Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive132#HehEXE

User:Netsnipe noticed suspicious activity and suggested I report it here. From my talk page: "Just a warning that a vandal might be wikistalking you. Your request to Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse has now been removed twice without explanation by User:IdlP (talk • contribs) and User:Rm104 (talk • contribs)." Followed by: "Even this message was deleted by User:QFMC (talk • contribs)." At Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse I had posted a request for advice along with a link to this page: User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. The only other activity by User:IdlP was to a featured list candidate where I voted on 21 August. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/IdlP] Another new account User:CF18000 deleted posts of mine from two different project talk pages on 21 August. Please investigate. Durova 14:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm on it. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

::Someone else got there first. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

:::What was the upshot? ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Any news? Durova 16:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been two days now. Could I please have some sort of response or update? At least the username of the investigating administrator? Durova 14:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:I may have mistakenly assumed that Netsnipe was on the case [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIdlP&diff=72161373&oldid=72160932] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARm104&diff=72161377&oldid=72159271] was watching these users. I also erred in thinking Netsnipe was an admin. However, none of the three users have been active since 27 August, which was when Netsnipe issued his note of advice to Durova [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADurova&diff=72162011&oldid=72087032] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADurova&diff=72186713&oldid=72183495 advised a checkuser]. The users have been warned for their transgressions. There is no rationale for action if things remain calm - maybe someone can give a second opinion on whether a checkuser is still advisable. Otherwise, let us know if any other new users in your neighbourhood become disruptive. If this is a case of someone playing games, they're likely to try to change their cloak regularly. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::BTW: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson. You should have really mentioned this. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Excuse me for the lapse. I've never been involved in anything like this before and didn't know I ought to report that here. Durova 13:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I wish to file a complaint against InShaneee for abusing his administrative authority. Under the guise of removing "personal attacks," InShanee has deleted comments he disagrees with which are not at all personal attacks. For example, one of the edits he deleted was my argument in support of another administrator, Bishonen: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina&diff=72422225&oldid=72334586]

He also removed another section further down that is critical of one of the goals of the Wikiproject Paranormal - the Wikiproject that he appears to run. My comments are directed against the sources that some Wikiproject Paranormal members insist on using for the Natasha Demkina article. Apparently, he's taking this criticism personally and is calling it a "personal attack" so that he can remove it under his authority as an administrator (and threaten me with a block if I revert it - see additional comment below).

Another editor and an administrator has joined in my objection to InShanee's actions: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina&action=history]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InShaneee&action=edit§ion=37] I hope other editors and administrators will also tell him that he should not abuse his administrative authority and that censorship is not a practice welcomed in Wikipedia. If his abuse of authority continues, that authority should be rescinded. Askolnick 20:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't see where you're saying he used the admin tools in doing any of this. Well, unless rollback counts, but that's just a shortcut for something anyone can do. Friday (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::This is about an admin who removes legitimate arguments/comments and labels the comments as a "personal attack" in order to censor this user. If this user reverts this admin's edits, I'm quite certain he will be blocked by this admin. This is unacceptable behavior for an admin, and I have seen so many complaints against Inshaneee that a desysop should be considered.

:Complaints of abuse are normally signs that an admin is doing his job right, but yeah, I can't see how it constitutes as a personal attack, but it wasn't an administrative action; as Friday said, rollback is just a shortcut. Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 20:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::Rollback is only supposed to be used in the case of vandalism; let's get that straight right out of the gate. That particular edit probably should have been trimmed by hand, and by preference commented on rather than excised. -- nae'blis 21:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:::There is some consensus on that, but it is not universal, and it is not policy. Generally though, the arbcom does frown upon it. Still, it is not as cut-and-dried as you state. FeloniousMonk 22:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::Let me get this straight, two administrators, User:Friday and User:Sceptre, are unaware of the fact that rollback is an admin-only feature that is supposed to be used only in cases of obvious vandalism? Dionyseus 21:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::::I'm aware that people frequently say that about it, yes. Friday (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Where is that supposition documented? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Make that three administrators. Rollback is supposed to be used only in the case of vandalism. Dionyseus 22:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::Which is neither policy nor even a guideline. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::The link you reference above says this:"If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, be sure to leave an explanation...". DJ Clayworth 22:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::It's also stated here: Do not use one-click rollback on edits that are not simple vandalism; please use manual rollback with an appropriate edit summary. Mike Christie (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::Nor is that policy or guideline, but an essay. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::What the hell? That's not an essay. Where's the {{tl|essay}} tag? It's a list of facts, just like Wikipedia:Editing is. Is that now an essay as well? Also, if that's enough, I point to the MarkSweep, Gunaco arbitration case, a rollback revert war that led to Gunaco's desysopping, with MarkSweep "strongly cautioned to use the administrator's rollback tool only when reverting vandalism." Hbdragon88 22:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Is it labeled guideline? Is it labeled policy? Did the arbcom say that their caution applied to all admins or was it specific to one in one particular case? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::I believe it's a matter of community consensus, therefore your insistence on a formally stated "policy" is a bit misguided. As for Arbcom's take on the issue, it seem pretty clear, it's been stated in numerous arbcom cases. ([http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=%22Administrative+rollback%22+%22Requests+for+arbitration%22+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org&meta=]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::As is clear from this page, no such consensus exists. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::The policy that matters here, IMO, is WP:CIVIL; reverting non-vandalism edits with rollback is potentially uncivil since you are not explaining yourself. (Personal opinion; no AC consensus implied) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Is naything from the RFAR ever labeled as strict, by the rules, policy? (besides user punishments and probation). You just have to infer. Obviously the rampant misuse of the rollback, especially in a revert war, was strong enough that the ArbCom had to say something about it. And in this case, they said only vandalism. I think that applies to all admins, but if you disagree, Ic ould ask the ArbCom for clarification. Hbdragon88 23:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Dionyseus, the edit summary of the second and third reverts clearly mention disruption. Instead of using the typical anti-admin one liners, "counting who disagrees", and using strawman arguments, why not talk about how those edits where disruptive. Disruptive flaming/vandalism can clearly be reverted. That is why the admin reverted. The actual item in dispute here is whether those edits were really "disruption", which I currently do not agree with the reverting admin on.Voice-of-All 22:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I left out the part about his threats to block me if I reverted his changes - or made any similar comments like those again. That's abuse of administrative power. IhShaneee appears to believe that he can use his blocking power to stiffle arguments he dislikes. Askolnick 21:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'd have to agree with Bishonen. I don't see anything here obviously crappy enough to use rollback on, unless there is something I missed.Voice-of-All 21:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:Furthermore, it appears that User:InShaneee is placing unwarranted blocking threats on Askolnick's talk page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAskolnick&diff=71472290&oldid=71440833] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAskolnick&diff=72453532&oldid=72422467] Dionyseus 21:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::Comment of an outsider: InShaneee left a warning for "No Personal Attacks" and threatening a block, pretty much immediately before this note was left of AN/I. Askolnick is not helping the situation by pretty much continuuing a verbal assualt on InShaneee on Askolnick's own talk page. While InShaneee is focusing also on other things (Unblock declining, I noticed), Askolnick is still focusing on the conflict (Hence this discussion). I have the odd feeling that this inter-editor conflict is just going to escalate if both editors remain "Unrestrained".

