 18:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I left a note on the above user's talk page advising (1) to discuss with the deleting admin and (2) take it to DRV. I also mentioned that recreating deleted content is generally wasted effort. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• • You may be interested in the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre 2000. I don't see why we give malls the thumbs down when they are valid structures akin to other notable buildings. Yeah, some do not need to be on here for notability reasons, but many have interesting histories. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• I disagree with its deletion, and I've submitted it to Deletion review. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Jcurtis

Jcurtis has been warned several times to stop blanking external links in articles and adding POV comments. He did this again multiple times today. I reported him to WP:AIV but they said to take it here. Dismas|^(talk) 21:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This user continues to add POV material and blank external links. Can nothing be done? Dismas|^(talk) 20:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Reliable verifiable sources on Peter Pickles

Martin Waller is a serious economic reporter for the serious Times Newspapers Ltd., so when he published a reliable verifiable article on a notable person dying, naturally "verifiable not true" wikipedia publishes an article on him at Peter Pickles. I have no such reliable verifiable source that he is a fictitious person altho I can do original research to such an end. Good thing we have WP:IAR. WAS 4.250 00:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Good thing we have CSD A7. Why can't we just delete it via that. There is no assertion of notability in that article. --Deskana talk 00:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

When I started writing that, it still existed. It doesn't anymore. Never mind. --Deskana talk 00:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the author's column was considered a reliable source, then wouldn't his subsequent column retracting the original one be equally reliable? Newyorkbrad 00:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

i deleted it after reading this. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ouch! That was embarrassing; thanks for deleting. At least we can self-correct fairly quickly when these things come up. --Doc Tropics 16:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Ag afd

User:Ag afd is a sockpupet for someone. Don't know who. All the user has done to this point is nominate articles for deletion. See: contribs for Ag afd Each of his/her nominations appears to be notable, and not really worthy of deletion. Someone to keep an eye on. --Jayron32 02:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Single purpose account violating username policy. Indef blocked. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Pflanzgarten sockpuppet abuse

Refer to here for evidence. Me and a couple other editors that are keeping an eye on Jim Clark are always noticing new sockpuppets from this user. I think it's time that the 3 or 4 IP ranges that Pflanzgarten are using (Listed here) are blocked, as I personally feel that's the only way he/she would stop. That, or a complaint to his/her ISP. I just wanted to list this problem here, so an Administrator can intervene in a way, possibly like how I recomended. // I c e d K o l a ^(Contribs) 05:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of those IPs come up red at completewhois, like this, and should go to WP:OP. As for the article, there are still only one or two vandal edits per day which doesn't seem even semi-protection worthy to me. But I've seen a lot of different opinions on that subject so I'm sure many will disagree. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Project page vandalism

Hi, The project titled 'Neutral Coverage of Sri Lankan Crisis' or WP:NCSLC has been vandalized again. Please check this diff's page which points out to almost the entire page being blanked out by two IP's which apparently have worked in tandem. This is the first IP 59.92.88.135, which appears to be a completely dud IP created only for vandalizing such pages. The second IP 125.238.104.244 seems to be a professional tailormade-vandaluser IP which has involved in personal attacks, racial slurs and also foul language in Wikipedia all of which can be found in his talk page.

I kindly request the admins top please check both the IPs for all the malice that they have created. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 11:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also have to support blocking this I.P, he has malicously damaged my User Talk Page over an article Sarath Forenska. I can't help but find the relation between this user and Lahiru_k who is also under close scrutiny, as the I.P in question has a noticable change on the article by reverting it to Lahiru's original post.--Sharz 12:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sharz to correct one minor thing you meant this article Sarath Fonseka. Elalan 23:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Evading indef bans AlanBarnet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The intial sockpuppet check found tentatively unrelated, and suggest that we rely on bahavioral evidence. Will post another checkuser with HypnoSynthesis.

Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans Checkuser: suggested that we submit here if there is enough behavioral evidence

Behavioral evidence connecting AlanBarnet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also edited from 88.106.4.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 88.106.13.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) other possibly HypnoSynthesis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Inserted statements without bothering to use ref citation style used in document. This was also done by banned editors. Used the same referencing style as was copy and pasted by banned editors in the past. Eg. HeadleyDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Camridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and other banned editors.
• Created account and immediately started editing the NLP with a skeptical POV, also started with revert then edit, pasted text written by banned editors.
• Has repeatedly inserted the same text written by banned editors, [35]. The way it is written sets up a straw man argument by defining NLP in the most flakey or negative terms.
• Editor also personally attacked Comaze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in text [36] and incivility in edit comments, [37]
• Reverted blindly on a number of occasions: See thread. [38]
• Immediately accussed other editors of NPOV violations while pushing a skeptical POV
• Other wikipedian have identified similar editing patterns the banned editors
• Personal attack on Comaze in edit comments and text. Essentially accusing other editors as "cult" members [39]
• Has pasted and copied content written by a banned editors. Has even reverted. The reverts even retained formatting, spelling and referencing errors that had been fixed by other editors.
• Simlar skeptical tabloid style and POV as banned editors
• Has reverted without even bothering to keep spelling, style, referencing corrections by other editors
• Uses same referencing style as statements posted by banned editors. Has little interest in using proper wiki ref systems as agreed upon by other editors
• Inserted misleading quotes and statements. Eg. inserted unverified rumour as fact see "Jedi Project" diffs.
• Uses confusing (sometimes misleading) edit comments.
• Often confuses science fact with opinion, or personal belief of authors

--Comaze 13:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of image

I speedy deleted an image, File:Newyorkatnight.gif, because it was created by an self-described sockpuppet of Blu Aardvark, and because it was extremely offensive. The sockpuppet, Mi Querida (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had placed the image on User:MONGO's talk page. User:CambridgeBayWeather had already blocked the account. Does anyone have a problem with my decision to speedy the image? -- Donald Albury 14:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No way. That has no place on Wikipedia. Delete with avengance. --Deskana talk 14:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem at all; that made me sick. -- tariqabjotu 14:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

CSD G3, seems fairly straightforward. --pgk 16:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering if 'general' speedy tags were applicable to images. My tagging was correct then. I wonder why people put things as distasteful as this on here? Eugh.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

User:SiobhanHansa

This user is being incivil, making legal threats, and wikistalking Lucky 6.9, Newyorkbrad and Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. Please block her. --Ploughmanhorse 14:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Looked through most of this editor's last 50 and see no interplay involving the three editors this complaint suggests are being stalked. I *do* see a lot of good spam link removal, and would suggest that, combined with the first edit of a newly registered editor being to make this complaint, looks kind of suspect. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Very suspect. There is zero evidence to support this accusation, its pretty clearly a disgruntled spammer trying (and failing) to accuse a user in good standing. Gwernol 21:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I recall no interaction of any kind between me and this editor. Newyorkbrad 22:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Closing a controversial AfD category

Who would I ask to close a controversial AfD category? It has been one week today since this category was opened Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_18#Category:State_terrorism. Travb (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Asteroidz R not planetz

Not really sure what to do here. User has a rather strong point of view about planets vs. asteroids and made some questionable edits to push this POV diff diff. We had a rather civil exchange about it my comment his reply (in my archive for some reason. However this user has now started creating a series of articles such as Mercury-4,879km across and one since deleted. I spoke to him about it diff, but he has since cleared his talk page and created Earth-12,746km across. Not sure what speedy tag to use, or what warning to give. Dina 19:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I put db-empty on the earth one, and prodded mercury. Several more planets left and he has a to-do list of sorts on his userpage...Dina 19:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a quick hello (similar to the one you posted before Dina) just asking for him to conform with our policies.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool, hopefully he'll give up before we get to 2003 UB313-2,400km across. ;) Dina 19:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

User:72.74.110.151

This user recently blocked(also suspected as sockpuppet), after just unblocked it begins vandalist attacks in many articles with personal attacks in edit summary comments.
here
here
here
Special:Contributions/72.74.110.151 others here Please take alook. Regards Must^TC 19:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked again. Thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The anon's recent behavior and new remarks makes it clear that it's a sockpuppet of 172GAL. This means its edits can be reverted, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. Khoikhoi 20:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Offensive username: User:Nick Sex

I was browsing through Special:Log/newusers and saw this username:

• 20:19, 25 November 2006 Nick Sex (Talk | contribs) created new account User:Dinm

think this username could be counted as offensive under the WP:U policy. Could it be blocked, please?

Best wishes,

Yuser31415 ^{reply!|contribs|wander} 20:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Already blocked. Newyorkbrad 20:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

User:SiobhanHansa

This user is also known as Subversive element (talk · contribs) - please block. --Lloydsaines 22:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the second blatantly false accusation against User:SiobhanHansa in the last 30 minutes. Lloydsaines is indef blocked as a troll. User:SiobhanHansa is to be praised for their successful work against the spammers to have riled them so. Gwernol 22:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Accusations in racism and personal threats

A user Serouj accused me in racism after I mentioned that Armenians belong to Armenoid racial type in the talk page You are clearly a racist and lack any concept of history. Please leave this discussion before you become banned.--Nixer 19:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

IMO once you start speaking of Armenioid racial types, you're asking for it. We've moved on from those times, it's 2006.--Euthymios 20:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Nixer didn't.--Eupator 20:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's assume it was just a silly thing to say. Nixer, race is such a sensitive subject that even old "scientific" terms can be considered offensive to some. You never know who's behind the usernames, so just accept that other people have a higher offense-threshold than you, speak delicately in the future, and don't worry about it too much. His accusation was reactionary, but not really out of line, and did not contain what WP regards as a personal attack. --Masamage 20:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the diffs, but I think "You are clearly a racist..." is a personal attack. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Nixer knows what he's doing. He's a long time user with a questionable history, he clearly baited Serouj with those provocative statements.--Eupator 20:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely infraction of our civility policy. However, accusations of racism in general can't really be outlawed as always being attacks, because it is sometimes a useful and important observation. --Masamage 20:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians should keep their opinions of one another to themselves. Pointing out what one believes are another's flaws are not "useful and important", they're personal attacks, whether true or not. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. What I mean is that if someone is going around calling other people this word, we have to have a way of qualifying that. It's racist, and that is against the rules, and pointing out a breakage of the rules requires pointing out racist language. I'm not saying we should be calling eachother names all the time--it is definitely a large breach of civility to call someone racist without an extremely good excuse. No argument there. Pointing out someone's "flaws" isn't okay; pointing out someone's outward behavior is. --Masamage 21:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to explain that I have nothing against Armenians. Serouj said that Lebanese (unlike Armenians) have "Semitic blood" (which is not a scientific term). I replied that in fact Armenians and Lebanese have much in common as both belong to Armenoid racial type.--Nixer 21:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no such racial type, and Armenians have as much in common with Lebanese as Russians do with Uzbeks.--Eupator 21:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Nixer arguably has the longest block record on Wikipedia, his last block for stirring trouble on the Armenia talk page was for one week!!! It was even prolonged due to block evasion. Now he's back to the same talk page doing more of the same.--Eupator 20:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that is long. And mostly for revert warring, I notice. Probably the admins who have done that blocking will have the best idea of how to proceed regarding Nixer himself. --Masamage 20:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The block was because I reverted Eupator who tried to archive an ongoing discussion to hide my arguments. And the prolongation was because an admin mistakenly decided edits by another user were mine (and he unblocked me when determined it was not me).--Nixer 21:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No such thing. You were blocked for another one of your disruptions at the time when the discussion was archived. When you returned you maliciously reverted the archived discussion and edited it for which you were blocked for one whole week yet again.--Eupator 21:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully the defendant is allowed to speak at his own trial :). I sincerely apologize if my calling you a racist hurt you, Nixer. However, your behavior on Talk:Armenia is very unappropriate and counterproductive. You continue to regurgitate the same statements, even though they have been disproved more than once, and remain ignorant on the facts and history that are presented regarding the Armenian language, Armenian alphabet, and history of the Armenian people. I (and others on Talk:Armenia) have repeatedly provided you with quotes, references to Wikipedia encyclopedia articles (the History of the alphabet, the Armenian language, and the Unicode standard, and yet you still continue to regurgitate your baseless and simply untrue comments:

1. That the Armenian language is not European, even though linguistics categorize it as Indo-European.

   Indo-European does not mean European.--Nixer 21:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

2. That the Armenian alphabet is not European, even though it's derived from Greek, and is considered one by the Unicode standard.

   It is only one theory based on letters order. Opearance of the letters conpletely different from Greek.--Nixer 21:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

3. etc., etc.

What you are doing is nothing more than terrorizing the Talk:Armenia page, and I (and others) have had enough of it. My comment was reactionary, but not baseless; it's not pointing out a flaw. Racism is a crime in most Western nations, and Nixer's comments constitute Anti-Armenianism. Thank you, and regards.Serouj 21:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no Anti-Armenianism in my comments.--Nixer 21:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been waging an anti-Armenian campaign for several months now. Several administrators kindly asked you to cease bringing up controversial allegations and refrain from posting in the Armenia talk page considering your block history. Yet you still continue to cause trouble.--Eupator 21:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This is another allegation of the same type. Please explain where do you see anti-Armenianism and allegations? Is saying Armenia is not located in Europe - anti-Armenianism?--Nixer 21:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the least of what you have been doing. As Serouj put it, you have been terrorizing the talk page without any interruption.--Eupator 21:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Where do you see terrorism? And again, wherre do you see anti-Armenianism?--Nixer 22:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Every single edit you ever made in regards to Armenia is anti-Armenian. You are obsessed with ridiculing and harassing Armenian users on Wikipedia. Like I said even after you were asked not to continue engaging in these controversial issues which always seems to lead to you being blocked you still continue to do so. That's how obsessed you are. I'm tired of having to worry what Nixer is up to now instead of concentrating on working on articles.--Eupator 22:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Which phrase do you consider anti-Armenian? It is really only your distorted perception.--Nixer 22:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur.--Eupator 21:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Nixer, you are only wasting everyone's time. I am saying the sky is blue, showing you that others are saying the sky is blue, showing you what meteorologists say about the sky - that it is blue - and yet you still come back to me and say the sky is green. I have nothing further to say to you.Serouj 22:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well said. No need to get trapped in the vicious cycle that he's trying to set up.--Eupator 22:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I only say black is black. I show you encyclopedia which says black is black and you still say black is white.--Nixer 06:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Dkkicks

I just came across this user after viewing the DRV for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parodies featured on Arthur. I noticed this user personally attacking another, so I went to his talk page. There, I noticed several messages for problems with his uploads. Looking at his logs, I found that nearly every image he uploaded has some problem, whether lack of a source, orphaned fair use, or just flat out copyvioing. After tagging these, this user now has over 30 sections on his talk page notifying him of image problems. This user has also been repeatedly warned for personal attacks, and has changed section headers of warnings to "And now, a word from Wikinazis." --Rory096 21:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

None of the above actions on the part of the user are recent enough. Keep an eye and report back if further issues arise. El_C 09:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Johnsonsjohnson (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email)

This user account is less than a month old, and shows evidence in their edits of previous experience with Wikipedia's guidelines and procedures. However, the sum total of their few edits are all on talk or Wikipedia: pages, and the vast majority of those are to do with ongoing discussions in several places about the status of the Lost (TV series) article and its place above the main Lost disambiguation page. Cases in point are this attempt to have the Lost, Scotland article deleted on notability grounds in contravention of guidelines, and this attempt to rally support at WP:D for his case at making Lost (TV series) an unambiguously titled article on those grounds. Given the total lack of actual article editing on this account and single-mindedness of their efforts on Wikipedia, I cannot assume good faith and suspect sock puppetry by an unknown user. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

How is it not a legit sockpuppet, though? El_C 09:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Street Scholar

Street Scholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was blocked for a week for making racial attacks[40]. The complaint was lodged here [41]

.He has been doing this sort of thing for months (diffs below are from user responses at ANI)[42] [43] [44] There were a lot of other problems with him using hate sites for citing information[45] and making derogatory statements against Hindus [46]. He got blocked for a week for doing this. Now he's back. He just made several tendentious edits, which I shall list below:

1. Persistent racist edits (against Bengalis) [47], instantly reverted by other users [48]
2. Vandalistic removal of sourced edits [49] to push an agenda
3. Makes incivil comments against me [50]

This sort of behavior is counterproductive and interferes with the work of many users, who have to try to fix his tendentious contributions. Hkelkar 01:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm tempted to block over this edit alone. Accusing Paul Barlow of vandalism is ridiculous. El_C 09:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 69.118.184.115

69.118.184.115 (talk · contribs) has made numerous edits related to the TV series Degrassi: The Next Generation. Some of it was obvious vandalism, which I have reverted. The rest I'm not sure since I really don't know much about the series. Appreciate if someone can look into his edits. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 01:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Zen sock

I have indefinitely blocked User:Zen Apprentice as a puppet of the banned User:Zen-master. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good call. -Will Beback · † · 09:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Something smells wolfie...part 2

Unarchiving this thread for further comment. User:Bishonen

I couldn't help but notice while lurking from time to time that User:Snow Shoes (contributions) seems to be an obvious sock puppet of User:Thewolfstar. She is, however, acting a bit more clever. Moreover, what seems obvious to me might not be to the next person, and everybody deserves an initial benefit of the doubt. I'd just like to suggest that an admin familiar with this issue should keep an eye out. --AaronS 05:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Obviously a sock of somebody, but if it's the wolfster, she's gotten a lot cleverer. I'll keep an eye out. Bishonen | talk 23:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC).

• I have now gone through the edits in detail, and Snow Shoes has after first lying somewhat low circled into a highly characteristic User:Thewolfstar type of editing. I won't specify here, as I don't want to teach her, but I have indefblocked as obvious wolfie sock. Thanks, AaronS. Bishonen | talk 05:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC).

User:Simonapro

This user just threatened User:Chondrite [51]. An admin might take these other edits into account as well [52] and [53], SqueakBox 07:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked indef. Threats are absolutely not OK, regardless of previous history. Naconkantari 07:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Jckerr

In addition to regular vandalism, Jckerr (talk · contribs) inserted this edit, which is a libelous statement referring to a person related to the NHL. No talk messages at this point. –Outriggr § 08:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

See WP:AIV for these type of cases. El_C 09:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to unblock User:E104421 and User:Karcha

Hi, guys.

User:E104421 and User:Karcha were recently blocked as sockpuppets of each other since the checkuser investigation have shown they both use IPs from the same University. Later User:Future Perfect at Sunrise found some evidence suggesting that they might be different people [54] and unblocked them, then DMC found the evidences to be unconvincing and reblock them again. Now I had an E-mail exchange with both users. I know their real names and University IDs as well as the official University E-mail addresses. They appear to be separate people and the victims of a terrible coincidence and claim they even did not know each other before the incident. They work on different departments and have different status within their University. There is a small probability that one is a meatpuppet of the other, but it seems to be unlikely.