::The first dif I see is sort of unwarranted, since removing even completely idiotic things (Like bots reverting past your revert of vandalism giving YOU a warning) from talk pages is met with (6.5 times out of 10) with a warning on not removing comments or blanking.

::This has obviously escalated too fast and too far. Both editors likely fall under Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruption of this Wiki. It needs to be made clear that catfights shouldn't be tolerated. Logical2u 22:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

While Inshaneee was justified in removing some of the many Pravda.ru links (really, you could have made your point with much more brevity, or created a subpage in userspace to link to), the majority of Inshaneee's rollback was inappropriate, and the blocking threats seem questionable. While rollback can occasionally be used for edits that are not vandalism (occasionally WP:IAR does apply)), in this case it was clearly an inappropriate use of rollback. Furthermore, it seems disingenuous to describe the edits in question as personal attacks, unless Natasha or her representative has edited Wikipedia. While Askolnick needs to be cautioned to calm down and focus criticism on actions, not people, I think a formal review of the actions here is warranted. Captainktainer * Talk 22:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I've at times both admired and found reason to criticize in InShaneee's firmness in enforcing his view of the NPA rule. In this instance, my impression is he's overstepped a line, both in the initial revert and in the way his subsequent warnings and counterwarnings have escalated the situation. I'd say an RfC might be in order. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My involvement with the Demkina article has been off and on for several months (it began with my admittedly bungled first attempt at a MedCab mediation). I have found that Mr. Skolnick quite often steps over the line of civility in his discussion contributions and edit summaries, and has been repeatedly guilty of personally [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina&diff=next&oldid=46973469 attacking] and/or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina&diff=next&oldid=61630475 insulting] fellow editors, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina&diff=prev&oldid=71163439 taunting], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rohirok&diff=prev&oldid=61641226 harrassing] editors on their user talk pages, and making [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natasha_Demkina&diff=66085391&oldid=66085099 assumptions of bad faith]. This is just a sample of some of the violations of WP:CIV and/or WP:NPA with which I and other editors (primarily Keith Tyler and Dreadlocke) have had to contend in our attempts to work with Mr. Skolnick to improve the article. I have only recently taken a step to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Askolnick&diff=prev&oldid=71440833 officially warn Mr. Skolnick against making personal attacks], in my limited capacity as an editor.

I do not believe InShaneee's reverts are entirely without justification, as Mr. Skolnick is implying [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina&diff=next&oldid=72453143 here] that Dreadlocke and InShaneee are aligning themselves with "pseudoscientists, psychics, quacks, and other New Age charlatans," and is also implying that they are acting in bad faith. If I recall correctly, reversion of personal attacks is an option for dealing with them, though a controversial one. I don't think this edit rises to the level where reversion is necessary, but I can see why InShaneee would see this as a personal attack and would revert it. I do agree that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANatasha_Demkina&diff=72422225&oldid=72334586 this reversion] was not justified. Skolnick is attacking Demkina's mother's credibility, but not another editor. I have no opinion on the specific method InShaneee used to revert ("rollback," the existence of which I am only newly aware).

Though I do not necessarily agree with InShaneee's recent reversions, I do believe that s/he has acted in good faith, and that, given Skolnick's long history of personal attacks and incivility, a warning from an administrator is long overdue, and will perhaps be heeded where mere editors' warnings have not. At worst, I think InShaneee's warnings were the right action at the wrong time. Rohirok 04:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:Rohirok, you are ignoring the fact that InShaneee repeatedly threatened to block me if I reverted his improper deletion of my comments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Askolnick&action=edit§ion=32] That is an abuse of his administrative authority. Administrators are not allowed to use their blocking power to threaten and intimidate editors who they disagree with. Not a single editor or administrator has supported InShaneee's claim that he removed a "personal attack." The speech he removed was speech he objects to. He then threatened to block me if I put it back. That clearly an abuse of the authority granted to him by the Wiki community. In light of the comments from other editors and administrators who say the speech he removed was not a personal attack, he has modified his reason for removing it (and threatening to block me if I restored it). He now says he removed "disrepectful" speech.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Askolnick&action=edit§ion=32] I believe InShaneee is further abusing his administrative powers when he stretches those powers to include blocking editors for speech he finds "disrespectful."

:Nearly a century ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wisely observed that the best remedy for improper speech is more speech, not censorship. Wiki administrators should uphold that philosophy. Those who don't should not be a Wiki administrator. Askolnick 16:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:I just noticed that Rohirok has misrepresented my complaint by using a link to only part of the material InShaneee deleted, under the guise that it was a personal attack. Here is the one of my statements InShanee deleted and threatened to block me if I restored it:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina&diff=72422225&oldid=72334586]

:::Bishonen is on solid ground in her objection to including Natasha's mother's claims that contradict the widely held views of child psychologists and pediatricians. She is also correct about Wikipedia guidelines that warn against including such dubious information without compelling support: "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" and among those are "claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community."[71]

:::In opposition to the prevailing view of the relevant academic community of child psychologists and pediatricians, we have the claims of Natasha's mother - who has already received great profit through the promotion of her daughter as a miracle worker - and who made the clearly false statement her daughter has never ever made a false diagnosis, even though the record shows many of Demkina's diagnoses are false.

:::Clearly, Demkina's mother has publicly spoken falsely about her daughter's abilities. And her motive for doing so is not just a mother's pride. She and her daughter have already enjoyed great income from Demkina's readings (earning up to 40 times the average government worker's income in Saransk, with her part-time, after-school "job." [72] And she and Demkina stand to reap even greater wealth by convincing people that her daughter's diagnoses are 100 percent correct. Such exceptional, self-serving, and profiteering claims do not constitute exceptional evidence. They are far more consistant with the trumpeting of a quack. Wikipedia is not a medium to be used by quacks to promote themselves. That is why Wikipedia has guidelines concerning reputable sources - such as the one that directs editors to ignore exceptional claims that contradict prevailing views of the relevant academic community in the absence of exceptional evidence. Bishonen is absolutely right. Such self-serving and highly dubious claims do not belong in Wikipedia without compelling support from reputable sources.

:I added this comment in support of administrator Bishonen's statement. Disagreeing with it, InShanee falsely called it a personal attack and deleted it. I challenge Rohirok or InShaneee to explain here how that text in any way may be forcefully removed under Wiki's No Personal Attack rule. Askolnick 17:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::I struck out the incorrect statements above and I apologize to Rohirok. He brought to my attention that he had indeed mentioned the deletion of this part and that he agreed it was inappropriately removed by InShaneee. It was in a second link that I overlooked. Sorry Rohirok and thanks for bringing this to my attention. Askolnick 03:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Another thing I think is unacceptable for a Wiki administrator is to use his authority in a biased manner. Under the pretense that he was removing a personal attack, InShaneee deleted my criticism of the Wikiproject Paranormal, which he appears to be running. Yet, he is allowing one member there to repeatedly post incenderary personal attacks against editors skeptical of paranormal claims, such as these:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiproject_Paranormal]

:*"Are the psuedo-Christians up to censorship, again? Andrew Homer 01:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)"

:*"In your first day in Cultural Antropology class, your professor will inform you about oral traditions. Andrew Homer 10:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)"

:And on the Wikiproject page itself:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Paranormal]

:*"The under informed are doing their censorship and harrassment, again (as they continually do in the Astrology article). So, that's why I'm replacing valid material that the psuedo-Christians and the psuedo-academics keep deleting:"

:At the risk of sounding like a "pseudo-Christian," InShaneee should remove the log from his own eye before poking his finger in the eyes of others. Leaving his fellow Wikiproject member's personal attacks alone, InShaneee removed my criticism of the Wikiproject and threatened to block me if I restored what he wrongly called a "personal attack." This is biased and inappropriate conduct, which should not be tolerated in any Wiki administrator. Askolnick 18:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank InShanee for taking action against User:Askolnick who is an abusive, harassing and threatening editor that engages in a constant stream of personal attacks, uncivil and disruptive behavior. Askolnick has used the Pravda.RU debate as a weapon to attack and harass other editors on their own talk pages, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KeithTyler&diff=61582023&oldid=61388909], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rohirok&diff=61641226&oldid=61496863] repeating the attack on Rohirok on Askolnick’s own talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Askolnick&diff=61967651&oldid=61696478] and on the Natasha Demkina discussion page.

Askolnick has repeatedly posted reams of headlines and attack material against the use of the tabloid, completely unnecessary when his point was made in the first such posting – much less the fifth, six, or tenth postings of repetitive material – purely disruptive behavior, meant only to harass [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina&diff=71181254&oldid=71167340] his opponents: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina&diff=61361402&oldid=61316444], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina&diff=61490809&oldid=61486852], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina&diff=70370172&oldid=70360588], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina&diff=72334586&oldid=71809665], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina&diff=61419940&oldid=61416459] (there are more).

Instead of any RfC on InShanee, who acted in good faith and with just cause in his warnings to Askolnick, we should have a user conduct RfC on Askolnick, who has long engaged in personal attacks on other editors, even after friend and foe alike have warned him against this type of behavior. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Askolnick&diff=45105838&oldid=43005401], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Askolnick#Cool_down], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Askolnick#Warning:_please_do_not_make_any_more_personal_attacks], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Askolnick#Meatpuppet_solicitation.2C_personal_attacks], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Askolnick#Please_do_not_make_personal_attacks].

He attacked and insulted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina&diff=46987444&oldid=46973469] a new Wikipedia editor, Brian Josephson, a Nobel laureate and distinguished scientist who has his own Wikipedia article: Brian Josephson.

Askolnick has engaged in a continual stream of personal attacks, commenting on the contributors and not the content, apparently in an attempt to discredit and marginalize those that disagree with him:

Here is just a small sample of Askolnick's personal attacks, there are many more: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina&diff=48014927&oldid=47982359], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina&diff=61361402&oldid=61316444],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina&diff=61392040&oldid=61363138], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina&diff=61419940&oldid=61416459], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina&diff=60329588&oldid=60328787],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina&diff=46987444&oldid=46973469]

He has unapologetically pushed forward with his attacks, apparently viewing himself as some type of crusader whose job it is to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Askolnick&diff=42645447&oldid=42547450 “drive stakes”] into the hearts of his opponents. Not very Wikipedia-like behavior.

Thank you InShanee for recognizing and taking action on the abusive editing by Askolnick. More needs to be done to stop the abuse by Askolnick. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::Rather than explaining to us why he thinks InShaneee's deletions were proper and not censorship, or why InShaneee's threats to block me if I restored what was wrongly deleted is NOT an abuse of InShaneee's administrative authority, Dreadlocke has launched a long string of personal attacks, none of which is relevant to the complaint against InShaneee. If all of Dreadlocke's accusations and insults were true and I were the spawn of Satan, it still would not justify InShaneee's act of censorship and abuse of his administrative authorities. Apparently Dreadlocke believes a bad offense is more effective than a good defense. Askolnick 03:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:One question, and correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t Askolnick’s posts above [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=72640134&oldid=72637858] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina&diff=71809099&oldid=71480326] attacking Natasha’s mother violate WP:BLP as potentially defamatory material against a living person, or at least lack the sensitivity that Jimbo talks about, making it a comment that should be removed according to WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_negative_material? Dreadlocke ☥ 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::No. Bishonen | talk 23:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC).

::Consider yourself corrected. Askolnick 03:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Having spent a lot of time today reviewing the history of all this, I totally understand why Askolnick may feel frustrated at the tactics of some editors who have attempted to "take every point", as lawyers put it, however lacking in merit - i.e., require him to prove every little thing that should not even be controversial. On the other hand, he does seem to find it difficult to avoid attacking the good faith of opponents. There is obviously some off-wiki baggage here, but we do expect editors to leave such baggage behind, at least in what they say (we can't try to control what they merely think).

:::As for the specific material deleted by User:InShaneee, I think most of the material was acceptable, but a small amount of it consisted of unnecessary speculation about the dishonest motives of other editors. I think InShaneee was right to insist that that component of the material remain deleted, but not to insist that all the material remain deleted. To that extent, InShanee overstepped the bounds, IMHO, but not in a way that shows bad faith or requires some sort of investigation.