As I understand from DMC's messages on my talk page the checkuser only confirms that they both are using the same University IPs, there is no other hidden indication they are the same people not available to all Wikipedians, so it is essentially a judgement call.

I think in this case we could assume WP:AGF and believe the editors, rather than lose two notable editors. I there will be no objections I will unblock E and K in a couple of hours. Alex Bakharev 00:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Lacking any tools to verify it myself, your explanation sounds quite reasonable, as does your unblock. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked the guys Alex Bakharev 04:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm, there was somewhat of a consensus to have Karcha remain blocked here. This user is extremely disruptive, with 90% of his edits being reverts, and the rest being personal attacks like "Kill Persianism". I don't see what good to the project we'd be doing if we unblocked him. As I said previously, I have no problem with E104421 being unblocked, however. Khoikhoi 07:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

To Khoikhoi: Khoikhoi, i want you to prove my "kill persianism" claim. Where did i say this. You are manipulating persons. I didn't say "kill persianizm".--Karcha 10:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If you prove this i will go out from wiki but if you can't prove this we have to think about your neutrality as an admin.--Karcha 10:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Karcha, don't be pushing your luck. It was "Kill Paniranism", and it was in several edit summaries on 15 November. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was kill paniranism and if i say persianism this consists of racism. I'm not a racist. However paniranism is different, this is a political manner.--Karcha 10:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No strong opinion on Karcha on my side, but I'll second Alex' opinion that E should be rehabilitated. Like Alex, I've been in contact with both users and found what I consider pretty strong evidence that they are different individuals (in addition to what I posted earlier). If there's consensus for a community ban on Karcha, let's get this clarified here - although my impression is his disruptiveness so far has not been quite up to the level where community bans have been handed out in other cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello everybody. As I said before, I have nothing against the unblocking of E104421, as in case of doubts, as Alex noted, we should assume good faith. As for Karcha, I can only reiterate my belief that he should be blocked; and please, spare us sophisms like "oh, I didn't say kill iranism; I said kill paniranism: it's different". Was also calling Khorshid "Khorshit" a "political" position?. What I see, is a constant pattern of disruption.--Aldux 15:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reblocked Karcha, as I was under the impression that there was somewhat of a consensus to not unblock him/her in the first place. If we want to unblock him, there should be some support here to do so. Khoikhoi 18:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Firstly, I am not sure that I can post my oppinion here or not. If not. Please cancel it totally.
• Why am I here; I was a kind of mediator.I contacted with these two users by mail and by phone later.I tranferred mails to some admins which they are take place in this discussion. I know the details, and something disturbed me in this matter.

1. The major reason to block these users was allegation of puppetry. E104421 blocked temporarly for puppetry, Karcha blocked indefinitely for puppetry plus some distruptive behaviours.
2. Now, allegation of puppetry is failed.
   1. E104421; no crime-no penalty, Unblocked. Ok.
   2. Karcha; no pupetry crime, there is distruptive edits.
      1. Karcha, now indefinitely blocked;Reason: distruptive edits.
3. Lets take a balance; lets put this crime one side and punishment to other side. If there is a balance, everything is ok.If not then no punishment/or another punishment is suitable.You can see also other users'(like as Korshid) distruptive edits/bad words.

• I posted a message to Karcha some hours ago, to keepaway from edit-rv war.
• also I posted a message to Khoikhoi to invite showing good faith.
• Thanks a lot for your tolerance to my intervene. Regards to all.Must^TC 19:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I am second to Mustafa that it is kind of illogical to clear an account from the sockpuppeting allegations and permablock another one for been a sockpuppet. I am not a great fun of Karcha as an editor but since he is blocked for been a sock and the base of the allegations appear to be doubtful we should not probably reblock him. Maybe we could put him on Community Probation per Wikipedia:Community sanction? So any admin who would find him disruptive could permablock him? The situation starts to look like as a Wheel War so I would not repeat my administrative actions, but I would be great if an uninvolved admin could review the situation. Alex Bakharev 11:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am not an admin. However, Must left a note asking me to review this, so I have. There is no question that Karcha has been disuptive in the past and made inappropriate comments and edit summaries. Also, Karcha has a definite tendency to edit with a nationalistic POV. However, there is a certain inconsistency to how these cases are being handled, and an indef block seems excessive. I agree that Community Probation would be a useful tactic. This would allow Karcha an opportunity to demonstrate some good-faith editing, while ensuring that he is closely watched. Further, I think some kind of Mentoring would be useful, preferably from an editor or admin who is familiar with the topics in question, and has some familiarity with the culture; I have a strong impression that much of this comes down to "cultural differences" and an incomplete understanding of how to "play well with others". I would request that the admins involved consider and discuss the possibilty that a combination of Probation and Mentoring would help Karcha become a more productive editor, thereby benefitting both the individual, and the project. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Some very good ideas, but I'd like to add that strict probation conditions should be applied to make fully sure that his former behavior is unacceptable. --InShaneee 23:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents in as an editor who has been following this from the get-go. All I want to say is that we should try to be more lenient with relatively new users. Look, we have all joined Wiki at one point and were newbies at some stage. There was a point when we didn't know how Wiki and its rules worked. And let's not forget that Internet is international, when a university student from one corner of the world joins wiki, it might take some for him to adjust and learn to work efficiently in a completely international and free environment. A indef block right off the bat seems too excessive is all I am trying to say, I think he has gone through enough to understand that certain disruptive editing patterns will not be tolerated in the long run. I have run across other newbie editors who were engaging in certain disruptive editing (some of them that also seemed nationalistic) and I have always tried to tell them that they should concentrate on learning how Wiki works with an emphasis on a watch-and-learn attitude. In the end they always come around :)) I will also try to keep in contact with K about this and try to answer any questions he might have. A lame attempt at humor/insult by trying to make a pun out of a user's name from Khorshid to Khorshit shouldn't be the basis of an indef. I mean, nobody is Jesus, everyone looses their tempers at one point, let's ask him to apologize to that user. Just give the guy another chance, if he goes back to disruptive editing patterns, it can be dealt with accordingly. Even California has a three strikes rule, not one-strike rule. :))) Cheers! Baristarim 11:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith behavior by Shamir1 and Amoruso (continued)

New discussion: The following discussion of a few days ago was archived too early. Emboldened by the failure to get any action over his blatant dishonesty, Shamir1 has now repeated the same stunt with help of his side-kick Amoruso. To summarise: Amoruso and Shamir1 are completely aware that there is a major unresolved dispute over the article but each of them individually asked for unprotection on the false claim that it was resolved. Edits [55] and [56]. As soon as someone unprotected the article, Shamir1 did a massive revert to his preferred version [57], vastly more than the minor point he had conceded on the talk page. Of course he hopes that next time it will be protected the way he likes. Is this sort of abuse of the system allowed?

I ask again that action be taken to stop this behavior. The Arbitration Committee shouldn't need to be called on in such an obvious case. --Zero^talk 02:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Previous discussion:

Palestinian Exodus is the scene of a long-running content dispute (but that's not what this complaint is about). Admin User:Steel359 protected the article on Nov 12 for this reason. However, User:Shamir1, one of the main warring parties, was unhappy about which version was protected so on Nov 18 he claimed on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection that the dispute was over.[58] Since the argument was continuing ferociously on the Talk page, with Shamir1 involved, this claim was a deliberate lie in order to trick someone into unprotecting the article. And in fact Steel359 unprotected the article in good faith, only to be forced to protect it again soon afterwards. I respectfully request action against Shamir1 for this dishonest behavior. --Zero^talk 05:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the history, User:Shamir1 has not edited the article since November 11. Do you have the wrong user there? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The article had been protected since Nov 12 except for the brief unprotection on Nov 18 that I mentioned, that's why he didn't edit it. Look on the talk page to see his continued involvement in the dispute (8 edits since Nov 12). --Zero^talk

I think what Zero is saying is that he had the intent of doing so, and ought to have action taken against him. An attempted crime is almost as bad as a crime itself. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"deliberate lie in order to trick someone into unprotecting the article" is a crime. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 07:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Note:User:Isarig did similar thing to Neo-Fascism. he requested unprotection, deleted the section in dispute, and then had his version protected. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 08:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

About Shamir1, if you look at his contribs he requested unprotection several times this week. He kept coming back each time after unprotection was declined [59], and yesterday (his third or fourth request) I decided to AGF and unprotect. It was promptly reprotected when the edit warring started again. I can't say I was surprised. -- Steel 12:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I say they should both at least get a severe tongue-lashing, and, if it checks out on Isarig, the version should be reverted. If it happens again, they should be temp-blocked for disruption. I would do so myself, but I'm not an admin. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If anybody acted in bad faith it was User:Zero0000 himself. Note that this is not a content dispute per se - it's simply Zero0000 deleting mass sourced material. Amoruso 21:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

We're not debating here the legitimacy of the changes, we're debating the fact that this user seems to have made a bad-faith request to get the page unprotected, so that he could get his own version back before it was reprotected. Regardless of the legitmacy of the claims, that's breaking faith if it was true. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Zero is being delusional. I asked for page un-protection because the debate over Habib Issa (you can see it was the only debated issue) was settled with me and Shamir accepting not to argue over it anymore. We were actually willing to not add a sourced WP:RS WP:V WP:CITE material in order to end the edit war - and we didn't add it ! And now he complains ? Zero is obviously abusing the system by filing bogus reports. We all have a right to ask for page unprotection whenever we feel it's right. Amoruso 06:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This has happened on other articles too, Amoruso ran out the number of reverts he could make on the Third holiest site in Islam, and he got Humus sapiens to revert it to the version he edited a long time ago, which had an old AfD message even. IMHO Admins shouldnt indulge in this behavior. And further goes to show the nature of WP:OWN by Amoruso.First, there was this revert -> [60] and then This message on Humus sapiens talk page by Amoruso [61] after which followed this very disruptive revert [62] thestick 10:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Humus Sapiens tried to fix your vandalism Thestick. It's allowed of course and it's unrelated. Amoruso 22:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

MY Vandalism? Also, most of content that he restored has been deleted with total consensus. If he wanted to restore the deleted content, he could have reverted it to a recent edit instead of going back all the way to YOUR last edit. Admins shouldn't act like puppets. thestick 06:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There is also an open AMA Case involving User:Amoruso and User:Shamir1 regarding the same article. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving of Hercule (Dragon Ball) to Mr. Satan (Dragon Ball) right AFTER a failed move request

See

• Talk:Hercule (Dragon Ball) for the filed move request, which failed
• Talk:Mr. Satan (Dragon Ball) to show how the users who wished to move the article still defied the move request AFTER it had been decided
  • EDIT: Changed link from Mr. Satan to Mr. Satan (Dragon Ball) WhisperToMe 03:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Also see:

• My confrontation of User:Onikage725 when he moved the page AFTER the issue was decided: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onikage725&diff=prev&oldid=90110975 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onikage725&diff=prev&oldid=90111097
• His response: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhisperToMe&diff=90110490&oldid=90023895 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhisperToMe&diff=90112529&oldid=90110490
• My response: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onikage725&diff=prev&oldid=90114167

WhisperToMe 00:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: A user filed a page protection request for the page at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection WhisperToMe 01:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I read the discussion on Talk:Hercule (Dragon Ball) after the request for move protection and could not identify any clear decision about the name the article should have. I suggest that any move proposals be taken to WP:RM in order to produce some consensus.--Húsönd 01:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I was directed to the wrong discussion by following the link on WP:RPP.--Húsönd 01:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the move back to its original location, and move protected the article. Completely ignoring the outcome of a move request is not the wiki-way. Like Husond said, further move proposals should be taken to WP:RM (although I'm skeptical of any reasonable product coming from that). -- tariqabjotu 01:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• • We already went through RM... The discussion ended with no consensus - therefore it shall stay at "Hercule (Dragon Ball)" WhisperToMe 01:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, User:Nemu started a new move request for the same move at Talk:Hercule (Dragon Ball).

Unfortunately, it's not a good idea to try to request a new Move Request for the same failed move not long after it failed. WhisperToMe 02:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:DesireCampbell personally attacked me at Talk:Hercule (Dragon Ball) - I don't feel insulted, but, at the same time, we need things to remain civil. WhisperToMe 03:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am watching this RM now and reminded Desire, and the others, to remain civil during the discussion. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I closed the move request, due to the blatantly obvious vote stacking (see my closing statement). -- tariqabjotu 16:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mactabbed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Cause for concern? This editor has been repeatedly uploading fair use images and replacing free Commons images with the fair use images he's uploaded. From looking at the history of this user's talk page and following his interactions with other users it seems that he's been warned on a number of occasions about not doing that and yet he appears (warning: not work safe) to be continuing to do so (<-- swapping an image on the article Buttocks here) nevertheless. I became aware of this user due to his usage of a revert tool to revert over a wide swath of other editor's good faith contributions on the Michael Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. From looking at this user's contributions it appears that he has a habit of using a revert tool in this manner. I warned him about not doing that whereupon he used his tool to revert my warning (and I reverted back with the ole' archive explanation). After my warning he then utilized his tool to revert to a vandalized version of the article. I reverted the vandalism out just before (and warned the vandal) and re-reverted the vandalism out whereupon he reverted in original research (never cited - note the edit summary as well) into the article. I think this editor's contributions and behavior could use some additional scrutiny from an adminstrator or two. Thanks. (→Netscott) 04:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You must have gone to some lengths digging up every minor violation I have made. It looks like you're accomplishing a lot by researching and discovering that I accidentally reverted one of your edits. Also, don't be a stalker, and don't rule whore. Mactabbed 04:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that this user's first edit was to install popups I'm thinking that we've got a sockpuppet that is being used disruptively counter to sock policy (particularly given the above cites -which are normally known by someone with a bit more experience that this user-). Wasn't there a user named Courtney Atkins (or something like that) who was banned? I ask that because this user's edits evoke that image. (→Netscott) 05:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Look closely. Here, he replaced "men" with "niggers". I can say this is not acceptable behaviour. pschemp | talk 05:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well given the uncivil (CIV) usage of the phrase "rule whore" above... I suppose that shouldn't be too surprising. (→Netscott) 05:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that female buttocks picture is copyvio and I've seen it before. Wasn't it deleted here in some incarnation? The heavy pixellation suggests he didn't really take it, only learned what lisence to use to get around copyvio photos being deleted. I blocked for 24 hours for incivility and racial slurs. pschemp | talk 05:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing about that image... occam's razor says that would be the case given this user's history of image "fair usage". I suspect we'll be hearing more about this editor. Hopefully someone will recognize him as a sock and we can run a check user to see who we're working with here. Well done on the block pschemp. (→Netscott) 05:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully someone will recognize that image. I swear we deleted it once already under a different name. pschemp | talk 05:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Here it is, total copyvio from flickr [63]. It was already removed from that page once and deleted. Extending block. pschemp | talk 05:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I bumped into Mactabbed early in his editing here with his edits to the Alexis Malone and Courtney Simpson articles. You can see a summary of what occurred between the two of us in my post to the Village pump. So his allegations about stalking and wikilawyering were made against me first, and I have to be honest, Mactabbed is definately not on my friend list. I think Netscott is accurate in that Mactabbed is someone who has a good deal of experience with Wikipedia, given how quick he was to throw around the charge of Wikilawyering. Tabercil 05:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

He's more than likely a sock of a banned editor. Possibly the one that put that copyvio image in to begin with. pschemp | talk 05:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So you found the source of that image and determined that he lied about taking it himself. I'm thinking that an indef. is in order here. (→Netscott) 05:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave him a week, but what do others think? He's pretty obviously up to no good. If someone wants to extend, go ahead.pschemp | talk 06:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest an indef. because this user is knowingly putting the project in jeapordy with the copyvio images (and who knows what else?). This person if they come back is just going to continue to be a problem. (→Netscott) 06:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and if he does come back, he'll be easy to keep an eye on. We'll see. pschemp | talk 06:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason not to indef. Behaviours alone warrant it. The CU would be interesting, but not necessary. ++Lar: t/c 11:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Exclusive bad apple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• I think Mactabbed has returned. There's a new user - User:Exclusive bad apple - who has made identical edits to Mactabbed on the Courtney Simpson and Mudhoney articles. Identical first action as well - install popups. Tabercil 09:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Having compared this user's edits to Mactabbed's edits there is no doubt that this is the same edit-warring/disruptive individual as the currently blocked for a week User:Mactabbed. This additional sock plus the original sock should be indef. blocked. (→Netscott) 09:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• The history of the Mudhoney article is particularly indicative. (→Netscott) 10:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• The "Mac" in Mactabbed is likely a reference to Apple's Macintosh ergo "bad Apple". (→Netscott) 10:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Indef'd as sock puppet. pschemp | talk 16:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:KenL

This user is repeatedly removing information or reverting back to a much earlier version on article GoldenEye.[64] [65] [66] He also might have done this anonymously. [67] He appears to be acting in bad faith after a removal of a section of the article he added (see the discussion on the talk page). I've asked him on 3 occasions to explain his edits but he just blanks his talk page [68] [69] [70] and said at one point "Any messages either from Trebor or Mark83 or whatever his name is I will not read and I will automatically blank the page. So please do not waste your time." [71] (referring to User:Mark83, who agreed with the removal of the section and has reverted User:KenL on occasions). I'm not sure what to do - his edits don't seem to qualify as pure vandalism, but the dispute resolution process can't really deal with editors who refuse to talk. If an admin could have a look and advise on/take appropriate action. Thanks. Trebor 14:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Block request for User:Bosniak

Please consider blocking Bosniak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeated, disruptive behaviour in defiance of warnings. This behaviour includes:

• repeatedly claiming that there is a Serbian conspiracy to remove Bosniak-related information from Wikipedia, and repeatedly accusing various editors of being part of this conspiracy (e.g., [72][73])
• repeatedly removing correct information from or inserting incorrect information into articles, and justifying this behaviour using a spurious linguistic argument (e.g., [74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82]). (For those who want a fuller explanation, User:Bosniak has coined the term "Bosniakophobia"; he insists it is a verifiable and notable term, even though he cannot provide any references to dictionaries or websites which use it. On the other hand, he claims that the well-established term "Serbophobia" is not an English word, and falsely claims that it is an invention of Serbs which is used only on Wikipedia. However, Serbophobia#External links and Serbophobia#References provide links to plenty of non-Wikipedia uses of the term.)
• disrupting Wikipedia to make a point by nominating Serbophobia for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbophobia (third nomination)) in retaliation for someone having nominated one of his articles for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosniakophobia)
• AfD vote tampering through changing four other users' votes from "Keep" to "Delete" [83]
• AfD vote tampering through voting multiple times (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbophobia (third nomination))
• repeatedly inserted unsourced material to articles after editors have insisted that he provide a citation [84][85]
• removing AfD tags [86]
• removing speedy deletion tags [87]
• reposting disputed merge tags [88]
• various POV edits to various articles, including Anti-Bosniak sentiment, Srebrenica massacre, List of Bosniaks
• repeatedly uploading files (possibly the same image) without specifying source and copyright information (Image:Srebrenica Child Raped Hung.jpg, Image:Srebrenica Child Hung.jpg, Image:Bosnian girl raped by serbs.jpeg)