:::If my view prevailed, I would allow Askolnick to restore the material in a form that does not cast aspersions on the motives of anyone here. In particular, it should not contain claims to the effect that editors have dishonest ulterior motives in wanting to use particular low-repute publications as sources. It is sufficient to attack the repute of the publications themselves without speculating about the motives of other editors. If the material is restored in that modified form, which probably requires the deletion of only a small number of sentences and phrases, I would, with all respect to InShanee, be opposed to any block and be minded to undo it (but not without due discussion etc.; I'm not into wheel-warring).

:::I also respectfully suggest to Askolnick that he should, in future, continue to argue his position in a robust way, but without straying into incivility or personal attacks by speculating about other editors' seemingly (to him) dishonest motives. I'm sure that most of his arguments could be put forcefully and persuasively without that current running through them, however much he may feel tempted to include it. In fact, that current really seems to detract from the force of the arguments, by tending to put the focus on personalities. It also makes it difficult for administrators who might have some sympathy for the position that Askolnick finds himself in, but who are also under an obligation to keep order and stop debates from getting personal.

:::I welcome any views on the above comments. Metamagician3000 10:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

{{vandal|Cretanpride}} has been POV-pushing at {{article|Homosexuality in ancient Greece}} and related pages for a while now, including a bad-faith AfD, and the use of several sockpuppets.

I became involved in the matter on August 24 when I noticed a 3RR violation, and I subsequently tried to address the user's concerns in the article and on its talk page. (I think I had edited the page once or twice before in a fairly insignificant way.) I ended up contributing a fairly major rewrite/expansion of the article yesterday, because although I believe Cretanpride's position was academically unsupported, the article provided insufficient context and might be misread by someone with an insufficient understanding of the subject.

Cretanpride's most recent sockpuppet account is {{vandal|Ellinas}} (confirmed by checkuser). As Ellinas, Cretanpride presented himself as a less extreme advocate of the positions he had previously advocated more rabidly; I don't think that the Ellinas account actually vandalized or violated any Wikipedia policies except the WP:SOCK. {{admin|Aldux}} blocked Cretanpride for 48 hours after Ellinas was confirmed as a sockpuppet. I'd appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could take a look at this situation and see whether a longer block is warranted. I don't really trust my own judgment in this case, in part because I've become an editor of the article and in part because I was fooled by the Ellinas sockpuppet, who I took at face value.

Aside from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece&diff=72373936&oldid=72290060 one suspect edit] and one [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece&diff=71760796&oldid=71758071 good-faith contribution] from the Ellinas account, Cretanpride hasn't edited the Homosexuality in ancient Greece article since his 3RR block. I think the real issue is that Cretanpride has exhausted the patience of the article's regular contributors (see Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece). I'd appreciate any feedback on the matter. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:FWIW, an anon identifying himself as User:Ellinas has now reiterated on User talk:Aldux that he is only a personal acquaintance, not a sockpuppet, of User:Cretanpride, but that he let Cretanpride use his computer to subvert the block on Cretanpride's IP ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aldux&diff=72562446&oldid=72488227]). Which might plausibly explain the positive Checkuser evidence but the slightly different personal styles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:As a matter of fact, allowing the friend to use your computer is absolutely a no-no. First, it's the story usually told by people with abusive sockpuppets. Second, that makes the donor as guilty of block evasion as the recipient. Third, no single account is supposed to be multi-user. Geogre 11:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::Even if Ellinas and Cretanpride are different people (which I personally doubt), Ellinas meets the definition of a meatpuppet--he has only contributed to the pages that Cretanpride did, and he said that he started an account at the invitation of Cretanpride. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:::True enough. To Geogre: I think he said he let the other guy use his computer (hence positive IP identification per checkuser), not his account. But you're right about the aiding-and-abetting-block-evasion issue, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::::The question I suppose we should ask ourselves is whether the Ellinas account should be treated differently if it is a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet. If Ellinas is a different individual (and therefore a meatpuppet), he is guilty only of helping his friend evade the block. Right now, Cretanpride is under a 48-hour block and Ellinas is blocked indefinitely. If Ellinas is a meatpuppet rather than a sockpuppet, I'd say that was backwards. Allowing Cretanpride to use his computer to evade his block is a no-no, but Ellinas probably didn't know that, and doesn't deserve to be indefinitely blocked for it. Cretanpride, on the other hand, had had the sockpuppet policy explained to him on several occasions, and should have known better. Would anyone object if I unblocked Ellinas and indefinitely blocked Cretanpride? Even if Ellinas is a sockpuppet rather than a meatpuppet, that account has been much better behaved than the Cretanpride account, and the individual behind it might take this as an opportunity to reform. Or am I being too generous? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:::WP:SOCK says: "Neither a sock puppet nor a single-purpose account holder is regarded as a member of the Wikipedia community. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual." Checkuser found that Ellinas is a sockpuppet; even if this is mistaken (and I doubt that it's a mistake), Ellinas is a single-purpose account. If Ellinas is unblocked, that would be more generous than the stated policy. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::::I suppose what I'm suggesting is an application of WP:IAR in the spirit of WP:AGF. If Ellinas were unblocked, I would act as a mentor for that account. And I do think that a longer, if not indefinite, block of Cretanpride would be helpful and appropriate, given the extensive history of sockpuppetry. Put it this way: would you rather deal with Ellinas or Cretanpride on the article? As things stand now, Cretanpride will be returning in less than a day. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Sorry, but all this assumes that Ellinas is really not a sock of Cretanpride. Personally I find no good reason to believe him, principally because, as, Gerge said, it's the story usually told by people with abusive sockpuppets. Also remember Cretanpride's previous record, confirmed also by checkuser; Cretanpride is habitual to sockpuppetry, and Ellinas is only the last of them. He is only quite habitual to not telling the truth: consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in ancient Greece, where Sac222, checkuser confirmed sock, says: "As for me being the same user, I'm sure the others are, but I am not. I made the account today and I started my first edits. I came across this page and voiced my opinion." Also consider the strange start of Ellinas: "I am a new user. I am not a sockpuppet of Cretanpride"; new users generally don't start with such declarations. Also he "forgot" to say that he was using the same computer of Cretanpride. In conclusion, I strongly oppose unblocking Ellinas; WP:IAR has value only when it is used to better articles, and unblocking an obvious sock will not do this. And as for WP:AGF, it is of no value for socks, and it shouldn't be extended in such an unreasonable way. As for Cretanpride, if no one objects, I will extend his block for a new block evasion, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=4.245.120.147], the edits mentioned by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise.--Aldux 18:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I support Josiah Rowe on mentoring Ellinas, in the spirit of assuming good faith. One of three things will happen.