You can view the numerous warnings User:Bosniak has been given on his talk page. User:Bosniak has been previously blocked twice for personal attacks and legal threats. [89] —Psychonaut 14:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Also note the somewhat uncivil post [90] in reference to the tagging of an article for speedy deletion (previously created 2006-01-05) leading to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosniakophobia and the multiple vote stacking there

User:Bosniak appears to be a nationalistic POV warrior. He has repeatedly made POV edits, attempted to disrupt WP with bad-faith AfD noms (see diffs provided by Psychonaut and altered (or deleted) other editor's comments. A block seems appropriate as an object lesson that this is not acceptable behavious since multiple warnings have been ignored. Also, this editor should be monitored for further violations. Doc Tropics 16:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If I'd seen it, I'd have just blocked him for at least a month for the vote tampering. That is so far from anything related to "good faith" that it's not even really worth discussing. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that you've seen it here, why don't you go ahead and block him? —Psychonaut 17:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I was wondering, but didn't want to ask. Thanks P. FWIW, I think a one month block might be excessive, but I would strongly support an 8 day block; that would be 1 day for disruption and 1 week for vandalizing/altering and AfD in progress. That's just my take on the situation. Doc Tropics 18:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it's up here for discussion, and other people are looking at it, so I don't feel a need to act precipitously. My "at least a month" is being gentle, I think; an indefinite block, giving him room to justify why he should be allowed back at all, is more appropriate I think, but some would find it quite harsh; after all, he's only cheated, lied, and forged. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have hesitated to apply an 8 day block immediately (if I had a mop and bucket), but you're right jpgordon, a longer block could easily be justified, it just warrants some discussion. This appears to be a pattern of behaviour that is unlikely to change without some rather heavy-handed intervention. Perhaps a one month block, followed by community probation, and possibly a limited ban on contentious articles? This would represent the third "official" sanction (see his block log), and we could reasonably apply a three-strikes-you're-out rule. An immediate indef block would seem appropriate if there are further violations. Doc Tropics 21:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for one week for vote tampering.Geni 23:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Since posting this report I've also discovered that this user has also been uploading images which he falsely claims to be the creator of, and/or falsely claims are in the public domain or are under a free license. [[91]] In addition to the ones described in my original report, I've discovered three more images which are rather obviously not his (unless he's an AP photographer and somehow retains the right to relicense his photos), and a few more images are suspect but I haven't yet proved that they're copyright violations. Given his history of bad-faith copyright violations, would it be prudent to tag the rest of his images for speedy deletion? —Psychonaut 18:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of adding to admin overload, I would suggest tagging them all at this point. It would simply be foolish to continue assuming good-faith when there is so much evidence to the contrary. Good work P. Doc Tropics 18:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

VaughanWatch Username Vio, Block evading

PM Chef (talk · contribs) is a clear username violation, it's VaughanWatch/Johnny Canuck trying to impersonate me using me old username. Indef block please? -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 17:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael Richards

Suspected sockpuppetry and vandalism on Michael Richards. Tendancer, Geza, and Bus stop. Their edits, which remove mention of Richards' anti-Semitic comments against consensus, have been reverted by multiple users. They all post similar rants about "long-term" editors of Wikipedia refusing to listen to them. KazakhPol 22:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Truthseeker 85.5 restarts personal attacks

A month ago, User:Truthseeker 85.5 was blocked for stalking, personal attacks and generally disruptive behaviour. The initial block of 3 days was extended to 1 month by User:Renata3. Today, the block finally expired.

The very first thing this user did was to go and insult Renata on her talk page by saying "Congratulations, your campaign for censorship got a strong head start."

He then proceeded to edit his user page by adding "This user has been censored 1 time" to it. [92]

Finally, I got some of it too [93] and was accused of "seconding insinuations and demands based on pure ideological or ethnic hate".

IM(NS)HO and given this users record, he may need a stern warning or something heavier, because 1 months later, one can not see any signs of improvements. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi blocked Truthseeker for 2 months.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User User:Ryulong closing unblock requests even though he is not an admin

What up wit that? Its not like he can grant them anyway. So why bother? Damn, man! Pynopoulous 07:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on this users other contributions he was blocked as a trolling account, or at least one that may be linked to a banned user. Additionally, per WP:ADMIN, "Any user can behave in a way befitting an administrator (provided they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions." I am not the only non-admin who will often check CAT:RFU to see if there are any blatant refusals or malformed requests for unblocks that can either be fixed or help the user in question.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, but removing comments (even if they're wrong!) is inappropriate. Pynopoulous's post contains no personal attacks, so replying is more productive than removing it. Conscious 14:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

He removed mine and told me to create an account whilst I was using another AOL IP address after I was autoblocked. Um... I sorta can't create an account while while blocked. --172.190.199.101 21:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we still practice leaving AC off when blocking AOL? – Chacor 01:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I just stumbled onto this, but it does seem like rather poor form, in that what's the use of reviewing the block if one has no power to reverse it in the first place. Plus there lies the potential for misleading others. Cocunuthead 01:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

To throw in my two cents, Ryulong has been immensely helpful in procesing unblock requests. I usually first notice them when Ryulong alerts me to them on IRC. If something's an obvious decline, I see no reason why a non-admin shouldn't be permitted to decline it (much like non-admins are permitted to close deletion discussions if they are obvious keeps). --Slowking Man 03:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that someone just go and nominate him for adminship and we can be done with it, but I see that he's already been through two unsuccessful RfAs, the second only last month, so I guess that's not a good idea. While it's okay for non-admins to close obvious keeps in AfDs, I don't think non-admins should do unblock declines. The whole purpose of the unblock request is to get a second administrator opinion on the appropriateness of the block (and perhaps an examination of the blocker's motives), so non-admins should not be sticking their noses in. It opens up the possibility of collusion between editors (not that there can't be collusion between administrators) to keep an unfairly blocked editor blocked. I have no doubt that Ryulong here is doing good work here, but the issue is that justice must not simply be done, it must be seen to be done. And for that, a second administrator opinion is really necessary. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 04:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. Closing unanimous keeps is very different from denying unblock requests. What may be an obvious rejection to a non-admin may not be the same in the eyes of a second, neutral admin. Don't think we should be condoning non-admins handling unblock requests. – Chacor 04:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Several of the unblock requests I have been dealing with are simple usernameblocks where the user does not know how to register a new account, malformed unblock-auto requests where the user is either directly blocked or there is an autoblock and the user needs to provide more information, unblocks that can't be done (such as those who use Google Accelerator to edit), or blatant denials that go along the lines of "no, you are not getting unblocked by calling [insert administrator's name] a faggot" (you can ask Khoikhoi of how I assisted him in the past week or so). I am not the only non-admin who goes through CAT:RFU, and as Slowking Man himself said, I help more people out than I deny sockpuppets or other things. I will not go through all of the unblock requests. There are those I know I should not touch. However, any of the above I have done in the past few weeks, as you can see from my contribs in the user talk space.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no not really. If you view Ryulong's first "RfA" in early August 2006, you can see that his closing of "unblock request templates" was an issue back then. So when he says he's only been doing it for the last few weeks, he's being disingenuous at best. Furthermore, it is rather troubling from a review of the "history" of this AN that Ryulong himself attempted to blank this thread about 3 times before finally being forced to respond by the community. So the bottom line is, is he going to stop like many admins have recommended, or not? Cocunuthead 17:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Upon inspection of this user's contributions and ease in finding WP:AN so quickly he is definitely the same user, or another one of our banned friends pulling more crap like this. Either way, once I notified admins of this, Zscout370 blocked the user indefintely.

Anyway, I was not forced into replying. I did so on my own, and led to this. I see nothing wrong with denying unblock autos that are direct blocks or unblock requests from people who directly attack the blocking admin, or several blocking admins. I may not be able to actually unblock, just like I cannot delete an article. I avoid several unblock requests that are too complex or I do not know how to fix. Several of them are the AOL unblocks, that I help by telling them to register, as they are all anon-only, as is stated by someone up there. I did do it in the past, but I stopped and restarted only recently, and now I pay more attention. I saw that the OP for this did an unblock request, and I ignored it and let someone else deal with it. I can bet you that Coconuthead will also post an unblock request soon, and I too will let another user deal with it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I also blocked the user since one of the first things he done as a Wikipedia was to create (now deleted) userboxes stating his love for anal sex and cocaine. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If non-admins other than Ryulong are reviewing blocks, I think this practice needs to cease. The {{unblock reviewed}} template says this: but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. If non-admin users review it, they are saying (according to the template message) claiming to be an admin, even if it isn't deliberate. If my interpretation of the unblock reviewed template is correct, then this practice should end. Hbdragon88 02:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Then reword the template. In my opinion, unless Ryu's been making errors in his judgment we shouldn't feel obligated to censure him for his actions. WP:SNOWing an unblock request should go under the same rules as snowing an AfD would, and not need undoing unless it was actually an erroneous review. --tjstrf talk 02:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to that. I'm just noting that, right now, Ryulong and other non-admins shouldn't be reviewing them according to the template itself. Hbdragon88 02:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think WP:SNOW is relevant here, there's generally a limited amount of involvement in unblock requests...not enough to snow on (so to speak). I agree with a couple editors above when they say unblock requests should be performed by admins. Many times these are judgement calls, I think someone doing this should have had at least some vetting. Rx StrangeLove 03:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you're saying WP:SNOW wouldn't apply to an {{unblock}} that read "THE MODS ARE ALL FAGGOTS AND I HOPE THEY KILL THEMSELVES!!!"?

The point of SNOW is that if there's a snowball's chance in hell that something will succeed, then you can prematurely shoot it down. Just like nominating the day's featured article for deletion (which is now a formal speedy keep clause, but didn't used to be), there is zero chance of that unblock request succeeding. You shouldn't have to wait for 5 or 6 other people to all come comment that you can't nominate the main page for deletion, you should just close it as soon as you see that nomination. I would hold the same to be true for obscene unblock requests. --tjstrf talk 09:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that there are three issues: 1) That the decline template says "an admininstrator" has reviewed, and Ryulong knows he's not an admin, 2) that the above poster was correct in saying that unblock requests are judgement calls, and the Wikipedia community has spoken clearly in two RFAs that they simply do NOT trust Ryulong's judgment in such matters, and 3) the issue arises as to what to do about Ryulong's usurpation of admin vestments . . . Vampyragurl 20:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned about Ryulong's actions here because he always works with the communities best interest in his work - however, I am more concerned how this process this could be jumped upon by people with a grudge etc to cause all sorts of nonsense. My own perference is that Admin only deal with unblock requests. --Charlesknight 10:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please point out to me where this user is only declining "obscene" unblock requests. My casual scan of his contributions shows that he's doing much more than that. Just my zwei pfennig.Vampyragurl 02:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I could list ones like this or this or this, however, I'm much more interested in how you found the administrators' noticeboard on your fourth edit.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 03:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh ya know, boredom, browsing around wikipedia over holiday vacation. What I want to know is why you are going around blanking comments and raising such a fuss about it. Vampyragurl 03:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No reason. Just because your first edit was to call a {{prod}} from Jimbo a vandal edit, and then you find this page and this random thread.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 03:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know who "Jimbo" was at the time, sorry. But then again you knew that since you took the time to blank my comment on another party's talk page a few minutes ago about that very topic. Thanks, Vampyragurl 03:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I agree with Ryulong, while I see that there can be an issue here I do not feel Ryulong's actions were wrong. Admins handle a lot of bullshit, every thing from personal attacks, vandalsim control, and maintaining wikipedia. there are only 1,068 of us that have the admin privs and of those 69.69% are active. I think that adminship is NO BIG DEAL and thus if an nonadmin in good standing can render assistance to the admins I thank them. especially helping with unblocks. Ryulong is always on IRC if a user needs unblocked he can contact an admin on IRC I have never not been able to reach another admin there. just because someone fails an RfA that doesnt mean that they are untrustworthy. it just means that an overwhelming number if users dont support him. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous AOL user adding spam links

An anonymous user from AOL is constantly adding spam links and bogus information to numerous articles related to ghosts and the supernatural. So far, I've seen the one and the same link added to Ghost, but from these IPs:

• 172.143.166.70 (talk · contribs) - Edit with link added
• 172.201.12.187 (talk · contribs) - Another edit with the same link added
• 172.142.57.188 (talk · contribs) - And a third edit with the same link added to the article

When adding this link, this spammer immediately follows up with another edit elsewhere in this article. I don't know why, but it seems like an attempt cover up his tracks, so to speak, since a simple check on the difference between current and last edit won't show the link added. By now, I think it's about time that an administrator had a look at this matter, since this spammer really doesn't seem to get it when warned by other editors. /M.O (u) (t) 14:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Another IP used by this spammer:

• 172.188.162.120 (talk · contribs) - Another edit, same link added

/M.O (u) (t) 14:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• 81.145.241.154 (talk · contribs) - Spammer has returned to once again spam Halloween with the same link he always adds. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Other instances of same link added:

• 172.143.166.70 (talk · contribs) - commercial link
• 172.201.12.187 (talk · contribs) same link

Comment - Perhaps a range block would be a suitable solution here? I have feeling that we haven't seen this spammer/vandal for the last time, although the site (ghosttracker.50webs.com) is now blacklisted and can't be linked to from Wikipedia articles. He seems intent on damaging the articles in question, when he can no longer link to his site. Abusive spammers like this one has no business on Wikipedia, thus a range block might be the most pertinent action in order to prevent further damage? /M.O (u) (t) 00:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

These are AOL IPs and the problem I've always seen is that there is so much collateral damage... but I'm going to go ahead and block these specific IPs for anon access only, 48 hours, account creation allowed. (note WinHunter already blocked 81.145.241.154) as always, comments welcomed. ++Lar: t/c 00:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Abusive edit

By WhiteEagleSerbianPride (talk · contribs) wich is a suspected sockpupped of PANONIAN (talk · contribs). --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 15:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Related-seeming troubling threat here from anon IP 212.200.175.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [94] to Vince Dina 16:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked WhiteEagleSerbianPride indefinitely - only one edit, and it's a death threat. I'll leave someone more experienced to deal with any sockpuppet issues. --Tango 16:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked that IP address for 24 hours. I can't see any point warning people not to give death threats... --Tango 16:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Particularly threats as ominous as that one...Dina 16:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That is upsetting, but someone should run CheckUser on User:PANONIAN, he speaks Serbian and that is the country from which the death threats supposedly were voted on. Cbrown1023 16:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a CheckUser request pending. Newyorkbrad 18:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The CheckUser has come back an "unrelated". The accounts that made the death threats are blocked, so I guess this matter is now closed. --Tango 11:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism

Some anti-Hindu propaganda links by mischievous non-Hindus were included in the article Hinduism. The same were removed and strong support of all editors recd. These links found it's place on talk page which is nothing but subversive way of forcing viewers to view these idiotic links. Abecedare is trying to have it in subversive way by citing vague Wikipedia policy. Admins knowledgable of Hinduism must intervene to remove these links from talk page and cite proper policy. swadhyayee 01:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"Mischievous non-Hindus" ? El_C 09:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a word with swadhyayee regarding his mis-worded complaint above. He's new and a bit confused, but he's a good guy and makes a valid claim. Some anons have been editing tendentiously there [95].Hkelkar 23:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks HKelkar, I was and am short of words to express the nefarious activities of some anonymous editor and Abecedare's striving to support the nefarious activities. I have not grieved against the link you provided. I have objections against inclusion of some external links suggesting that Hinduism has it's roots in christainity or like things. While, I said non-Hindu editors, I meant the mischievous elements of other religion who try to downplay Hinduism and promote one's religion. No sane policy can support such nefarious activities. I fail to understand when everyone involved with Hinduism find it appropriate to remove the un-realiable links, why someone should be interested to have the same on talk pages? My earnest appeal to all here is help in preventing nefarious activities in the name of Wikipedia policy. swadhyayee 04:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Serial WP:POINT violations on my talk page

I'm involved in a content dispute with vintagekits (talk · contribs) (see discussion at [96]) which has spilled over onto my talk page. I gave them a polite warning for canvassing [97] due to this edit. Now they have added an entirely spurious canvassing warning to my own talk page (actual edit they're referring to is a {{prodwarning}} template) and are edit-warring to keep it there [98]. This also happened yesterday when I put a civil0 and civil1 tag on their page after these uncivil edits [99] [100] — they placed the exact same tags on my own talk page and edit-warred to keep them there[101].

This is starting to come close to harrassment, so can an administrator have a quick word and tell them to knock it off? Thanks! Demiurge 17:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually would like you to knock it off, you are never off my talk page, you are just bitter because people dont agree with you on every issue Vintagekits 17:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This is total bull, you come on my talk page accusing me of things that you have been doing also. A case of the pot calling the kettle black imo Vintagekits 17:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Him doing bad things doesn't mean you're allowed to. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are say but the guy follows me around on every page I edit and make all sorts of accusations when infact the verse is true. I would be more than happy to stay off his talk page as long as them same is done for me. That editor seems to be winding up editors daily, its just my turn today! Vintagekits 17:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wow, you're right. I encourage any admins, before taking actions, to carefully review both talk pages' edit histories. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification. I in no way meant to indicate that he did anything largely objectionable. Nobody did, and I don't see why this needs administrator attention. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Amarkov Vintagekits 18:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to review my edits to User_talk:Vintagekits. The civility warnings I added (in good faith, I might add) were blanked; I reverted them back once then decided not to revert again after they were blanked again. I then asked Vintagekits to stop breaking WP:POINT on my own talk page. Demiurge 18:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked into this, and then looked a little bit more. It appears to be a case of malicious nit-picking on all sides. Recommend sending both editors to bed wihout dinner, and no dessert for a week. Doc Tropics 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

But I'm hungry - anyway I am off line for a bit now so hope it is sorted out soon Vintagekits 18:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• So exactly what nits have I picked? Are you disputing that the edits [102] [103] were uncivil and thus didn't warrant the civility warning I gave? Are you saying that [104][105][106] are not canvassing? Are you saying that the prodwarning tag is inappropriate canvassing? I have to say, as a good faith user I'm pretty disappointed with the reponse I'm getting from the admins on this. Demiurge 18:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: I'm not actually an admin, I'm just trying to suggest (with a bit of gentle humor) that the best way to handle this situation would be to step back and take a breather. So far, no one has committed a violation worth issuing a block; the best way to avoid escalating the situation would be to edit elsewhere for a while before returning to contentious areas; consider it a kind or "working wikibreak". Doc Tropics 19:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't even want anyone to be blocked! What I actually requested (see above) was for someone independent in a position of authority to have a quiet word with Vintagekits and tell him to quit it with the WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL violations. I've tried resolving this with him on my own by leaving messages on his talk page (first step recommended by Wikipedia:Resolving disputes); you can see above how well that turned out. Demiurge 19:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as 'someone in authority' on the site (other than ArbCom and the Foundation staff I suppose, but they are not used for this kinda thing). Everyone is equal - some just have extra mopping up abilities. As Doc Tropics says, the pair of you should just take a step back and calm down (try and think about this as if it were real-life. Would you continue to argue until it ended up as a punchout and then being arrested? Or would you break it up and walk away?). Looking at both talk pages I see both users being uncivil to one another - the only thing that will come from persuing this is blocks on both parties, as far as I can see.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the guy needs to chill out, he seems to think that all his edits are to be taken as law. I will take a week out before even looking at any of his articles. p.s. thank you for the advice Vintagekits 00:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• So what would you suggest as the appropriate response to someone who is blatantly uncivil to you, then edit wars to remove your civility warning tag from their talk page while simultaneously edit warring to put the exact same tag on your own talk page? I can't go to WP:PAIN, because they require a npa3 tag which if I put it on his talk page will trigger another edit war. I don't believe I have been uncivil myself (certainly nothing on the scale of [107] or [108]), can you be more specific? (In response to your analogy, I'd call over the bouncer and tell him "hey, that guy over there is being rude to me, could you tell him to give it a rest please?" which is exactly what I'm doing here.) Demiurge 23:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I would say that Incorrect, someone needs to pull your reins in - you need to check your attitude and how you deal with and handle other editors - it in no wonder you attract so more trouble and vandals! is uncivil to the same level as you state there. I would also point out that removal of warnings on a users talk page is not against policy but can be seen as indication of problems. Also, an edit war requires 2 parties or more to be a war - which indicates that you also edit warred.

As you say above, you should have put an npa3 warning on the page and seen where it went from there - if he removed it, so be it - that in itself is not a 'crime'. If he continued with incivility you could then have taken in to WP:PAIN.

So, as far as I can see - the situation spiralled out of control due to both parties taking things personally - take some time apart, don't interact and the problem will fade as far as I can see.

Also, my analogy above doesn't mention anywhere with bouncers... The arrests would be the equivelant of being blocked. We don't have bouncers here as I said.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"'Incorrect, someone needs to pull your reins in..." is not my comment, it's another example of incivility by Vintagekits. See [109]. Also note that Vintagekits continued incivility above at [110]. I'll stay away from his talk page and keep the npa3->WP:PAIN advice in mind if there are more problems, although I was more worried about him edit-warring to add it to my talk page than remiving it from his own talk. Demiurge 00:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, D give it a rest for a bit - let back off each other. My last word on it for a bit Vintagekits 01:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ah, indeed it wasn't, my apologies. Ok, I will adjust my advice then - Vintagekits, stop being uncivil and adding warnings, incorrectly, to Demiurge's talk page - it will get you blocked if it continues. Although, I will stick to the 'avoid each other' advice though, as I have seen it solve many a problem on the site as it gives editors time to calm down and do something else.-Localzuk^(talk) 01:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that's all I was looking for. Demiurge 01:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Johnny Hazzard

Please see edits to Johnny Hazzard: [111], [112], [113], [114], and [115], as well as [116], Talk:Johnny Hazzard and User talk:Chidom#Warning threats. User:Wjhonson insists on reinserting an unreferenced claim regarding this pornography actor's real name, even after the extensive quote on the topic I left on the article's talk page.—Chidom ^talk  19:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the unsourced material, explained on the talkpage, and will continue to monitor. Doc Tropics 20:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope the message gets through.—Chidom ^talk  06:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Tannim

I have permanently blocked Tannim (talk · contribs). He has been blocked several times, and on November 10 blocked for one month for repeated edit warring and insertions of POV edits. I had no dealings with him up to the point where he repeatedly wrote anti-admin screeds to the unblock-en list. When I finally replied to him that his block seemed appropriate, he replied to me, As the administrators seem to be given favored status and are allowed to abuse editors and their rights even though Wikipedia is supposed to be a free editing source, I will do as I see fit.. For that reason, I have blocked him indefinitely, until such a time as he indicates his willingness to edit as per Wikipedia norms. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Also, his username is too close to that of User:Tannin's. Khoikhoi 21:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a strong hunch that Preform (talk · contribs · logs) is user Tannim and is editing again, immediately defying his block.--Zleitzen 22:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the repeated abuse of the unblock list by this user I support a permanent block for this user and any identified socks. ++Lar: t/c 01:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. His posts to unblock-en-l gave me a strong feeling that we won't be able to work with him, even if we want to. Luna Santin 02:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user editing

87.78.186.200 (talk · contribs) (otherwise known as Subversive element (talk · contribs), Tit for tat (talk · contribs), and Jan Jakea (talk · contribs) - all blocked indefinitely) is editing again. Could someone deal with this? Jakew 21:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You should probably briefly explain why you believe it's the same user. Newyorkbrad 21:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Please take a look here. Near the end of that section, 87.78.186.200 (talk · contribs) states "From the contribs I made with the Subversive_element account..." Jakew 22:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Diff for above quote here. Jakew 22:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 1 month Alex Bakharev 01:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

WP POINT (Schools and notability)

Trying to assume good faith but this editor seems to be engaged in WP:POINT. - Unless someone wants to suggest this school does not have some level of notability? --Charlesknight 23:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that the speedy tags that have been placed are often "no reason given" I think this is indeed point making. Endorse a short block if the user will not listen to reason. All those speedies in his contrib history need undoing too I think. ++Lar: t/c 01:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• That's no pointmaking, that's blatant vandalism. Should still be blocked, though. - 131.211.210.17 08:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts on Opus Dei

There are a number of single purpose user accounts that seem to have been created just for the purpose of promoting the religious group "Opus Dei". For example, User:Pradeshkava who seem quite well-versed in Wikipedia for someone who's got less than 100 edits. In the case of that user, for example, his contributions reveal that every single edit has been related to Opus Dei. I wouldn't be shocked to learn he's a sockpuppet, but given how many single purpose accounts, tendentious accounts there are promoting Opus Dei, I wouldn't really want to single out any one user to point the finger at being a puppetmaster for the purposes of checkuser.

Anyway, as of right now, Pradeshkava has been reported for 3RR violation, but that seems like it doesn't get at the heart of the matter-- which is to say, this user seems to be using Wikipedia to promote an agenda.

As an aside, there's a content dispute at Opus Dei and its related pages. There are a few experienced wikipedia editors on one side of the dispute, while a very dedicated group of OD members who edit only OD-related articles are on the other side. I'm doing an RFC now, if anyone wants to comment (or help) on dealing with this situation, it would be greatly appreciated. --Alecmconroy 10:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user Lightbringer evading block by using sockpuppet

Hi.

User:Literaryagent is a confirmed (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Lightbringer#Lightbringer_and_Literaryagent) sockpuppet of Lightbringer - a user banned by Arb-Com (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lightbringer) - that has escaped blocking so far. I request that the sockpuppet is blocked. For more information on Lightbringer and his use of sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer. WegianWarrior 10:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Seabhcan

I have blocked Seabhcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for another of his increasingly disruptive personal attacks.[117]. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan. I would appreciate review and feedback. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Would have blocked for longer than 3 hours. An admin should know better. An admin who finds himself editing numerous contentious articles with numerous contentious editors ought to set an example, or back away until he can. Thatcher131 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You guys really need to find a sense of humour somewhere. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 21:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison, I take exception at your one-sided warnings and blocks. Your conduct today is fit to produce as many Seigenthaler incidents as possible. The accusations raised by Morton Devonshire were substantial, bordering on the legally relevant, and unsubstantiated in any way. Your protecting them is tantamount to promoting them. --OliverH 17:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The only thing I remember saying to you is to not make personal attacks. Is there something else? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Miracleimpulse, Talk:American Greetings, and Sweetest Day

Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) has previously been cautioned and blocked (by three different admins) for disruptive activity with regard to the U.S. greeting card industry, including POV edits to the Sweetest Day article (formerly the subject of a mediation) and more recently, allegations concerning the relationship, if any, between the two largest U.S. greeting card companies, Hallmark Cards and American Greetings. This user is operating as a single purpose account with regard to criticism of the greeting card industry and appears to have some sort of personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. He has continued to press this issue on Talk:American Greetings to the point I am concerned he may be defaming these companies. Could someone please take a look at this. Newyorkbrad 21:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Single purpose account nothing, this looks like the makings of a community ban. He's obviously exhausted several editors patience (I remember going onto the commons to find a way to delete his idiotic Sweetest Day rant that he puts into the article, itself). He has done no constructive editting, and he is defaming the companies, claiming that they are one in the same and that they have a stake in Wikipedia's articles on them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I had a long chat with this user off-wiki about a month ago, but apparently, it did little to no good; his abusive, paranoid, and all-around disruptive behavior has not abated. --InShaneee 23:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• It is very interesting that these posts have been made here without any notification to me whatsoever. Once again, the Hallmark Cards and American Greetings articles remain completely unsourced. The Sweetest Day article uses extremely dubious advertising websites as sources. Miracleimpulse 00:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:American Greetings will reflect that I made several attempts to discuss these issues with the user before bring the matter to the noticeboard. Whether the articles (which I have not written a word of) are optimally sourced is irrelevant to the issue of whether unsupported allegations should repeatedly be made that one of these two companies is a subsidiary of the other or that they are engaged in a conspiracy of some kind, especially throwing around words such as "mafia" and "cartel." Newyorkbrad 00:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• I personally am not particularly concerned with defamation of these companies (I'm not sure anything Miracleimpulse has said could reasonably be construed as defamation, it's all in the talkspace, and besides, Wikipedia has no culpability for what he says) but my own experience with Miracleimpulse has been that his edits are a fairly textbook case of Tendentious editing that several editors have spent an inordinate amount of time dealing with. A user RfC may be in order here.--Isotope23 02:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that fear the project would have legal liability is the reason this is a problem. It's inappropriate to make untrue or unsupported negative statements about a person or a company irrespective of that. In this instance, I'm not sure that a user RfC would be productive after the user has learned nothing from three progressively longer blocks, but Isotope23 has been dealing with this situation longer than I have. Newyorkbrad 02:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the situation (Nilfanion and I have encountered this user before on Wikimedia Commons), I think that a RfC would be useless, especially given the user's persistence. It's clear from the contribs that he is a single purpose account - he has almost no edits on articles unrelated to Sweetest Day, and has a history of accusing users of being part of a conspiracy and WP:POINT assertions. The extra incivility does not help, either. A community topic ban or a long-term block would probably be appropriate here. --Coredesat 03:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Something very highly deceptive is happening on these Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia is being used for promotional purposes on the Sweetest Day page. Information about the origins and the promotion of Sweetest Day is being managed and blocked by various editors. My edits are being construed as "idiotic paranoid rants" on this page, and yet these statements are not being seen as a personal attack. Amazingly POV. Yes, something is seriously wrong at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia management should take a very close look at what is happening here and on the pages in question. Miracleimpulse 03:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  No. They are just articles on two companies. The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo both have pages, but you don't seem to have any complaint about them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo both have pages which list their references. The Cola wars are also pretty well documented. No such competition between Hallmark Cards and American Greetings. Nope. More like Anti-competitive practices in the Greeting Card Industry. Give me a day or so and I will report back on exactly what that article in The New York Times says...unless of course someone out there already knows. Miracleimpulse 05:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know (I know nothing about the greeting card industry), but I just checked. According to the article, the Federal Trade Commission apparently complained that American Greetings and two other companies (not Hallmark) were engaged in price-fixing activities (nature not specified). Um, in 1952. Quick follow-up research indicates that this complaint resulted in on-again, off-again litigation between the FTC and American Greetings for several years (citations available). It's even conceivable that this dispute deserves a sentence or two in the American Greetings article, if someone looked up exactly what was alleged and the result of the litigation, although this would be appropriate only if the entire history of the company section were expanded so that this anicnet issue is not given undue weight. However, what this episode in the 1950's has to do with alleged conspiracy between American Greetings and Hallmark in 2006 remains beyond me. Newyorkbrad 06:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yep, something is definitely very wrong at Wikipedia. The level of sophisticated attack here is astounding. I have made no edits to any of the pages in question in weeks, and yet it is being suggested that I be banned from editing. I guess some subjects are just off limits on talk pages. Hmmm... Miracleimpulse 03:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that original research is not allowed, and to continually bring them up when there is no verifiable proof for such allegations irks many editors, no? And I find it equally astounding (not!) that you are hiding yourself from the fact that there is consensus against your current actions and instead scapegoating a nonexistent conspiracy/"cabal" among editors hellbent on persecuting you, allegations that are frivolous, if not outright absurd. Perhaps you should view your own edits and read some of our policies (WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V come to mind) and start following them instead of complaining about nonexistent phenomena. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please don't feed the trolls, especially with delicious Valentine's Day candy from Hallmark stores. ^_^ Danny Lilithborne 03:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Don't we usually have someone go through the motions on a RfC on these things? Georgewilliamherbert 06:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There was an article RfC (not a user conduct RfC) on the suggestion to merge the Hallmark and American Greetings articles on the now-abandoned suggestion that American Greetings was a "public subsidiary" of Hallmark. This was dropped when no one commented beyond the people already on the talk page. There hasn't been a user-conduct RfC though there have been three blocks. Newyorkbrad 06:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Three blocks without a RFC isn't an issue; the discussion of a community ban, without a user conduct RFC, seems like missing a beat. I agree there's a problem, but can we dot the i and cross the t? Georgewilliamherbert 06:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not advocating a full-fledged community ban at this point. If the community sanctions proposal is in effect, this could be a perfect case for a narrowly tailored article or topic ban. As for RfC, I can imagine several purposes for holding these: (i) to gather facts as to a given user's conduct; (ii) to ascertain community sentiment as to the merits of the user's contributions; and/or (iii) to educate the user as to the fact that consensus is against him or her. Which of these, if any, would be served here? Newyorkbrad 06:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly why I suggested that a RFC would be useless, because months of talk page discussions between him and other editors, as well as the contributions themselves, seem to shine a bright enough light on the problem. However, I didn't think about the possibility of a narrower topic ban when I commented earlier earlier, so perhaps that would be a better solution unless a RFC or ArbCom case were to be opened instead. --Coredesat 07:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a community ban would be majorly excessive at this point.--Isotope23 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• The merits of my contributions to Wikipedia speak for themselves: Virtually every image published in the Sweetest Day article was supplied by me. Most have been blocked by editors who never edited the Sweetest Day page before I showed up to introduce the facts. Also, virtually every reference in the article which is not an advertising website was introduced by me. Gosh, I should be banned immediately. Miracleimpulse 07:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• We've been over the image galleries numerous times on the talk pages. Most of the images are of auxillary interest and should be collected in a Wikicommons gallery with a link in the article. The sources you've brought to light have been valuable and added an aspect to the article that was missing from it before. However, in my opinion this has been tempered by your editing style and your refusal to adhere to (or perhaps misunderstanding of) WP:NPOV & WP:NOR (and to a lesser extent WP:V in relation to claims made on talk pages) as well as your unfounded insistence there is some sort of cabal here working against you. Your usage of article talk pages to sometime go into tertiary topic conversations that have no bearing on the article doesn't help the situation.--Isotope23 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mwai Kibaki personal and legal threats

I was looking for a legal threat I thought had been posted on the Talk:Mwai Kibaki page when I came across this other threat "Cherry WE HAVE OTHER MEANS OF DEALING WITH YOUR TYPES":[118] Here's the legal action threat.[119] Could someone look into this, it appears the first one is a sockpuppet (new word I've learned just for Wikipedia) of User:Patch77, or anon-IP used by Patch77, but my sock puppetry knowledge is nil--in other words, it's my guess.KP Botany 22:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous account is blocked for 48 hours for making legal threats. `'mikkanarxi 23:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was a bit more concernd about the personal threat, though, and that user has not been blocked. I can't imagine a Wikipedia with a place for users who issue personal threats to each other. KP Botany 17:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD closure problem

The editor who opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter holiday season(2) now wants to close it as Keep. S(he) has twice added '(VOID)' to the AfD header and removed the AfD notice from the article page. While the AfD has a couple of days to run, it does indeed look like a unanimous Keep. As I've reverted this user twice now, I think an uninvolved admin needs to look at this and decide if the AfD can be closed as a 'speedy' Keep. -- Donald Albury 02:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have always thought/seen that nominators could withdraw their AFD nominations if they believed that the nom had been a mistake. This one seems sort of clumsy, but is there a problem with closing it? Georgewilliamherbert 02:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD closed as Keep. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. My mop is barely damp, and I was uneasy about closing the AfD early myself as I had commented on the article talk page about what to do with the article. -- Donald Albury 02:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There is SNOW 8-) Georgewilliamherbert 02:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In general, I disagree with the notion that a nominator can unilaterally close an xFD discussion, since there may be others who support the nomination. I have no opinion on this particular case. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Felix Portier again

Felix Portier was mentioned here last week for uploading images with obviously false copyright tags, which he now appears to be doing again. Could somebody please review and take appropriate action? Cheers --Pak21 11:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for one month and a final warning issued - he has been warned about this. Well spotted. Proto::type 12:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• ( At least I tried to tell them about copyright. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Panorama Tools

I would appreciate somebody looking into the recent history of Panorama Tools. An external disagreement seems to have spread to this Wikipedia article and there are issues about whether to link to the .org or .info site. I would look into it myself, but I'm currently getting ready for a long business trip so cannot give it much research. Thanks/wangi 12:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Still? I thought that particular lame edit war fizzled out months ago! 155.208.254.98 15:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have warned the user concerned about his behaviour on his talk page and posted some comments on the article's talk page.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Account

I User:Kiyosaki have been blocked by an Admn, that is heavily involved in a content dispute at Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. Can someone review this? I have been falsely accused of being another editor. Plus, if another Admn. reviews the Talk Page, at above article, they will not see "disruption" of any kind, on the contrary, thoughtful engagement. Thanks, and could someone kindly please review and restore my account?Kiyosaki1 18:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Admins please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kiyosaki. Thatcher131 18:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've blocked Kiyosaki1 indefinitely. Chick Bowen 18:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

User:143.231.249.141

This is an IP address registered to the US House of Representatives. I've blocked it for 24 hours (anon-only) following an WP:AIV report about it blanking the entire controversy section out of the Steve Buyer article. Instructions on the talk page suggested I should mention it here. I'm also leaving a message for User:UninvitedCompany, for the Communications committee]. Mangojuice^talk 19:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• What is really curious is other than whitewashing and adding spurious mythology to Donald Rumsfeld, the IP has an odd preoccupation with cleft chins as seen in the contrib history...--Isotope23 19:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

72.159.128.2 and block notices

Hi, I noticed that 72.159.128.2 made a nonsense edit to King Cobra (although I think they may have had good intentions). Upon looking at their talk page, I noticed it says they are presently blocked, which seems not to be the case. Another pair of eyes would be appreciated. ... aa:talk 20:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

They were blocked for 48 hours in September, but that's long expired now. {{test5}} notices don't get removed when the block expires, so you can't tell if someone is currently blocked based on them. --Tango 20:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Fanny Samaniego

At the article Fanny Samaniego User:207.112.77.37 is inserting abusive comments into the article, which has now turned into an exchange of legal and personal threats with User:Nrock2006 at User talk:207.112.77.37 which would need administrative intervention.--VirtualDelight 21:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• User:207.112.77.37 probably deserves a block for vandalism [120] & personal attacks [121]. User:Nrock2006 probably deserves a block for personal attacks and legal threats here & here.--Isotope23 21:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate blocks by User:PMA

In the course of looking through Category:Requests for unblock, I've seen two instances within two weeks of what I think were rather blatantly inappropriate blocks by admin PMA (talk · contribs). Today, he blocked Elsmlie (talk · contribs) for 36 hours for "POV edits, article degradation", based on a total of five edits by Elsmie made since 20 November, all evidently made in good faith, with which PMA happened to disagree. Not only is this an abuse of blocking policy by penalising editing in a good-faith and entirely undisruptive minor content dispute, but in addition it's also a blatant case of using admin weapons against an opponent in a dispute the admin is involved in. For all I can see, no other editors were involved in the dispute at all; there was no prior warning or even discussion, nothing.