1. Ellinas is a separate person, continues to be a good contributor, and doesn't make this mistake again.
2. Ellinas is a sock, but Cretan takes the opportunity to moderate his tone and editing style.
3. Ellinas is a sock, picks up where Cretan left off, and gets swiftly blocked by Josiah Rowe.

The third case is essentially the same result as no action at this point, and the first two cases help the encyclopedia. Where's the harm? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks, MIB. That's a useful and accurate summary. I assure everyone that if the Ellinas account does act up in any way (excepting today's edits from {{ipvandal|4.245.120.147}}) I'll block it quickly. But I won't unblock Ellinas unless another admin supports it (right now it's one for and one against). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::Ellinas (posting as User:4.245.121.227) has indicated on Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece#One_last_message that he's not interested in having the ban lifted. Perhaps matters should stand as they are; Cretanpride may come back once his block expires, or perhaps he won't. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm really sorry of having to disagree in this occasion Josiah, because I greatly appreciate and admire your work, but I have learned in editing on balcan-topics that good faith should not always be assumed at all costs, when good sense tells, at least to me, exactly the opposite. When a brand new editor emerges exactly on the same day his spiritual brother has been blocked, and interrupts his edits exactly when the block expires, my knowledge of sockpuppetry tells me that the probabilities of the new account being a sock are very, very high. Dozens of socks, even when ascertained by checkuser, have continued to cry me "no, no, I'm not a sock, you're wrong". I've simply heard these stories too many times. Cretanpride has another chance, if he wants to use it; but lets not hide ourselves behind a phantomatic "good user" Ellinas.--Aldux 00:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Ah, well. I'm still agnostic over whether Cretanpride and Ellinas were one person or two, but given the tone of Ellinas' last posting I suppose the question is moot. The manner of Cretanpride's behavior upon his return should indicate something: as Kurt Vonnegut said, "We are who we pretend to be," so if Ellinas was a sockpuppet, then for a few days Cretanpride was a fairly respectful and civil user who showed the potential for becoming a useful Wikipedian, because that's who he was pretending to be as Ellinas. If he could do it then, he can do it upon his return. If, on the other hand, Ellinas was a different individual, then we can expect Cretanpride to be as abusive and abrasive as he was before he was blocked, possibly more so because he will have the "unjust block of his friend" to stoke his fires. (We will also, incidentally, have turned a potentially positive contributor into someone bitter and angry about Wikipedia's lack of openness, but I suppose that's a risk we take in making the "meat=sock" equation.)

::::It's true that I haven't had extensive experience of sockpuppetry, but I'm a little bit concerned that this time the boy crying "wolf" may be doing so because there really is one. But I won't go against the apparent consensus of my fellow Wikipedians. I suppose we'll just have to see what comes next. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barefact The most egregious action on Barefact's part --- that I have seen, were his false accusations of sock-puppetry against me, and two usershttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Arash_the_Bowman&diff=prev&oldid=70124508 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Khosrow_II , for which he had no evidence. I would consider that an attempt to game the system.

He even tried to use his false accusation of sock-puppetry(unproven and untrue) to reinstate a POV article of his

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_18&diff=prev&oldid=70486344 by saying that it was deleted by sock-puppetry. This is a clear example of lying and deception.

One of his former articles was deleted because of OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scytho-Iranian_theory.

Even after an RFIC in Scythians he removed all reference to Scythians being Iranian recently.

The user {{user|Barefact}} puts OR research from his website www.turkicworld.org. For example he disfigures quotes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ossetic_language&diff=72499532&oldid=72499209. For example the following quote: However, it retained its grammatical structure and basic lexical stock; its relationship with the Iranian family, despite considerable individual traits, does not arouse any doubt. has been taken from this book directly: http://www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/ossetian/ossetian.htm (the first link pg 6), yet he disfigures the quote that has been taken directly from the scholar to a totally opposite quote! He is putting a one man show on the ossetic language, since all the sources Britannica, Encarta, Columbia and all available English sources agree with me, yet he is taking material from his ultranationalist webpage www.turkicworld.org and cut & pasting it. Please ban this user for his disruptive behavior on multiple accounts specially OR, vandalism and false accusation of sock-puppetry and using the false allegation of sock-puppetry in order to change the mind of other administrators about the deletion of one of his false articles http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_18&diff=prev&oldid=70486344.