Given these rather extraordinary circumstances, I've unblocked without further consultation with PMA (but notified him, of course). I invite further review of the case by other admins. I must say that, looking into PMA's prior admin log, I can see a couple more cases of what seem at first sight to be rather questionable blocks, so I'm considering whether an admin RfC would be in order. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming there's nothing more to it than those edits, I endorse unblocking. I can't see any justification for the block. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Like User:Jtdirl i feel i have been penalised by a small band for fighting POV warriors and cranks. I have been here for many years and experience has given me perhaps a "second sight" for potential problems. I admit my judgement is not always perfect - having an autistic disorder like Asperger's does that - Adam Carr acknowledged this some months ago when he and I were fighting POV warriors at Cuba-related articles - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BruceHallman&diff=49461797&oldid=49459999 - but i should not be persecuted for trying to do the right thing - in addition it seems that i am being wiki-watched by Future Perfect at Sunrise which i do not like and feel is unjustified.

PMA 13:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I wasn't watching you, I was routinely patrolling the requests-for-unblock category. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Generally, it's unwise for an admin to block a POV warrior that they've been actively fighting. It's better to report them and let someone else block them. --Tango 13:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

In this instance, it wasn't even a POV warrior to begin with. PMA had changed something in the article, and the other guy had reverted it - once. And I can't see how this person should be related to a "small band of fighting POV warriors" either - he seemed to have no previous history of clashes with him PMA. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What is up with these questionable blocks (of leftists?) on the part of PMA? El_C 17:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

PMA, this isn't about penalising or persecuting you for trying to do the right thing. It's about your use of the block tool in a way that seems manifestly inappropriate. I've noticed before that when you're challenged about admin actions, you cite your service time, however, I feel that service time should give you a greater understanding of policy and community expectations for blocks. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Acting on the belief that Police one another is a necessary collolary of Defend one another, I have opened an RFC against PMA here. Thatcher131 01:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

He has been voluntarily de-sysopped. Issue closed. Thatcher131 12:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

For those who may be interested, there is a related thread in the archives here. Grandmasterka 09:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Obscene edit summaries

User:66.36.156.91: only 2 edits, but one with an obscene edit summary addressed to another user. Given the context, I believe I know who this is, and that it is a registerd user who has been threatened with a ban for this sort of thing before. I don't know the drill on this, but can we get a checkuser or something, in order to establish this? We really need to stop this, it's been creating a poisonous atmosphere on topics related to Romania and Moldova. - Jmabel | Talk 22:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem dealt with by KhoiKhoi. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem is not edalt by khoikhoi. It was swept inder the carpet. The real problem is that certain Romanian admins continue to communicate in wikipedia with banned users, thus reinforcing their desire to mess with other people. Until the feeding of pet trolls continues by Romanian wikipedians, especially by admins, these trolls will be getting an idea that they are valiantly struggling for their Romanian motherland against anti-Romanians. `'mikkanarxi 23:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to pardon my ignorance. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe mikka was referring to this and this (125.63.65.52 & 213.148.5.103 = Bonaparte). Khoikhoi 02:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Shadowbot

Could we get an admin to look at the concerns over Shadowbot raised here and here? Given that it is seriously biting some users who are making good-faith edits, I kind of think we need it shut down temporarily. Heimstern Läufer 07:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's clearly not behaving as it should. I've blocked it for now. Grandmasterka 07:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits like this ! --pgk 07:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, Pgk. Thanks for your help, Grandmasterka. Heimstern Läufer 07:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Good that shadowbot is blocked. It used to revert (major) rv of contributory editors and used to give spam notice. swadhyayee 07:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've temporarily shut down Shadowbot and removed any and all web sites that can cause problems from its spam blacklist, such as Livejournal and Geocities. Judging from Shadowbot's contributions, it appears that the problems encountered on Steve Irwin and other pages were caused by these rules. I plan to do an overhaul of the blacklist tonight to ensure that these problems will not happen again. I also think that Swadhyayee should note that Shadowbot has also been making good anti-spam efforts, along with the occasional bad revert.

Most of the problems that resulted in the block were caused, in part, by the bot supplying Shadowbot's edits. This bot is the one that maintains the initial blacklist, however, it is hosted by several users, and we often are forced to change hosts due to ISP problems, among other things. Due to the host switching, most of the bot clones are not kept in sync with each other, which means that I might remove livejournal from one bot, but the next one isn't aware of the deletion. I'm definitely going to fix this syncing problem before I even consider bringing Shadowbot up again. Shadow1 (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. No idea about the good edits of shadowbot but it created some problems by reverting rv yesterday. Was not wishing permanent block but just till things rectified. swadhyayee 00:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Continued incivility by User:Tajik

Some quotes:

"You are really a waste of time."[122]

"It is you who is a totally hopeless case." (Although in reply to same, still, as I've been told, someone else's bad behaviour doesn't excuse your own.)[123]

"You mean we should let people like you flood Wikipedia with nationalistic ... nonsense, ...."[124]

In edit summary, "rv of nonsense...."[125], in midst of edit war between the two. It's rampant in this area of Wikipedia, but more so by some users than others, and continues, and User:Tajik has been warned and then blocked for incivility before.[126][127]

KP Botany 23:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Was blocked for incivility and personal attack on November 16 which didn't work. Block length doubled. - Mgm|^(talk) 01:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete please

Will somebody please nuke The Hebrew Hammer 2 asap, thanks. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 02:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Prodego ^talk 02:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Fatrick Arbuckle

Fatrick Arbuckle (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) has repeatedly vandalized the article on Ian Snell.

• On 6 November 2006 the user wrote "he is mildly retarded, and thus doesn't know what he is saying" (diff), a potentially libelous comment that stayed in the article until now (28 November 2006).
• The user has also created Category:People who let their retardation Influence their speaking. and attempted to add Ian Snell and Sienna Miller.
• After the first category was nominated for deletion the user created Category:People who let their mental retardation Influence their speaking. and attempted to add Ian Snell and Sienna Miller. Oden 02:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Libel the potentially libelous/defamatory edits should perhaps also be deleted from the page history Ian Snell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). --Oden 03:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Otis Fodder

User:Otis Fodder is showing disruptive and incivil behavior far above and beyond the norm, especially in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Artist Formerly Known As Kurt Benbenek. Among the things that have been done:

• Refuses to sign comments
• Arguementative for arguements sake. Consider these quotes:
  • "When you say "we" ("We don't want blogs, we don't want chat forums.."), do you mean that you're paid by Wikipedia and you speak for them and all involved with Wikipedia? If you're NOT being paid to debate and investigate articles (such as this BENBENEK article), why do you do it and why do you use the word "we"? Are you speaking for Wikipedia as a thing or as an internet corporate entity? Or is the "we" referring to only you? This will help me respond to your immediately-previous comment...because I worry when single individuals start throwing the "we" word around. Plus I'm a little new to Wikipedia as an open-source text phenomenon. Plus I'm too lazy to hunt down your "Wikipedia User Profile" and see if you're part of official Wikapedia management. I figure you're probably just eager to respond to just about anything any body throws on these ever-changing and well-formatted pages. My other guess is that you're a BOT, but Wikipedia BOTs are probably out on Thanksgiving weekend vacation. So, what is this "we" that you type of...?": Stated in response to what I offered as what "we" at wikipedia look for in a "notable" and "verifiable" article.
  • "My dear mom (who was somehow born in the 20s in Missouri without the use of Wikipedic means of childbirth) always taught me to watch out for ***GROUP THINK*** and when some anonymous guy on the internet tells me to "follow the blue links" I think I better start worrying. Guy...guys...if you all really have raging hard-ons for deleting my nice, little BENBENEK article, then by all means cite Wikipedia authority and direct people to your blue links until you're blue in the face and get on with it. I figure the BOTs have the final say anyway in these important article matters...so...whatever" In response to being directed to wikipedia's policies.
  • "So, suddenly Wikipedia is all about "notability"...or maybe it's just a kind of high-tech, open-source popularity contest? Not that many people in the obscure-est reaches of Arkansas or Mt Everest know who Einstein was (or what he did) yet Einstein is in Wikipedia. There are thousands of entries in Wikipedia that ARE NOT of a "notable" nature. How unfair is it to discredit a simple entry on the basis of "notability" - this type of "notability-based" stamp-of-approvalocity is unfair and narrow-minded and should not be tolerated. It's interesting to see that four or five guys (always guys...) with little sense of the "real" world can make or break a Wikipedia entry. All the negative criticism of this entry is based on spurious INTERNET data. Has anyone called The Swedenborg Society or East Village Arts District for verification of these Benbenek entry claims? Nah, I doubt it." In response to requests to provide sources for notability.
• He also blanked the AfD discussion, and when it was restored, pagemoved the AfD discussion from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurt Benbenek to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Artist Formerly Known As Kurt Benbenek (see page history).
• He has a history of these kinds of disruptions to other AfD discussions. Consider this dif: [128]
• He has made other disruptive edits to articles, such as [129], and [130], and [131].

Please review this users behavior, and take any actions as you see appropriate. --Jayron32 03:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but were it me, I'd block him for the duration of the AfD for the multiple tamperings to the AfD, and leave a copy of the WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL and associated policies on his talk page. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional incivil behavior continues: See this quote from the above cited AfD:

• "Hey, guys (and I use that term in kind reference to each and every one of you) you all sure certainly seem to be dragging your collective Wikipedia-enraged feet. Why hasn't anyone sent the real BOTS in? You know...the BOTs that Wikipedia management keeps in reserve for situations such as these. Every cry of "DELETE" only makes me more determined to fight tooth and nail to preserve the integrity and textual (and paragraphical) essence of what this proud and defiant "Artist Formerly Known As Kurt Benbenek" article means. Thanks! Have a great day! PS - ask yourself if your mom would want you to vote for deletion and then please vote your conscience...and also watch out for the BOTS. They seem to be everywhere in this Wikipedic Hell! "

Thanks for looking into this! --Jayron32 05:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The diffs support Jayron's accusations, and this is some fairly egregious behaviour: blanking an AfD, and disrupting multiple AFds and articles. Furthermore, I checked some of his other contribs, and the few that haven't been reverted yet probably should be; he seriously lacks the language skills we would hope for in a serious contributor. All-in-all, it smells like troll, and I tend to think a block would be in order. Minimum of one day, just to get his attention; possibly up to a week for messing with an AfD. Doc Tropics 05:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin help request: This needs an admin page move back, both for the article and the AFD page. Georgewilliamherbert 07:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have done this. Moves can be reverted by anyone who can move pages unless something has happened to the redirect created in the process.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good. I thought I'd seen edits to the redirect, but I'm glad to see that I was wrong in this case. Georgewilliamherbert 07:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Angry Bahraini again

He's back as User:217.17.231.128 and reverting all my edits. I emailed Batelco, in Bahrain, but they don't seem to have done anything to stop him. Zora 04:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

He's at it RIGHT NOW. Please block this IP and roll back his edits. Zora 04:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Khoikhoi 04:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic_people

Sorry to bother but I just wanted to inform the proper admins of the war going on in the CfD for the above category. Netscott and IZAK have been arguing back and forth for the past couple of hours or so about whether the cat. has been up for deletion 2, 3 or 4 times or whatever. Besides that, they have been attacking each other verbally and this kind of bickering does not help the voting. It is true that discussion is important for CfDs, but this type of behavior is uncalled for. I am trying to remain as unbiased as possible. I did, however, cast a vote for the cat. so I do have an opinion on which way the vote goes, yet, my concern is that their behavior will affect any type of voting. At this point,honestly, it does not matter to me which way the vote goes. I do not know much of Netscott but IZAK has a history of being very argumentative and has been banned in the past. I ask of you to please stop their bickering and to end the voting for the category as soon as possible. Thank you sincerely. MetsFan76 05:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Our discussion is over at this point. We've both made our points... and managed to remain rather civil if a bit heated. (→Netscott) 05:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to see it is over, but the admins do need to see what happened. As I mentioned, it was extremely disruptive for the two of you to be bickering over it. I don't know if you are a new editor or not but IZAK is a veteran and should have known better. MetsFan76 05:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he's a new editor (I'm certainly not). I think it's pretty safe to say that so long as a discussion remains civil there's not much harm done. I'd venture to also say that it is normal that back and forth exchanges like this are typical in controversial areas (of which this one certainly is). (→Netscott) 05:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you except for the fact that admins and people who want to vote have to read through the entire soap opera to get an idea what's going on. Who has time like that? I'm not trying to start anything here...I'm just trying to move the voting along. MetsFan76 05:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the point of XfD is not voting... it's actually discussion... that attempts to reach a consensus... so while a discussion may get long that's generally seen as a good sign. (→Netscott) 05:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone involved in this debate that CFD is not a vote, but a discussion. A closing administrator should not mearly count "deletes" and "keeps". The arguments expressed are important, resonance with policy is important, precedent is important, the behavior of those that participate is important. The more that admins rely on "vote counting" the more people will game the system. I think one good argument is more important than a score of impassioned "votes". -- Samuel Wantman 05:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sam---I definitely agree with you especially when you state that "the behavior" is important and I just felt that it was starting to get borderline childish MetsFan76 05:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Angry Bahraini again

This time he's coming from User:89.148.40.105 and reverting my edits. Please block this IP and roll back his edits. Zora 07:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Arain

Not 100% sure if this is the right place to report this, it's not vandalism but I think it should be looked at. I'm very flattered by the comment made about me at Talk:Arain, but User:Kneeslasher's diatribe on the page is bothersome and, I would guess, contravenes some Wikipedia protocol or other (or perhaps several). --Dweller 09:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the list of names. There might be a slight WP:OWN problem with the article, but the article needs help. Perhaps somebody from WP:INDIA can help provide better sources than a novel? Kusma (討論) 12:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User:BoredLikeCardboard

Someone please review the above user's request for unblock; I blocked him for making this threat to demand adminship. I don't think I'm being oversensitive here, or am I? Kimchi.sg 10:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this user's contributions. He is almost certainly a troll. New users do not come to Wikipedia knowing how to upload images and where to find the RfA page. Also, most of his article edits are probably vandalism; he simply changes words and then inserts his signature into the article. The image he uploaded, Image:Meinhats.JPG, is probably a copyvio. —Psychonaut 10:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'd keep him blocked. Threatening to destroy Wikipedia if he doesn't get admin rights is not okay and he should know that. (Giving in would only give him more tools to vandalize). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Already came across this editor. Just a weirdo trying to do a Borat impersonation; endorse block. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Indef. block for NorbertArthur

In early October, NorbertArthur (talk · contribs) was blocked by Alex Bakharev for personal attacks (after coming off a one-month block by Mets501 for this comment). I unblocked him later that month because he assured me that he would not make any more. Since then, Arthur has made comments such as, pizdaFATHERFUCKER Named: KHOIKHOI whithout testicles now he becamed a fucked admin after liking everybody's ass wants to intruce his shit of russians policies here. my words: FUCK RUSSIA AND UK, TO FUCKED COUNTRIES THAT SUCK OUR DICK. Fuck your mother all here. Bogdangiusca had to warn him to stop, or else he would get "get banned and this time for good". About a week later, Arthur made the following comment in an edit summary: i told you all mtf provide a source for your fuckin 21.5 mil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When I unblocked him last month, he promised me here that I can re-block him if he makes other personal attacks...but how many more blocks should he be given? I say, one more, and hereby propose that NorbertArthur be blocked indefinitely. Comments welcome. Khoikhoi 20:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but repeated posts like that, after multiple warnings and blocks, certainly seems to warrant an indef block. This one either doesn't understand our framework, or is simply uninterested in working within it. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd support an indef block in this case. ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

After the last offense I reblocked him for 6 months. If this is an age problem; let us see in 6 months whether he grows up. Only this time without parole. `'mikkanarxi 21:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he's unlikely to grow up at 23 years old. Two years older than me. Grandmasterka 22:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Standard 24 hour blocks, one for each set of personal attacks from now onwards should be more than sufficient to get the message across (unless there is an actual problem, e.g. vandalism). Also, if you do permanently block him, don't forget to delete his userpage; it contains personal information.--Euthymios 22:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. Well, I think a one-month block is more than enough of a message, and I consider personal attacks to be an "actual" problem. Besides the fact that Khoikhoi was the one who unblocked him. Grandmasterka 23:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Play nice or play elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks like that aren't even subtle; he even promised he could be banned for such behavior. Khoi, you say one more attack gets ban, I say negative one more attacks gets a ban. This kind of personal attack is not OK, and clearly a 24 hour block does nothing. Give him 6 months or indef. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I hardly see the point in any more chances, and aside from the personal attacks, his editing itself has always been problematic at best; a permanent block seems the only reasonable action at this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely block now. And caution User:Euthymios that inappropriate comments like that will lead to a block of his own. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Khoikhoi, he never bothered using English to curse me out. Believe it or not, he's said even nastier things in Romanian than the example cited here. Concur with indefinite block. - Jmabel | Talk 08:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I would like to add my comment: NorbertArthur has for sure been asking for it, and he has been repeatedly engaging in inexcusable behaviour - the worst part of it was in Romanian. I was the target of such an outburst after I had asked him (for a second time) to write family name first in category brackets for articles on people (where he kept intervening). Judging by other users' talk pages, I see that he has done most of his trolling in Romanian.