Finally there is the admittance of the vandalizing user himself from his own webpage: The following discourse addresses the reasons for the current universal acceptance by the scientific community of the preposition that the Scythians were unambiguously Indo-European, and specifically Iranian speaking, and the methods to reach this conclusion. http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/27_Scythians/Ethnic%20Affiliation%20Scythians%20En.htm (note the link above is connected www.turkicworld.org and is written by this user per his own admission). Note the user believes that he can go against universal acceptance of scholarly facts in Wikipedia. I have warned him numerous times about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research but with no success. He clearly admits he is going against universal accepted position of scientific community and wants to put his cooked up theories instead of accepting the universal judgment of relavent scholars of the field. --Ali doostzadeh 00:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:While I share your concerns about Barefact's disruptive behaviour, I believe you'd better resolve the issue using traditional Wikipedia procedues, such as WP:RFC and WP:RFAr --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Thanks but with did an RFC on Scythians and the user still persits in ruining the entery. Also in scythia he broke the 3rr rule (actually 6 revisions within the past 24 hours). He is also making another false accusation of false suck-puppetery [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=72716993] (which is the 4th or 5th false accusation). I have reported him for the 3RR violation here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Barefact_reported_by_User:Ali_doostzadeh_.28Result:.29]. One of my other concerns is that his site is all POV and lacks scholarly caliber and yet he insists on cut & pasting materials from his site onto wikipedia. --alidoostzadeh 02:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like RadioKirk is out and about abusing his admin powers again. If you look on his talk page history and block log, you will see that after Raptor30V1 left him a labor day greeting, he deleted the greeting and blocked Raptor30V1. It seems unimagionable that an Admin would block a user (newbe mind you) just because he does not celebrate labor day, but that seems to be the cas with Kirk. Nanook the Husky 20:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• User was blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Raptor30V1] so the block is legitimate. exolon 20:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:Notice this "signed" remark by User:Nanook the Husky actually comes from {{user|216.164.203.122}}; {{user|216.164.203.90}} was blocked as a massive sock farm per WP:RFCU. Also note [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARadioKirk&diff=72665179&oldid=72664059 this edit] during this time by User:TheFerick—User:Nookdog (another of this user's aliases) recently claimed to be User:Ferick resulting in an inadvertent block on my part. This user is a troublemaker of the worst sort, and this ip range needs to be checked for collteral and dealt with. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::Let me begin by saying, "THE HORROR THE HORROR" this so called "RadioKirk" needs to be permabanned NOW, ASAP! His atrocities continue and continue.....how long will we let this vicious cycle go on. Good 'ol' My Name 20:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL This user got caught, got checkuser'ed, got pissed, got a new IP and is now trying to "get even". It's time to get a life, Rappy. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:Another one bites the dust. :) Metamagician3000 14:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Last night, it came to my attention through RC patrolling that Challenge of the GoBots had been vandalized and moved by {{vandal|GoGoGobots}}. This vandalism extended to vandalizing the image used in the article, and having moved the page a total of six times and vandalizing the image in the article four times. GIen had blocked the user for 31 hours, and this user had come off of a 24 hour block a few days ago. I believe that this user's block should be extended to an indefinite block due to the nature of the vandalism and to the extent that page protection had to be performed. Ryūlóng 22:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:The user should have been indefinite blocked from the start - indefinite blocked now. Cowman109^Talk 22:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::Thank you; now if there were only some way to fix the image's history. There's no need for a photo of a K-Mart in there, nor for the empty pages where Challenge of the GoBots was moved to, either.. Ryūlóng 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:::The empty pages were already deleted, and which image is this you're talking about? Cowman109^Talk 23:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Oh, I mean {{tl|deletedpage}} the pages moved to and the image in the infobox needs history fixing. So much vandalism to that one image. Ryūlóng 06:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears that User:Taurus876 created dozens upon dozens of coin articles, most of which contain the same exact content.

A few hours ago, another user requested Taurus876 to add intro paragraphs to his coin articles or else they'd fall under CSD.

However, in the last 15 minutes, he has just bombarded Wikipedia with nearly 30 coin-related articles, all of which contain the same exact material.

It seems to me that he's just mass-spamming, and not providing proper info on each article.

--Nishkid64 00:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Omg coincruft. The first articles he created are legitimate, but the ones created today are indeed exact duplicates. I've blocked him to stop the behaviour, and will request that he make those articles legitimate. pschemp | talk 00:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:: It would also seem that he is copying his articles word for word from the US Mint site.

::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Spanish_Trail_half_dollar

::http://www.usmint.gov/kids/index.cfm?fileContents=coinNews/cotm/2001/08.cfm Bobby 15:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

{{vandal|141.165.211.241}} has just blanked sections in five articles about historically Black colleges. The vandalism is run-of-the-mill, but the choice of articles to vandalize is not random. -- Donald Albury 01:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Hasn't vandalized since last warning. List empty. (Go to WP:AIV next time, even if the articles are not random.) Grandmasterka 02:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I am making available, valid information, on the UHSA page; but a certain poster continues to use "finger-thocracy" to decide what is and what is not "wiki-worthy". The links I have contributed are for the most part from State websites that hold legitimate information that is in the public domain, none of the links are "rabbit-outta-the-hat" types.

Thank you. Robo doc 03:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Robo doc has nothing meaningful to contribute. He is copying and pasting links and copyrighted material into my article from other websites only to publicize 3rd party websites filled with ads. I’m surprised to see he is asking for your help. Notice, he recently registered his ID for the sole purpose of posting his nasty remarks and links in the UHSA article.

Thank You again,

DrGladwin

:Responding on editor's talk page. Grandmasterka 03:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

{{IPuser|205.157.110.11}} is apparently an IP registered to Office Depot. According to this topic, it appears that it is registered to 'all office depots, and can be accessed wirelessly from 1500 feet away. This IP has been used in the past by MascotGuy, and I do not know if this IP should be blocked for being essentially an open proxy/zombie computer/public IP or if it should be left alone. Ryūlóng 06:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What really set me off about this IP is the fact that at any AFDs, it uses really odd edit summaries. Ryūlóng 06:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Interesting. Just like we don't ban the vast majority of other public IPs (schools, libraries, etc.) I don't see why this warrants a ban, unless it is an open proxy. Just keep a curious eye on it. :-) Others will probably know more about this than I do though. Grandmasterka 09:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

(Note: Moved from AIAV)

• {{vandal|Zayre's Killers}} - {{user|MascotGuy}} Sockpuppet --Ryūlóng 05:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• :Can you provide more information here? Perhaps add a note onto the talk of an admin who's more familiar with the situation? As it stands, there's not enough information for me (or for another admin unfamiliar with this user/puppet) to do anything. --Nlu (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• ::No edit summaries; interest in Wal-Mart; interest in animation; interest in large retailers. More at the LTA page I've listed. Ryūlóng 05:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• :::MascotGuy is a doppelganger account. Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MascotGuy is where you want to look. Ryūlóng 05:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• ::::I still don't feel comfortable enough blocking, as someone who's not familiar with MascotGuy. I won't complain if another admin does, but perhaps submit it to WP:RCU? --Nlu (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• :::::Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do at RFCU about this user because it's been done and he utilizes whatever computer he is next to. Ryūlóng 05:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• ::::::Yep, it's him. I'm not massively familiar with this particular sockpuppeteer, but comparing his edits, those of his most recent sockpuppets, and the characteristics listed on the LTA page, it's pretty obvious. Blocked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• :::::::enjoy using the LTA page while you can, Doc Glasgow is proposing to delete them all. pschemp | talk 13:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