Let me add that there is not a single piece of writing which could be cited as valuable from this user. In fact, all he has done was to create forks, use personal guesses to replace data, and create a problem in many articles by confusing and confounding Romanian people who live abroad with Romanian-born citizens of other countries and with Romanian ethnics who have lived their entire lives in foreign countries. Refusing to pay attention to guidelines, he has also uploaded copyrighted material - knowing full well that it was not public domain (this IMO, equates vandalism). As far as wikipedia is concerned, he is merely a habitual troll. Dahn 20:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Just looking through the edit summaries of his 30 or so contribs this month I find

1. Joffrey Lupul is Romanian at 100%, you stupid!
2. MOLDOVAN NATION DOESN'T EXIST STUPIDS!!
3. i told you all mtf provide a source for your fuckin 21.5 mil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jmabel | Talk 07:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And more, he's already evading his block: [132] Khoikhoi 00:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE:

1. what a fuck is your problem mtf KHOIKHOI TO REVERT MY EDITS????? SUCK MY DICK
2. YOU JUST SUCK MY DICK MOTHERFUCKER!!!!!!

Ba da ba ba ba... Khoikhoi 04:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't you just feel the love? I think he's got a crush on you : ) Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think than and indef block would be in order though... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I can definately feel the love, see his latest comment:

I came here and I say the following things: you are all a gang of hipocritic racists against the Romanian nation. I tried now for almost an year to do something, but with people like you there's no way back to recuperate. I'm not sorry at all for what i wrote and I'll be never! This wikipedia is for me just a shithole on Internet and I will tell you why, because its based on lyings and on point of view from other people (ex. Mikkalai, Khoikhoi). I not a accusing you user DC76 at all and I respect you of what you did. I know me too to use a polite language for people that I respect and for people that I don't respect like 95% of the wikipedia i usa that language. The respect is deserved. And for my future I will continue to edit wikipedia for one purpose: to destroy it. Nobody here knows that beyond my username NorbertArthur I'm the "owner" of an another 15 usernames that I edit on and no one of you will can fin out that 'cause its very good hidden. I'm not sorry for what I'm doing and you don't have the right to judge me ok? I proposed not one, not ten but hundred ideas, I think even more then 70 sources that where prooving what I was sustaining, you ignored all. to arrive a common point but I realized that you people are too low-minded to understand and that there's no purpose anymore to help just to destroy. The stupid admins like Khoikhoi they juste see the things against me, they don't see what me I endured from all you others by insulting my country and my people. But, there's always a way of neutral point. If everybody here will try at least to be one time in their life to be sincere and to listen to the other and not being racists, I promise and personally engage to stop all this and colaborate in good aim. But that will not happen I'm sure. I think I said all I had to say and explain.
Arthur 24 November 2006

I think this is more than enough evidence for an indef. block. Khoikhoi 22:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A guy evading block with proxies and confessing to have socks? Indef and checkuser please. <_< -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

They're not proxies, he just has a dynamic IP. BTW, I just blocked one of his socks a few minutes ago, although it wasn't active. Khoikhoi 22:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi everybody, I would like to point out that User:NorbertArthur's remarks coppied above were in response to my post here. User:Khoikhoi has pointed to me this response of his above, and here is our discussion.

I do not know NorbertArthur, because I am relatively new on Wikipedia. But I noticed his first rude remark he made a couple days ago in the subject line of the article Romanians, resulting in that article being blocked. Prior to the incident I also edited a little that article; there was a dispute, some people agreed to come to some middle solution, but several others continued their prefered warring, and everything we suggested was immediately reverted. For example, me and Khoikhoi supported diferent POV, but somehow we were able to talk and find common ground. If it were just we two, this article would have been long settled. I guess the simple fact that some users supporting differnt POV try to talk to each other is perceived by some as "treason", and even in majority by number, we are being dismissed. Despite the fact that there are 10+ editors in that article, the edit war was basically between three users: NorbertArthur against tow others. The propositions from both sides were going to the extreme from edit to edit until NorbertArthur perhaps did not resist, and started his famous now remarks. You know the rest of the story. Just as the extreme edits by the three users before, NorbertArthur's remarks after the block increased exponencially in rudeness from response to response. In an interval of less than 3 day to go to such lengths, wow! I agree with Doc Tropics's comment above, he had a very-very passionate crash. :-)

I don't know wikipedia policies well, I am new here, so I don't "recommend" anything to the person who'll be taking the decision. You know better.:Dc76 00:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Since no one seemed to object to the idea of a ban, I've extended it to indefinite. Khoikhoi 02:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you should throw in a checkuser as well... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I support the block. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this user does not understand that even anon comments are recorded. Maybe if this was explained, unsigned attacks wouldn't happen. I don't support and indef block for this reason, or at the very least, using the anon comments as evidence. --Haizum 08:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Will314159 Legal threats

Having recently come back from a 10 day block for "violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA." and for recuting "...meatpuppet editors off-site", User:Will314159 has now issued not-so-thinly-veiled legal threats against User:Isarig here, here, and here. Armon 12:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

(Isarig had been blocked on 13 Nov for "Personal attacks on Juan Cole" -all the threats have been after that, 14 November 2006, 21 November 2006, and 22 November, respectively) Armon 13:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Will didnt make legal threat. All what he did was warning isarig not to WP:LIBEL. I think Isarig should be blocked instead because he libelled Juan cole here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Cole&diff=87446122&oldid=87402322 Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 15:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Isarig's opinion is unlikely to be enforceable as libel in the US -especially as he would be able to point to published charges of antisemitism/antisemitic comments made by others against Cole. This does not mean that Will, as a lawyer, could not make life difficult for him via a frivolous lawsuit. Isarig has been blocked for violating NPA, however, that was apparently not enough for Will, and his legal threats amount to harassment of his "opponent". Will should be blocked, ideally permanently, as he's shown no acceptance of WP's mission, culture, or processes -or any progress towards it. Note the accusation below that I am Isarig's sock or "meatpuppet" because I find his behavior unacceptable. << armon >> 02:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should avoid libel whether or not it is technically actionable - armon's claim that a libel claim may not be enforceable in one particular country is hardly a reason for Wikipedia to endorse libelous statements. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly held that opinions can be actionable as libel -- the case Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. held that opinions can be libelous insofar as such opinions "may often imply an assertion of objective fact." (In this particular case, the "opinion" certainly does imply such an assertion and would be actionable if someone chose to pursue it). I find armon's insistence that Will be blocked permanently to be distasteful, as he appears to be trying to use Wikipedia policy to remove an ideological opponent. Will's statements that Isarig should avoid libel do not appear to me to be threats or personal attacks. csloat 03:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

csloat accuses me of using policy to silence my ideological opponent. I have no problem with "ideological opponents", I do however, object to the non-stop page disruptions since May 06 which both csloat and Will have engaged in. csloat is rightly worried that Will being banned will further isolate himself on Juan Cole, because without him, csloat will be the only intransigent party, regardless of "ideology". Further to the charge, if I really wanted my "ideological opponents silenced", I would do better to "go after" those who present a real challenge, not those who troll and produce low-quality, POV edits which have no real chance of remaining. << armon >> 06:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any page disruptions that I have been engaged in since May 06 (or any other time). I've been a very constructive Wikipedia editor for a couple years now. Will's participation is not my concern, but I do object to demands for permanent blocks against users who may be misguided but who clearly want to improve wikipedia. csloat 07:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That he wants to improve WP is problematic in itself. His improvements entail scrapping NPOV. << armon >> 11:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• My computer has been out for a while because of a worm. I have previously warned Isaig of a gross violation of civility and libel. I have had no respone from him or others on this matter other than this preemptive action from Isarig's sockpuppet. there are some other complaints I need to make against other persons for gross incivility. if this is the proper place to make it then here goes. It is the grosses violation, and entirely uncalled for. Because it is in the edit line, it's permanent and can't be erased. It's for keeps. He's constantly noticing people and wikilawyering. i think Armon is his meatsockpuppet.

WP:CIV for calling Cole a "jewbaiter" in an edit log.

• • (cur) (last) 01:21, 13 November 2006 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (Cole is a jewbaiter, so his jewbaiting quotes are in. thsi was moved to v&C, but you've deleted V&C, so it's back here) Unless somebody else has already done it. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 17:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Some claims are so laughable they need no response, but i got suspended for another laughable claim for which i never had an opportunity to respond. So I better respond to this one. I deny I made a legal threat to Isarig. I advised him that he had subjected the Wikipedia foundation to libel with his namecalling and he needed to stop it. And I also said that if others didn't report him that I would. I put it on my talk page because he has a habit of deleting warnings on his talk page. I put it on the Cole talk page to get feedback to see if somebody had already noticed it because I had no feedback from Isarig about it and I didn't know how to notice it. And I will tell Professor Cole about this because he is a friend of mine and it's funnier than hell that Isarig would get so vulgar. Here is somebody that is wikilawering and turning people in all the time for the slighted imagined rule violations and going aroung libeling people in the grossest way. He can't be allowed to get away with this. Maybe he's already been punished for it, I don't know. Please advise. I have had no feedback. And as for Armon, to each his own. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 18:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The comment about how you would "inform" Cole about the matter together with the other comments seems like a legal threat. Please stop. JoshuaZ 21:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Will asserts that he is a lawyer- see here, therefore the phrase: I will advise Professor Cole if the Wikipedia community fails to discipline you. suggests a more credible legal threat than simply telling on him. << armon >> 01:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC) I suggest a block. << armon >> 01:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Will may be a lawyer, but it is a stretch to claim that "advise" is being used in such a legal sense in that sentence. It is doubtful that Will is Cole's lawyer and it is unlikely that Cole would accept Will's counsel under the circumstances. But I believe the problem here is not Will -- if Wikipedia is sued because of a statement that Isarig published, it is Isarig and not Will who is at fault, whether or not Will is the lawyer who initiates such a lawsuit. csloat 03:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If was pretty obvious what was being implied. How else would a person (Juan Cole) who has no professional or personal contacts with another person (Isarig) do anything to negatively affect the second person other than through a legal matter. I really don't see how Will can deny what was clearly being insinuated.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The word "advised" is very common and is often used in non-legal settings. As a university professor, for example, I often "advise" students. In another example, I often "advise" friends (or seek "advice" from same) on personal matters. I believe this may help clear it up. I have no way of knowing whether it was Will's intent to use the term in a particular way, but I assure you that it is even possible for lawyers to use the term "advise" in a non-technical sense. Will may have simply meant that he intended to send Dr. Cole an email. That doesn't necessarily excuse the action, but it does make it a lot less sinister than is being implied here. I would add, again, that the legal problem, if there is one, lies with the party posting illegal content, and not the party who takes action (or who informs someone) of said content. After all, we don't need a legal adviser to expose something that has already been posted to a public website.csloat 07:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, then Will's threats were utterly unnecessary other than for trolling and/or harassment. As for the "ultimate meaning" of "advise" or "inform", we might as well argue about what the meaning of "is" is, rather than putting it in the context of Will's posting of WP talk page debates on Cole's blog to solicit POV warriors, his "ends justify the means" approach to editing here, and his complete lack of regard for any policy other than WP:IAR. His "deniablity" is far too implausible. << armon >> 11:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been contacted to step in, as the blocking admin, but I am home with my family for Thanksgiving, and will have no time to step into this dispute today. I am sorry. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 19:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

These are clearly legal threats, regardless of the apologetics, and should not be tolerated. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As such, I have blocked the user for 45 days, considereing that legal threats are a fairly dramatic step up in poor user behavior and will not be tolerated. As always, I appreciate admin review of my block, and will abide by any changes the community suggests. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 22:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a newby and there's a lot I don't understand. But I don't think legal threats have been made. In my neck of the woods one might "advise" someone of something, and you'd only be telling them it happened. You'd not be suggesting they sue, nor would you be "advising" them of how to go about sueing someone.

What is much, much more worrying is that Isarig is apparently free to post "(Cole is a jewbaiter, so his jewbaiting quotes are in. thsi was moved to v&C, but you've deleted V&C, so it's back here)" [133]. This would be a deeply unpleasant slur even if it was genuine - and to accuse supporters of Israel of potential "dual loyalty" is not (on the face of it) jew-baiting.

I trust Isarig doesn't mind others referencing the fact that particular people are Jewish - oh, look, he takes considerable objection [134] "what relevance does the alleged Jewishness of the lead prosecutor have to do with the article? Other than to push the POV that it is religiously motivated, that is?Isarig 06:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)".

PalestineRemembered 19:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not know about any prior history with this user, but in this particular case it looks like an overly aggressive response to the patently inappropriate comment by User:Isarig. With regard to this incident specifically, a 45 day block seems excessive. —Centrx→talk • 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Centrx; this is over the top. Particularly when you consider that proportionally, Isarig was apparently blocked for only 1 day for the inappropriate content itself. So the message is that it may be bad to post libelous comments in edit summaries, but it is 45 times worse to "threaten" to advise someone about inappropriate things being said about them on a public web page. Had the editor simply informed Cole rather than "threatening" to inform Cole, we would consider his actions common courtesy rather than legally threatening. csloat 23:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

His prior history was taken into account. << armon >> 03:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I support the block. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

His request to be unblocked has been denied. He is now circumventing the block by not logging in. << armon >> 03:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely no legal threat was made. 'advise" is not the same with "sue". Unblock request was denied, but it was denied by a probably non-neutral editor. Will requested another admin to review. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 18:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC) :Quote from will ...I am very serious about this. What credibillity is there to WikiP when a call for more neutral editors is called sockpuppetry? When an admonishment to Isarig and an effort to protect the inegrity of WP from libel is treated as threating a lawsuit? When advise is stretched to mean "sue?" When Humus can threaten a muslim with involluntary servitutde at the service of Israellis? Come on James Wales wake up. Where are you? Where are the officers of the foundation? How can you let this stuff go on unchecked? Godspeed John Glenn! Will 02:21, 28 November 2006 (UT...

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normal Bob Smith (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normal Bob Smith (2nd nomination) needs input from unbiased non-SPAs. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-22 19:56Z

User:srkris

• contributions) has unreasonably left vandalism messages on my usertalk page even after there was agreement on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carnatic_music to delete such content. Further, he has suggested that I am a puppet of User:A4ay on the same page for A4ay's agreement with me, and so reverted back to his old changes on the Carnatic music page. In this process, I believe I have been defamed as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LIBEL . Ncmvocalist 06:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Ncmvocalist (above) is removing content from Carnatic music without holding any discussions and against repeated requests. He has in the past blanked out Carnatic music related pages like this and this, and got warned by other editors. He has also removed pictures and content from Carnatic music a number of times as per his own admission - [135], [136], [137] and reverted the page very often - [138], [139], [140].

He seems to have violated the Wikipedia:3RR between 24th and 26th November on Carnatic music article. I cautioned him about it, and placed the Template:Test1a on his page. User:A4ay does similar acts on the same page (removing images etc), who might be a sock puppet of User:Ncmvocalist. User:Ncmvocalist responds to me by placing a template warning on my page and saying that I defamed him. He says above that there was an agreement on Talk:Carnatic music to delete content from the article, which is false and absurd. And now, this report on Admin Noticeboard seems to be funny, if nothin else, since it should have been I who should have sought admin help against him. Since he and User:A4ay have been doing extensive edit warring and destructive edits violating Wikipedia:3RR, hope they are warned suitably to participate in a constructive manner. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 08:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to Assume good faith in Srkris, however, his constant disrespect seems to signal that he is not at all innocent. I hope he is warned to not only participate in a constructive, NEUTRAL manner, but about his overt disrespect towards other Wikipedians (evidenced above from the humour he finds in something obviously quite serious, as well as when he rolls on the floor laughing ("ROFTL") and "Haha" in [music discussion page].) His attitude needs to change.

Srkris' version of the facts are somewhat distorted compared to what actually happened - it seems he is not innocent. There is no absurdity or falseness. There was indeed agreement in deleting images of Modern artists in the article Carnatic music, as is evidenced in [music talk] - it was agreed that the images would be deleted until the issue was resolved - the issue of WP:NPOV with why some modern artists pictures were on the article rather than others, and whether such images are appropriate in an article that does NOT focus on modern artists). Instead of signalling his disagreement, or respecting the wishes of another WP:Wikipedian to let this issue be resolved by discussion before reverting, he chose to revert AGAIN [[141]] to the version with images in question, and ONLY after this, does he bother placing warnings on my page and the Carnatic music page concerning WP:3RR. He then puts a warning regarding vandalism too. He then has the audacity to claim I am dictating views on others, when he seems to be guilty of the same.

His latest reply in Talk:Carnatic music is further evidence. He misleadingly states that all I do is "undo other's painstaking work" - this is both disrespectful, unreasonable and defamatory. He suggests I haven't tried writing an article on Wikipedia from scratch before, and also explicitly states that the only reason the reverts have continued was because I think "The article doesnt need images other than what I upload" - which is untrue, regarding the latest edits and reverts, as can be seen in [of reverts]. His defamation didn't stop after the first warning, nor did his assumption of bad faith, after my first warnings. His failure to assume good faith in dealing with other editors is a serious issue.

He seems to have violated WP:NPA on several occasions, notably and openly when requesting intervention WP:PAIN against another member. He has blatantly insulted their behaviour, when he needs to have a look at his own from a neutral point of view.

I hope the administration will warn him about his behaviour so that it will improve in due course, without interfering with his and others contributions to Wikipedia.