List of countries by military expenditures is constantly blanked by a single IP editor. Although he appears to be improving the article, his repeated blankings do more harm than help. I don't think it's AIV or RFPP material. Ryūlóng 07:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked. It looks like an unfair block to me, as far as I can see he's been removing a couple of small sections from an article that he has been editing for weeks. I see no large scale blanking at all. I'm going to assume these has been some technical problem where he appears to be blanking but isn't and undo the block. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to urge my fellow admins to think before blocking, and everyone to think before accusing someone of vandalising. How likely is it that someone who has been adding info to an article for weeks would vandalise it? I hope we haven't scared away a good editor here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Well, he is adding info to the article, but his latest additions are a duplication of one of the top sections and this one is placed beneath the refs and the see also and all of that. I know that he's contributing, but he's affecting the article adversely as well, and we have not been able to contact him through his talk page. Ryūlóng 20:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Filed a mediation request at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-15_Immanuel_Kant. It was closed with the statement "it would appear that User:Spinoza1111 is trying to circumvent WP:OR and WP:CITE quite unilaterally" and was referred here if needed. User:Spinoza1111 has not yet tried to circumvent the policy at the article in question but he is now posting to the discussion at the mediation page, bashing me, Wiki policy, and the mediation process. He wants the mediation re-opened. If he takes up his old habits, I don't believe that discussion betweem he/she and I will be productive if he doesn't accept WP:CITE. Amerindianarts 08:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Saw this on AIAV:

• {{vandal|Shadow_Magi}} - aren't public accounts forbidden? because this seems to be (see user page) --Andeh 10:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the account and left an appropriate message on the Talk page. Might be worth keeping an eye on them in case anything productive can be salvaged. The Land 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I created a simple page on the life of French Climber who died in 1995. When I try to move it into production I am told that I am not logged in. Even after I log in the message is the same. This is my first contribution so I a bit confused by the procedure? Thanks, CCC - ccla@ch.ibm.com

: Benoît Chamoux seems to be "in production". You seem to be signed in as User:Cclauss. Have you tried clearing your browser cache, by either holding down the Shift key as you press Reload, or closing and reopening your browser? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been blocking reincarnations of the banned user Leyasu all day; some are listed on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Leyasu. His messages to me and on WP:AE indicated clearly that they came from him. He is claiming on my talk page and WP:AE that Deathrocker is constantly violating his revert parole, which was set in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker. Could someone other than Leyasu please look at Deathrocker's contributions during the past several days to see if there are any revert parole violations? (Keep in mind that WP:3RR does not apply to reverts of banned users.)

Is it appropriate to indefinitely block all of the IPs that Leyasu uses? He seems to be on a dynamic IP, but the IPs he uses have no other contributions. Also, I'd really like some other admins to start watching him; I don't have enough time to do it all day. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:He uses British Telecom, so indef blocking is out. You're probably stuck with 24 hours, and should probably only block anons and account creation. I'm also looking into the report at WP:AE but in an advisory capacity since I'm not an admin. Just because the report was posted by Leyasu doesn't mean Deathrocker is totally innocent--it does need checking and I'll do that later tonight. I have asked Deathrocker why he is using so many IPs lately. It's not a crime to edit while logged out but it looks odd for sure. Also, while 3RR does not apply to reverting edits of a banned user, I'm not sure that escape clause applies to 1RR parole when the reverter and revertee have a long history of conflict. I've asked for clarification at WP:RFAR. Thatcher131 (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone claiming to be w:RadioKirk is currentally causing mass vandalism on Wikiversity. We need an admin there, and w:RadioKirk needs to be blocked or explain who this is. Mr. Professor 19:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'd be willing to bet that that guy's an impostor. I'd agree that Wikiversity user RadioKirk needs to be blocked, but I doubt that Wikipedian RadioKirk has anything to do with it, so you should probably ask a Wikiverstiy admin for help. -- Vary | Talk 19:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::Sir, you seem to disregard the sevarity of the vandalisimg preformed by this so called "RadioKirk." You need to have an admin end his massive cross wiki "trolling" project, once and for all. I highly suspect that he is the mastermind behind the Rappy, Nookdog, and MyName vandals, as they always seem to be picking on him. He needs to be checkusered against them, and as an admin it is his obligation to do so. OUT Mr. Professor 19:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree this is very likely an imposter. There has been, apparently, [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RadioKirk&action=edit no attempt] to take action on Wikiversity. I don't see why the proper avenues on Wikiversity were not pursued before throwing around allegations here against an editor in very good standing. The chances of this being an imposter trying to cause trouble for User:RadioKirk are high. I see no evidence to suspect RadioKirk is involved in those cases, and indeed am surprised that a Wikiveristy user with no record on Wikipedia has such an intimate knowledge of an old vandal case as you do. Gwernol 20:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::: The real RadioKirk has always been a very Wiki-dedicated and by-the-rules kind of guy - there's no way this could be him. wikipediatrix 20:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::I have requested that my fellow Wikiversity editors come to this page to aid in the investigation. They should be here shortly. Mr. Professor 20:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::Hello. You requested my imput: This RadioKirk is causing mayhem on Wikiversity. I'm not sure weather ot not he is the same as w:RadioKirk. However, w:RadioKirk's imput on this conversation would be appricated, and from there we can decide for or against a checkuser. The Great Teacher 20:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Whoever registered as RobertKirk on Wikiversity has been blocked and his vandalism reverted. This was done within minutes of the actual vandalism occurring. It's policy at Wikiversity to delete user and talk pages of infinitely blocked users. sebmol 20:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This checkuser would like to ask that Mr. Professor/The Great Teacher/Uncle Eff pick one account and stick with it. Mackensen (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:FYI: Mr. Professor has no significant edit history on Wikiversity prior to this incident. This appears more like a trap for RadioKirk than a genuine complaint to me. sebmol 20:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::Agreed. This thread is trolling. Ten to one the trolls here are the same as the vandal on Wikiversity. Antandrus (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember a similar incident on Wikinews when an imposter registered "RadioKirk". It did vandalism, was blocked, then the account was transferred to RadioKirk. —this is messedrocker (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Radio Kirk, what side are you on? You can say what you want, but only Checkuser can prove it. Mr. Professor 20:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

: I just blocked Mr. Professor indef here as an obvious harrasser of RadioKirk, and also seeing that he was also blocked indef in wikiversity. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Accounts all created within minutes of each other (notice my impostor on Wikiversity was created two minutes [!] before Mr. Professor and 31 minutes before The Great Teacher were created here) on perhaps the only remaining Wiki I hadn't joined yet. Also check my talk page history; with no question whatsoever, this is Raptor30/Rappy30/Nanook/Nookdog/etc./etc./etc. (read up to "No block reason" on this page). I can think of nothing more sad than a determined vandal who gets pissed because I (and others) stopped him, and who is now wasting his life in an effort to "get revenge" (again, read my talk page history). Sad indeed... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Isn't it awesome when you're hated enough that submorons will go through all this trouble just to get you blocked? --Golbez 22:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::It's almost flattering. Grandmasterka 23:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Emphasis on the "almost" ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

please see recent contributions by these people

• {{vandal|59.11.45.141}}
• {{vandal|58.151.21.35}}
• {{vandal|59.29.252.230}}
• {{vandal|61.39.35.69}}
• {{vandal|203.187.16.218}}

they look like spam proxies to me so please ban indefinitely if so Yuckfoo 19:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