Ncmvocalist 15:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please use dispute resolution. Also, this is difficult to follow. My advice: only wikify each specific item once and aim at a concise account. El_C 17:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

srkris is a constructive editor, and placing bogus warnings on talk pages is meaningless.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bakasuprman, both for your faith in me and your support. I hope Ncmvocalist has more constructive work to do. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 13:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The defwarn templates are ridiculous. They look ugly on Kris' page. I request an admin to remove it. Sarvagnya 18:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The label is quite appropriate. Ncmvocalist 04:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Sarvagna also for the support and faith in my actions. Yes, I dont want to remove the warning messages myself, I request an admin to do it, and ask User:Ncmvocalist to start behaving. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 14:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And yet, the hypocrisy continues.... Ncmvocalist 02:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

64.107.1.251, etc.

• 64.107.1.251 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 64.107.220.170 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 64.107.2.2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 64.107.1.197 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 64.107.2.130 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 64.107.2.65 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 64.107.220.118 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 66.99.1.4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 66.99.3.7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

User uses same grammar/mistakes in comments on history page of Hollywoodland for their duplicate changes, replies to posts directed at one IP as if they are that IP (64.107.1.251 answering my response to a post made by 64.107.220.170 in the Hollywoodland discussion page --see subsection "Hollywoodland"--) and makes threats/insults to others who disagree with them: "also I suggest you keep your hands off good links," and "you support each other, like cops and donuts [142]," etc.Gnrlotto 07:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I get a little help-help?Gnrlotto 06:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET AN ADMINISTRATOR TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE? WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET AN ADMINISTRATOR TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE? WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET AN ADMINISTRATOR TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE?Gnrlotto 05:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Have you tried requesting page protection at WP:RPP? Danny Lilithborne 05:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Or report him/them (I dunno) at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism--SUIT 05:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Is "I suggest you keep your hands off good links" the strongest threat that has been made? Regards, Ben Aveling 05:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No, actually this is a long term problem. A very long term problem. f and also, more controversially, here: (links deleted by the anon, and by me, 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)) Both of these pages were deleted by Jimbo himself as part of a negotiation with this person. What his part of the deal was I do not know, but if it involved leaving us alone, he's broken his part. We may wish to get Jimbo himself to weigh in on this. I believe that several people were on the verge of opening an ArbCom case against this person because of his persistent abusive behavior and POV-warring, in addition to his general inability to get along with any other editor in any manner at all.

This particular user also left notes on my user talk page like "learn what movies are" along with posting: "==Enough== Of Deleting good links, this time you have no explanation, this deals with the movie, not actor,I AM WARNING YOU FOR THE LAST TIME, YOU WILL NO LONGER STAY ON WIKI IF THIS CONTINUES, i am on my public IP this time." Not only do I consider this a personal attack, I consider it a threat, even though it's probably not an actionable one on the part of the user who posted this. Rray 02:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor offtopic comment, can the page on GRP be deleted? I highly doubt it'll be recreated by the subject if it was deleted by Jimbo during talks with him and SW hasn't be recreated yet. A suggestion... 68.39.174.238 02:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

When I saw the dispute over the Hollywoodland article, I tried reasononing with the anonymous user (who did jump around on various IPs), I tried explaining the policies, and I tried explaining that reverts are not meant as personal attacks. They seem a bit paranoid, and they don't seem to place much value on civility. They are very defensive of their edits, and I think their conduct is unbecoming of a good faith editor. Verkhovensky 02:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply, verkovesky was told what to do, then when one of the people left a note on his page i am a troll i lost my cool, i did not mean to, and yea, i understand these things sounds mean, but again, when will one nice administrator look into suggestions,i am sick of being accused for all these months of being vandal, i may be uncivil at times (but mostly i am not), BUT I CAN NOT TAKE THIS ATTACK AND ATTACK AND SO ON. I simply try to improve few links on wiki and you call me troll, shame on you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.0.166 (talk • contribs) .

Not typing in all caps would be a great first step in achieving a more collaborative spirit with the other members of the community. Rray 02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Many of us have tried to reason with this editor. God knows we've tried. I for one am weary of it. We've tried to explain civility, NPOV, calmness, no personal attacks ... he has responded with extended campaigns of vandalism, revert wars, "I WIN I GET MY WAY,YOU ADMINS ALL VANDALS," other similar comma-spliced invective, torrents of e-mail to Jimbo (which is why the pages are deleted), --and yet he keeps coming back. Again, again, and again. This time I noticed that many people were colliding with him but none seemed to notice that they were not alone, and that there was a long story here. He seems to have valuable knowledge on a lot of topics, but a complete inability to work with other people in any kind of collaborative enterprise. It seems to me utterly hopeless.

If anyone has any suggestions on how to deal with this, I'd love to hear them. Antandrus (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply to real vandals...

Antandrus was never fair, nothing else, he reasoned with me? he never helped me, did he ever ever try to fix the proble, no, never, ever, hopeless, where were you when i needed assistance all the way back in january, where were you, shame on you, you are one of the 5 administrators i had problems, with the rest, i was able to communicate (even though they were no help at all) what grammar error, i dare you find those errors, none and good to know u unblocked that page, for long time i wanted to know what's that, 90% is pure garbage and nothing to do with me. I do know who you are and you keep on playing games, that will not be forgiven... If i do something wrong, where is your assistance, none, if i do things right, which they are mostly right, where is thank you, ok, good job, never, why, you do not want to be seen wrong. Also why do you use name of GOd, God knows, God knows you did everything wrong, from very beginning with instruuctions to revert everything on site, also wales clearly said not to recreate the site and what are you doing, so many of you administrators do not belong here. So far only Ray wants to talk to me about why certain link should be included. And who knows if you can even reply to this and prove anything you say.

Back in January you were vandalising us, and we were asking you to stop. Whatever. Have a nice day. Antandrus (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Is mentioning Occam's Razor a threat?

Admin User:MONGO just threatened to block User:SalvNaut indefinitely for playfully suggesting that User:Tbeatty misuse use of the logical principle Occam's razor may "cut something important."[143] Mongo left a note on SalvNaut's talk page warning against "suggesting bodily harm" and that he will block SalvNaut indefinitely." [144]. Can someone have a word with Mongo about this? He either doesn't understand what Occam's Rasor is or he has seriously lost perspective. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 14:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin Seabhcan was blocked for making a personal attack on an editor just yesterday[145]..so his perspective regarding personal attacks is somewhat askew is seems. Your perception that SalvNaut was being "playful" is a matter of perspective. Tbeatty said that Occum's Razor applies and SalvNaut's full comment about Occam's Razor was [146] " Be careful with razors, you can cut something important." which I see as an implied hope of physical harm. In addition to that, SalvNaut also had to cross out a comment where he called Tbeatty a liar as shown in that diff.--MONGO 14:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, your own block record isn't a pretty sight either, so I'm surprised you raised that issue. Comments which are "a matter of perspective" are not crimes worthy of an indefinite. I suggest you are using your admin powers to bully SalvNaut. You have been in a content dispute with him for quite a while. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 14:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the wrongful block for 3RR which was retracted? Or the block for 15 minutes by now departed Kelly Martin which she even admitted was a poor thing for her to do. I now see you have also decided to call my efforts to keep people from posting comments that suggest bodily harm as "idiotic"...just more food for the record I guess. Perhaps the threat of an infe block is a bit much, but we routinely do block those who make a death threat and I prefer to go firm rather than be passive agressive...I'll rephrase it.--MONGO 15:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Word of advice, Mongo: fallacies work better as attacks than as a defense. (I see a Many Questions and an Ad Hominem here for starters.) — NRen2k5 13:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That comment about being careful with razors is a pun, a play on words. We indefinitely block people for puns these days? --Tango 15:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The "pun" is a matter of perspective...that talk page is always heated, so it's unlikely that editors who always dispute each other there have much concern for one another...also, the threat wasn't about Occams Razor as the heading of this shows, itr was about the comment made by SalvNaut...that is the issue. If you don't know all the facts, then stay out of the argument.--MONGO 15:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, watch it with the fallacious arguments. Ad hominem "If you don't know all the facts, then stay out of the argument." — NRen2k5 13:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you seriously think he was suggesting any kind of violence with that comment? It's a pun. There's no matter of perspective, it's just a simple pun. --Tango 15:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I see no threat in the edit at all. Occam's Razor is the well-known philosophical/scientific principle to prefer the most simple explanation consistent with the facts. I see the suggestion that it might "cut something important" is a witty way to warn against miss-application, not a threat with bodily harm. Occam's Razor cuts crap, not meat. Also, may I suggest that all involved keep WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and in particular WP:COOL in mind? Thanks! --Stephan Schulz 15:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The article talkpage is always heated, so comments where one is incivil suggesting that they are even indirectly suggesting physical harm are at the very leats incivil. SlavNaut also struck out his previous comment to Tbeatty where he had called him a liar. Why don't both or either of you watchlist the talkpage for a few days and as neutral parties, ensure civility is maintained.--MONGO 15:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, I think you should admit that you are an active participant in that talk page discussion and at least partly responsible for some of that `heat'. It is improper to threaten your admin powers to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 15:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, your alteration to this new username you are using is an obvious pun on Osama bin laden. It borders on a WP:POINT violation.--MONGO 15:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me Mongo, it isn't. `al' means `the' and `bin' means `son of'. Its actually a tip of the hat to Ibin Battuta, who I'm read and enjoying at the moment. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 15:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, "If you don't know all the facts, then stay out of the argument" - don't WP:BITE people commenting on the case. As for SalvNaut and saying "it's unlikely that editors who always dispute each other there have much concern for one another" - that sounds like a monumental failure to Assume Good Faith. Most worrying is that you are very far from being a dispassionate observer of the SalvNaut-Tbeaty conversation. You are deeply involved in a long running content dispute against SalvNaut and for Tbeatty. It looks like you are threatening your admin powers in order to win that arguement. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 15:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you mean as in cited here...[147] whrre you protected a page and then edited it?--MONGO 15:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what other people do, and besides, protecting an article to get your version in is considerably better than blocking someone frivolously. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

SeabHcan shouldn't throw stones, is the point. "protecting an article to get your version in is considerably better than blocking someone frivolously"....I'll remember that line when you decide to become an admin...it is not a friviolous block if someone is being repeatedly incivil...as clearly demonstrated...first calling the guy a liar, which he struck out and then in the same edit, added the comment about the razor, which had nothing to do with the argument.--MONGO 15:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, you do know that Occam's Razer isn't an actual razor blade, right? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 15:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, User:Seabhcan's previous record is irrelevant for this dispute. He is just the messenger. As I see it from the history, User:SalvNaut made a point in the discussion and called the opposing view by User:Tbeatty "lies". This was arguably incivil, and Tbeatty called him on it (and made a counter-point, invoking Occam's Razor). SalvNaut then struck out the "lie" part and replaced it with a more neutral phrase. He also took up the Occam's Razor term and warned against blind application. I see no reason for your warning at all. --Stephan Schulz 16:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Mongo has again threatened SalvNaut with a block [148] but seems to have changed his mind about the 'indefinite' part. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 15:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Mongo has now warned User:Tango [149] ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 16:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if Occum's razor were a real razor (and it's clearly not), I cannot possibly comprehend how that statement could be perceived as a threat. I'm sure you've been told at some point in your life not to run with scissors because you might cut yourself. Is that a threat??? No! -- tariqabjotu 16:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a matter of perspective. The perspective is that that talk page is full of heated comments, so under the cuff commentary between two editors in constant dispute that alludes to anything suggesting physical harm is something to take note of. As shown, the previous comment was stuck out.--MONGO 17:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone else with this perspective? Should you really be threatening to block a user you are having a content dispute with in such a debatable case? Wouldn't a polite warning or request for clarification be enough?... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 17:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but then again, this is an issue of civility in which an editor has alluded to personal harm. I may very well be the ONLY one who sees it that way. Thanks for the clarification and of course, no block has been issued or will be, at least, not by me.--MONGO 17:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So you won't be blocking this user? Perhaps you will remove your threat to do so from the users talk page? An apology might also be propper.... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 17:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

wow. SchmuckyTheCat 17:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A silly and somewhat inappropriate pun -- agree that it's something that SalvNaut should remember can be interpreted the wrong way, particularly on the talk pages of contentious topics. But MONGO, the indefinite block warning was a little over the top, don't you think? -- Samir धर्म 01:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry MONGO, I'm just not seeing it. Occam's Razor comes up an awful lot in philosophical discussions and the most common admonitions to someone using it are "watch out, it cuts both ways" and "don't cut something important". It's certainly not a threat of physical harm at all; it's merely an intellectual play on words, with Occam's razor being imagined as a literal razor that is snipping through overly-complex ideas. It's not a "matter of perspective"; you're simply trying to twist the meaning of an innocuous statement to turn it into an actionable threat. I would suggest that, in the future, you don't threaten to use admin actions against people you're involved in content disputes with; if you're so involved you cannot accurately interpret what they're saying, you certainly shouldn't be blocking them for it. Please call in a third-party observer next time. --Cyde Weys 23:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This has been a problem once before when MONGO wanted to have an article call some people "conspiracy theorists", another user reverted that as not being neutral, and MONGO blocked them and threatened to reblock for a week if the user reverted him again. In that case there was not even a thin justification like this 'threat of violence with Occam's razor'... rather a direct statement that he would use his admin position to 'win' the content dispute. While the community largely gave him a pass (incorrectly IMO as that block threat was beyond the pale) there was a general agreement that he should refrain from admin actions/threats for disputes he is involved in. This current incident seems to be very much along the same lines. --CBD 12:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Is mentioning Occam's Razor a threat? (cont.)

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Seabhcan#Moved_from_ANI as suggestion by Tom. Travb (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Page disruption on Juan Cole by User:Commodore Sloat

Hi, I would like someone to look at the recent history of the page and note csloat's continual page disruptions. At the moment, it hasn't got to 3RR, but it's frustrating to deal with an editor who incorrectly thinks his veto trumps the consensus on what is, or isn't to be included, and engages in ad nauseum arguments on talk which will only result in incivility and further frustration. << armon >> 05:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ad nauseum comments on talk are how disagreements are supposed to get resolved. Csloat seems to be making a good faith effort to document the source and reasoning behind their input. At the moment, I see a lot of talking past each other on the talk page; it's a little disruptive on both sides, but there's nothing on first inspection that's a policy violation. This doesn't seem like it needs any ANI involvement. Try harder on the talk page in good faith, please. Georgewilliamherbert 05:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OK well do think this is a good case for mediation? Seriously, the discussion has gone nowhere for months. << armon >> 06:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation is never a bad idea, or maybe an article RfC. I don't disagree that it seems to be a long running nonproductive argument, but there being a long-running nonproductive argument doesn't equal a policy or abuse issue. These are what mediators and article RfCs and such are for. Neither side on first inspection has really abused anything, but figuring out how to perhaps come to an actual understanding with someone else's help might be worthwhile. Georgewilliamherbert 06:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation and/or RfC sounds great to me -- really, I would be happy about any way of bringing other voices into the discussion, which has become dominated by people with an agenda. I don't think it is productive for editors to continue making misleading statements about "disruption" to WP:ANI or throwing around false charges of vandalism. This is a content dispute, not a dispute about violations of Wikipedia rules, and it is not a good idea to pursue content disputes as if they were rules violations. It's also courteous to let someone know you are reporting them (or to warn them beforehand) -- I think the goal should be to encourage disruptive editors to edit more productively rather than to "discipline" them. In any case, it's clear that I have not been disruptive on the page, but I look forward to bringing more voices into the discussion; I certainly agree with Armon that it has become unproductive. csloat 22:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have an opinion on what is and isn't notable, I do not have a nefarious "agenda". csloat (and Will, below) appear to have trouble making that distinction, or understanding that whatever your agenda happens to be, it's not appropriate to edit according to it. IMO if this was a simple content dispute, it should have be "fixable" via reasoned debate, and appeals to the evidence before now. Instead, csloat has engaged in continual edit-wars, attacks the motives of those who don't agree with him, and simply dismisses any attempt find common ground -all the while, demanding everyone else AGF. At some stage, it seems to me, that this needs to be addressed as page disruption. << armon >> 03:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I ever used the word "nefarious" or that I singled you out as the only editor with an agenda. There is no evidence of "disruption" in any of the comments you have cherry-picked out of those discussions. There is evidence only that I have tried to vigorously defend WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. You may see those rules different from me and that is where the content dispute arises. I am welcoming additional editors to the content dispute who don't have a "horse in the race" since I think both of us (and Will and Isarig and Elizmr) have pretty clear opinions on the issue. You are raising charges of "disruption" - which have now been rejected by an admin who looked at the page - in order to prevent one side from participating in the discussion. As I said, the Wikipedia rules are not there to be used as a hammer when you feel you can't support your arguments in a content dispute. Personally, I think it is disruptive to claim "vandalism" when there is none or to post charges to WP:ANI that are invalid on their face. Let's discontinue this nonsense and get back to discussing the article, shall we? csloat 20:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess i've gotten unblocked. Armon thinks the Cole page biography needs to be about Karsh smearng Cole with the protocols of Elders of Zion qote. this has been going on for about a year and a half. the page was protected at one time because of this. Even jimbo wales made an appearance. The matter was resolved by starting a separate page for V&C where the invidious Karsh Elders of Zion quote could reside. Now the V&C page has been done away with. And the Cole detractors want to make the "Protocols" live in spite of WP:BLP. Cole is not an ant-semite or new-anti-semite. However, he is a critic of a greater Israel or denial of the rights of the Palestinians. This puts him squarely in the gunsights of certain people. Juan Cole deserves a fair shake on Wikipedia and fighting for a fair page is not "disruptive." CSloat just happens to be of the Jewish faith. Moreover, he is a university professor. I don't know why he wastes his time reasoning with the seemingly unreasoning. More wikilawering to silence perceived ideological opponents. Sorry, I just have to tell it like I see it. It's called integrity. Will65.184.213.36 22:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Raul654 comments in my e-mail.

This message was in my e-mail when I logged on:

JonMoseley <xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.net> to me

I demand that you TERMINATE Raul654 from any rights or authority at Wikipedia. Raul654 is pushing a left-wing BIASED perspective on the page for Global Warming. There are numerous false statements which I corrected -- backed up by clear citations for each point. I allowed those statements to remain but BALANCED the discussion with CITATIONS to hard facts. And rather than confront the hard citations that I provided, Raul654 HID FROM HIS ATTEMPTS TO LIE in the Wikipedia article by blocking me. He did not identify anything incorrect about the corrections I provided. He did not counter with any other citations to the contrary. He only LIED and said that the matters had been previously discussed on the Talk page. THEY HAD NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED ON THE TALK PAGE. The first mention was today. If Wikipedia is exposed as being a nest of left-wing activists, it will harm the entire enterprise. Trust me when I say I have the news media connections to make the truth clear.

Does anyone know the background to this and is prepared to comment/resolve the issue? I will post a message linking to here to Raul654 as well. (aeropagitica) 14:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There's only one thing that can be said about things like this: oh my god! Not another pov-pusher trying to accuse wikipedia of a left-wing/right-wing/communist/fascist/terrorist-loving/treehugging/appeasing/anti-American/anti-Semitic or any other bias... Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Its a bird, its a plane, its the Cabal! Shell ^babelfish 14:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with User:Aecis, it appears User:JonMoseley has been reverted several times by User:Raul654 et. al. (and a quick look at edit history would suggest User:JackMcGuire is the same editor). Looks like another case of "NPOV = My POV and I have powerful friends if you disagree".--Isotope23 14:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

At least one other admin emailed me to ask why he got this. I wonder how many he sent out? Here's the love note he sent to me:

I have also just realized that you have violated Wikipedia's CHECK USER policy.

I will be contacting Wikipedia's board about this violation of the established policy.

Why don't we use this opportunity to go and vote for my bug so the developers fix it, and we don't have to put up with this nonsense anymore. Raul654 15:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

why do we even discuss this here? People should delete such emails on sight. dab (ᛏ) 16:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Because there's no physical location for Wikipedians to gather after an "interesting" period of interaction here & swap war stories over their favorite beverages. (I've been told Jimbo's been seen in the brew pub down the street from my house, but I doubt he goes there on a regular basis.) --llywrch 07:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• They've been reverted by at least 3 different users. There's no conspiracy here, let alone abuse by Raul. Keep them blocked. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Did he also threaten to SUE YOU IN A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON, NEW JERSEY? --Slowking Man 02:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the fun you get from being the first sysop on the list. ;-) Prodego ^talk 02:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - not able to connect the words "news", "media", "truth" and "clear" without falling off the chair laughing. --Alf ^melmac 11:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you would need an option to block users e-mail ability, isn't easier to just set up a filter to automatically delete mail from the users e-mail address? Anyone willing to use multiple e-mail accounts would be willing to make multiple wikipedia accounts as well, so that advantage is removed. You could, however, block account creation, but would that work on a registered account? If the e-mail block was set to work with the autoblock to circumvent multiple account creation it limits the number of e-mails people blocked as collateral damage can send. Overall, there are more important bugs that need voting for instead. ;-) Prodego ^talk 20:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Strong suspicions that this user is banned user MagicKirin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who also used the now banned account Tannim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Same group of articles - Hugo Chavez - Cindy Sheehan, Hezbollah - picking up where the previous account was banned. Same arguments. Same litany of poor edits reverted immediately by numerous editors. Same pattern of being oblivious to the fact that his use of a new sockpuppet is transparent.--Zleitzen 01:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You could request a checkuser check. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I no longer watch the Chávez articles, as they are a POV wasteland and consensual good faith editing doesn't look like a near-term possibility; so I have no sense of whether Preform might be a sockpuppet. Seeing this here, I went over to check Preform's edits on Hugo Chávez, and didn't see a problem with either of them. This edit is completely defensible, and this edit could be adequately sourced in five seconds if someone who disagrees with the source given took the time - the laws passed are well-documented and well known. I don't intend to defend the edits of a possible sockpuppet, but something really needs to be done about the entrenched POV-pushing throughout the Chávez articles. Sandy (Talk) 17:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

New users

For your blocking pleasure. - 152.91.9.144 04:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• 04:16, 28 November Jimboiswales created new account User:Wikidiot (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• 04:15, 28 November Jimboiswales created new account Jimboisstupid (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
• 04:15, 28 November Jimboiswales (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) (New user account)

Offensive username

• Imakillu100 (talk * contribs * logs * block user * block log)

The header says it all ;) Yuser31415^@? 04:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

While we're sniffing the creation log... - 152.91.9.144

• Bite my balls (talk * contribs * logs * block user * block log)
• Usucku (talk * contribs * logs * block user * block log)

... And User:Stupidshandranicole :) Yuser31415^@? 04:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

All blocked. Usernames this obviously bad can usually go to WP:AIV. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Block of sockpuppets Defender99 and Skinny McGee

User:Defender99 and User:Skinny McGee are the same. User also appears to have created sleeper socks User:Hypotenuse and User:Party Gal. All of the rest are inconclusive. Report: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Skinny_McGee.

Requesting block for sockpuppetry and also for disrupting another check into older socks for same user [150]. User has been removing SSP templates while evidence page was in progress of being made. [151]. Peacekpr 05:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all User:Defender99 was not involved in any violation, the user made only one edit. Second, User:Skinny McGee explains that User:Defender99 is her huband. [152] Third, User:Peacekpr has been harassing User:Skinny McGee by posting countless investigations. User:Peacekpr's second edit was a request for an investigation into Skinny. [153] User:Peacekpr has since then created the following investigations into Skinny: [154] [155] [156] [157] [158]. I highly suspect User:Peacekpr is someone's sockpuppet. Dionyseus 05:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the history for Defender99 and Skinny McGee and IP avoiding 3RR (by a hair):

• 17:06, 2 November 2006 Skinny McGee (Reverting again to previously agreed upon version)
• 19:18, 1 November 2006 Skinny McGee (Reverting again.)
• 15:00, 1 November 2006 Defender99 (Added Origins Award and link to site)
• 04:01, 1 November 2006 67.140.91.34 (Reverting changes)
• 02:10, 1 November 2006 67.140.91.34 (Whoops - just realized reverted version was incorrect, too. Sorry!)
• 02:00, 1 November 2006 Skinny McGee (Reverting changes ...)

Since you did a check on me already, adding my name to your GuardianZ list, and found me to NOT be a sock [159], please stop STALKING me. I only posted one investigation into Skinny McGee (1 for socks and 1 for ckuser), which already turned out to be trued. I then realized it had been going on far longer and wanted to recheck, just to be sure to check everyone. I am only trying to be fair. You continually hounded the editors on the opposing side and now you are hounding EVERY post I make, whether it be a report or a simple suggestion about archiving, or to check out all the users. This is my process before I can make a fair assessment of all the sides in a dispute—I need to know who and how many I am dealing with. If you choose to hinder the process, it won't help matters. Firm request for block. Because Skinny McGee has been socking, he should be punished with a ban of his sockpuppets and at least a 3 day block for himself. Same punishment was afforded to GuardianZ per Dionyseus' requests/checks. Let it be the same for Skinny McGee. Fair is fair. Peacekpr 11:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never hidden behind sockpuppets. When I first started editing, I just used my IP address. When I realized that was frowned upon, I created my user name and have been editing under that ever since (except when I occassionally think I'm signed in, but am not - but I've gotten much better at that lately). As Dionyseus mentioned, I have already explained that Defender99 is my husband, and he only made one very non-controversial edit to the article (which Peacekpr chooses to reference here). Oroboros 1/GuardianZ were continually inserting promotional material for Joseph Vargo and were linking to sites created by Joseph Vargo that are defamatory to the band, and to articles in which Joseph Vargo defames the band (Oroboros 1 is a confirmed sockpuppet of GuardianZ and has been banned infinitely - the two of them would actually "talk" to each other and even appear to disagree). I did not want to let that stand, so I felt I had no choice but to revert. I have never tried to hide what I was doing. I was just trying to protect the integrity of the article the only way I knew how to protect it. Also, I find it very suspicious that GuardianZ, who was so vehemently fighting over the article, would just disappear after her block for sockpuppetry and be replaced by Peacekpr who has done nothing but attack me. - Skinny McGee 16:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but from the outside looking in, this appears to be a content dispute that has boiled over a bit. I don't see any real evidence of sockpuppetry on the part of Skinny McGee in regards to Defender99 as there is exactly 1 edit by Defender99 who Skinny McGee contends is her husband. There is an active sockpuppet investigation request here and any action should pend on this. I do find it a bit curious though that the editor bringing this up had his/her first edit as an extensive "fact finding". As much as Skinny McGee is a single purpose account for editing Midnight Syndicate, User:Peacekpr seems to be a SPA for investigating editors who contributed to that article. The article is locked right now anyway, so I recommend all parties be WP:COOL wait for the outcome of the sock investigation, and remember... you are fighting over an article on a band that doesn't even meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines.--Isotope23 17:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Angry Bahraini yet again

This time he's reverting edits from User:84.255.150.210. Please block and roll-back this IP too. Zora 09:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now from User:89.148.40.19. Please block and roll back. Also would be a good idea to semi-protect Nasibi. He dislikes that article for some reason. He would seem to be Shi'a, but I can't see what would offend a Shi'a in the article. Zora 10:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for sending you around from one place to the other like this, but I still think given the frequency of the complaints, it had better be taken to WP:AIV then here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted a complaint there and it was removed, on the grounds that I hadn't gone through all the prescribed warning steps and that there was no evidence that these were not legit edits. IF you consider the various anonIPs used as separate users, then perhaps this stance by the AIV folks makes sense. When it's clearly one person cycling through many IPs, it doesn't. Thanks much for the blocks and rollbacks. Zora 11:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, that was evidently someone who didn't know the whole story. The guy can be considered warned often enough, because he's been blocked so often before and he knows why. When you report on AIV, perhaps just give a link to this discussion here? I've actually had such situations several times when we had to use AIV for serial block evaders. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Single purpose account?

I came across Principal Schoolswatter (talk · contribs) in AFD. Appears to be nominating school articles alone. Based on his name, can he be banned, or am I being oversensitive? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say his contributions are in good faith. He did flag Banyan Elementary School (Rancho Cucamonga, California) as copyvio but without realising there was good text in the history, which is an easy mistake for copyvio-fighters to make. Kimchi.sg 10:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think they're both in good faith and a single purpose account. However, editors are encouraged to merge rather than delete non-notable schools (into a district, or city/town/locality article). I am going to leave them a note. Georgewilliamherbert 19:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

I've only come across this when updating Portal:Current events/Sidebar, but this user appears to be a load to deal with. Might need admin watching - a quick scan of his contribs suggests WP:OWN violations by leaving articles tagged {{underconstruction}} even after he's no longer editing the page, and there seem to have been a lot of potentially unilateral, undiscussed moves (perhaps against consensus) in his past 150-200 edits.

Only spotted him because I removed a stub unencyclopedic entry from the current events list; I see that that stub is up for deletion and apparently this user has already violated WP:POINT by blanking the AFD notice and adding speedy tags to the deletion debate.

Worth keeping an eye on, as he's also seemed to have resorted to incivility and personal attacks (and his talk page suggests a history of such, too). – Chacor 11:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

He has appeared on my DRADIS several times now.. He's also been making unilateral moves etcetera; He has also created pages, they've been deleted, he recreates them, there deleted, he recreates them under a new name (Season 3, episode 7 (Lost)) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Final warning issued. Proto::type 11:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, the unilateral moves from Episode (Lost) to Episode (Lost episode) has created all kinds of inconsistancies as in some cases people reverted back to the original namespace. Nothing like undiscussed moves to throw a wrench in things.--Isotope23 17:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Requesting rollback

If I'm in the wrong place, please redirect me. There is a user who has spent a night replacing [[GNU/Linux]] with [[Linux|GNU/Linux]] in around 75 articles. There was no reason for this, and IIRC it violates WP policy. Maybe they misunderstood what disambiguation is, or maybe they think this is a useful thing to do, or maybe it is part of building support for/against a rename the article with the controversial name "Linux", or maybe it is part of a two-step plan to replace the name "GNU/Linux" with "Linux" (first "dab" the link, later "dab" the text). Here's the user's contributions: Special:Contributions/Dylan_Lake. Gronky 12:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's common practice to disambiguate links when they point to a disambiguation. This is nothing to be concerned over, as it was obviously a good faith effort to help out 0 see WP:DISAMBIG (and I currently see no problems with it). If you have a real problem with the changes, feel free to revert them yourself, but it would be helpful to explain why you're reverting back (sorry, but I'm still unclear), and to leave a reason on the user's talk page. I also might like to remind you of WP:AGF, an official Wikipedia policy. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I should have made clear: the user is not disambiguating anything. "GNU/Linux" does not point to a disambiguation page, it is a redirect to "Linux". Gronky 13:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

At this moment, it isn't, it's been a dab since the latest revert on 10 November. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh. My apologies for not checking that. Gronky 13:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Gronky, can you please explain what the problem is here? It looks to me like he is changing the link from GNU/Linux which is a disambig page, to the actual article on "Linux (also known as GNU/Linux)" located at Linux. Usually when a link leads to a diambiguation page, we try to diambig the link and direct it straight to the precise article. I don't understand what the problem is. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I can see now is that the dab page at GNU/Linux has apparently been rather controversial, forever switching between being a redirect to Linux and being a dab page. As long as it was a redirect, the rules at WP:Redirects#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken would apply, but given the instability of the target, I agree it's highly preferable to have all links go directly to the stable real article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Fut.Perf., that is that policy I was thinking of. And thanks to all three for the quick responses. However, the controversy you've seen is not the one I was talking about (and is quite small and irrelevant). There is a large debate ongoing over whether GNU/Linux should be a redirect to Linux, or should it be that Linux is a redirect to GNU/Linux, or should they be two seperate articles. For this reason, that users' actions fit the above policy due to the effects on possible future articles. Should I now go to those 75 articles and express my preference by doing the same replace? Surely the policy exists exactly to prevent silly situations like that. The current note of encouragement on his/her userpage doesn't seem to lead to a productive or even neutral outcome. Gronky 13:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to do anything. As long as the articles which were edited are actually meant to link to an article that describe the operating system, the links are fine now. Even if it should later be decided that the Linux page should be moved, to GNU/Linux or wherever else, all will still be fine. As long as Linux itself doesn't become a dab page... Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

<after ec>I still can't see any reason to do a mass revert of those changes. With regard to Wikipedia:Redirect, it's a guideline, not a policy. And it doesn't say that once those changes have been made, they should be mass reverted. I think it would be better to talk to the editor who made the changes and try to resolve the issues that Fut mentioned above. Edit warring over it is not the way to go. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will talk with the user and/or re-evaluate now that I see I was mistaken about GNU/Linux currently being a redirect instead of a dab. Thank you each for your comments and advice. Gronky 13:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft Game Studios and User:Alex Stanek 9999

Hola admins et al,

there seems to be some sony-spam on Microsoft Game Studios. He (User:Alex Stanek 9999) seems to have been warned before (I looked at his talk page). PER9000 13:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Page blankings and vandalism have been reverted and user warned. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to Osmosis

Several new users (or one user creating sockpuppets) are vandalizing Osmosis. Could we please get it semi-protected? Thanks! (Sorry if I'm in the wrong place, this is my first protection request) Nwwaew(My talk page) 14:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Raasnoerd

This user posts this massage on my talk page. I don't know who he is and have never seen him before. After I removed his accusations of vandalism from my talk page, he proceed to restore them. Now I see he desrupts user and user talk pages on a seemingly random basis. Please roll back his contributions. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Issued a 24 hour block (someone already blatantvandal'd him, he passed it). Some of his early edits look reasonable, up until today with Clock Looking-At and the vandalism. If he keeps it up, just report him to WP:AIV. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Multiple IP vandalism to Electricity

Could we please get Electricity semi-protected? Several IP addresses are vandalizing it. Nwwaew(My talk page) 15:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests like this go to WP:RFPP. Kimchi.sg 15:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

All the vandalism came from 168.184.*.*. Kimchi.sg 15:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked 168.184.0.0/16 for 3 hours - this is a school IP range belonging to Orange County Public Schools. Kimchi.sg 16:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I just rolled back edits by user:70.119.201.37. Michael Hardy 20:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Still no cause for alarm; IP seems to have stopped after test1 was given. Kimchi.sg 21:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cute 1 4 u, abusive sockpuppet

As established by checkuser, Cute 1 4 u (talk · contribs) has just been caught creating yet another sockpuppet (Jibbs fan (talk · contribs)) to get around the ban placed on the account. Apart from blatantly violating the ban, this new account was once again involved in copyright violations and in personal threats. I have rolled back all identifiable contributions that I could find as per WP:DENY. However, given that this is approximately the 11th sockpuppet created for this long-term abuser, it is clear that Cute 1 4 u will create a new account before the end of the week and resume the abusive behaviour. What additional steps can we take to enforce the ban on this user? The user edits from a series of dynamic IPs in the Chicago area which makes an IP block unreasonable. However, I am sick to death of dealing with this long-term vandal and it is taking us weeks, not days, to track down each new account. --Yamla 15:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you just need to watch Chris Brown (singer) as that's her favorite artist or something. I'm pretty sure there have been edits from all of them to that page.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 18:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what wikipedia's policy is on filing complaints with ISPs, but it would be something to consider in the case of longterm vandals.--Crossmr 18:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know it's ok in cases like this. ---J.S (t|c) 19:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

How do we go about getting this done? --Yamla 19:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The Return of Sturm (talk · contribs) moving pages from Natalinasmpf (talk · contribs)

User has admitted to not being Natalinasmpf (talk · contribs) [160]. Could an admin look into this and undo the page moves if appropriate. Thanks. --BostonMA ^talk 17:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Pages have been restored and user blocked, thanks to Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh (talk · contribs) --BostonMA ^talk 17:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Ccc-media requested he be blocked

Ccc-media has requested that I block him on my talkpage here. Since I can't (non-admin and all), I'm passing it on to you. I thought he was blocked previously, but I guess not. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 18:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for username. Kimchi.sg 18:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Approximately 295 redirects "broken" by user

While the guidelines on redirects specify that in order for template tags to work correctly, they should be "one space after and on the same line as #REDIRECT," User:ShakespeareFan00 has gone through and changed [161] approximately 295 redirects in {{R_with_possibilities}} so that the template tag is on a different line. Given the timestamps on the changes, my guess is they are being performed via a mass change tool like AWB. I left a message on the user's talk page about the proper syntax for redirects, however would it be possible for an admin to rollback the changes so all these broken redirects do not have be fixed by hand? --Kralizec! (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they have to be on the same line. Currently, they work, but that's undefined behavior subject to change in MediaWiki, so that isn't really an excuse. Working on it. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Block enforcement requested

64.107.2.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked earlier for 3RR and civility violations. Now back as 64.107.3.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as shown by this edit. Can an admin block please? Thanks! Demiurge 22:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Done: I blocked that IP, but there will be hundreds more. Please see the thread higher up on this page Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#64.107.1.251.2C_etc. -- this is a much larger problem than meets the eye; I see a lot of editors who are individually colliding with this person, not seeing the bigger picture. Antandrus (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh wow, I had no idea what I was getting into. Demiurge 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)