: also many more are popping up so it could be best to block the url domain too Yuckfoo 19:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::We can't range block. We could add the website to the spam blacklist but I can't recall how to do it. Watch and revert. I'll block the above 4 but I figure a temp block sufficient. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)+

::: ask mackensen or someone else to permanently block if they are proxies Yuckfoo 20:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Open proxies should be indef-banned. I have listed one of these at WP:OP. I'll check the others when I have a chance, but they should also be listed there and indef-blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Prove to me that they are open proxies and I'm happy to block them myself. In the meantime I've blocked them all for a month. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::I've listed them all at WP:OP. For proof, telnet into port 8080 or follow the convenient links at WP:OP. Maybe try [http://nospam-pl.net/op.php]. My reply wasn't really directed at you - it was part edit-conflict. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

While the "other notorious elephant" page was listed as a hoax, I ran across something on the talk page that I suspect is libel. This is the diff where I removed it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACrushing_by_elephant&diff=72747007&oldid=72744660 68.39.174.238 21:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:To count as libel it actually has to be believable. Those comments are just dumb trolling. Dragons flight 21:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Concur. Nothing to see here. Newyorkbrad 21:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit war. Warned numerous times. Made sandbox crash. Hope you dont think Im being too pushy since he's not messing with my pages--Concerned User 23:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

{{userlinks|Clyde Wey}} was briefly blocked for being an impostor of Cyde, and then unblocked on AGF. A CheckUser I have just run shows that the account was very likely created by {{userlinks|Syphonbyte}}, an editor with whom Cyde appears to have had a dispute, for harassment. The impostor account is now reblocked, but I leave it up to you to decide what to with the creator of the account. Dmcdevit·t 17:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

: I have blocked Syphon for 48 hours. I would not object if another admin feels a need to lengthen this block. JoshuaZ 18:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

::User has requested a review on their talk page, I reviewed it, declined to lift, and support this block. ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

:::48 hours seems about right for a first offense of this nature. Hopefully he will realize he is now on a short leash and any more sockpuppets will escalate the ban. Thatcher131 (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Then you may want to check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Timacyde_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 this] out for more suspected sock activity. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

For impersonation of an administrator and sockpuppetry (verified by RFCU ) combined with trolling this editor has been indefinitely blocked by User:Samir (The Scope):

• Endorse: This is one community ban that should be enforced. (→Netscott) 12:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Evasion: user syphonbyte evades the block by editing with his alternate account User:Gotem. He has only edited his talk page so far[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gotem&curid=5330874&diff=72878865&oldid=66806911], but that edit was to remove the reference to his other username syphonbyte. Fram 19:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Goodness, that's quite an assertion. I don't see problem with making productive edits or removing a reference to my friend's page, as he was banned now, (most unfortunately) so there's no point in having a link to his page. I'm his (blood) brother, I took him to the med center when he was injured at the statue. Gotem 01:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah right. The user page stated that syphonbyte used this as an alternative account, and it suddenly gets back active after syphonbyte is indef blocked. What a coincidence... By the way, this means that syphonbyte either lied when he said that Gotem was an alternative account of his, or that he did not lie then but is nlying now and evading his block. Either way, it does no good for his case... Fram 14:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• I've blocked Gotem as an obvious sock Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at Timacyde? It's very suspicious - he has a forged welcome note from Cyde on his talk page, and then he transcluded User:Syphonbyte/Holdem onto it. I'm thinking he may be a sockpuppet of Syphonbyte. He has more weird stuff in his contribs. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:Blocked indef for trolling -- Samir धर्म 23:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::It looks as though {{user5|Syphonbyte}} is evading his block here. This page created by Syphonbyte: User:Syphonbyte/Holdem relied upon this image :Image:HoldemifJEWgotem.jpg uploaded by Timacyde. (→Netscott) 00:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Timacyde is now abusing the {{tl|Stop}} template to the point of freezing browsers on his talk page, so I would recommend that that be protected. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Hmm, that image had an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:HoldemifJEWgotem.jpg interesting history]. (→Netscott) 00:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Page protected by The Anome -- Samir धर्म 00:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::Back (and blocked) as {{vandal|Edy_C._Syew}} with the same image. (→Netscott) 00:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::If User:Clyde_Wey and that user name's corresponding talk page could be protected that'd be hepful too. (→Netscott) 00:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Userpage has been protected. I'm not seeing any pressing issues with the respective talk page, however. El_C 00:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::Tis a bit odd that {{user5|Clyde Wey}} is active at the same time as this latest batch of socks. I'm starting to think that {{user|Syphonbyte}} is heading for an indefinite blocking. (→Netscott) 01:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:(Reindent): only a suspicion, but seeing his vehement defense that the latest bunch are not syphonbyte but some of his friends, he probably is right. He is always working together with User:The Raven, User:PhoenixPinion, and some other ones (User:The_Raven_is_God, User:Polfbroekstraat, User:Gotem, and to a lesser extent User:Charlesxavier). There is also some connection to User:578 alias User:EdYlC (yep, Clyde spelled backwards)... I have run into them a few times before, and they have exhausted at least my patience (which may be a lot faster than community patience, of course). Fram 09:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:For what it is worth, I also had an encounter with the guys Fram mentions. Most of them seem to be students at the same school. A lot of meat puppetry is going on here, I think - some of them are inactive for weeks and then re-appear out of the blue to support Syphonbute or the Raven. There is a little sockpuppetry going on too (eg I still wonder whether User:70.152.52.77 was not really one of the four guys behind the Belgian hoax articles). But no, there are real people behind most of these names (except for User:Gotem which User:Syphonbyte has acknowleged as an alias).--Pan Gerwazy 18:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::A warm thank you for all editors / admins involved in stopping this! Fram 12:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::And a warm this is only be beginning for those of you who knowingly took part in this scheme. You can run one user off Wikipedia, but you can't erase the good that I did for the encyclopedia. I'm only going to do more good, the name I do it under is irrelevant. 80.58.205.33 20:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a slight hunch that a local politician may have attempted to use Wikipedia for his own political gain. I know this isn't exactly vandalism, but I am unfamiliar with the protocol in place for this situation. The user in question is Stampedem. The contributions in question have to do with the Eliot Shapleigh, and Dee Margo articles. These two men are both candidates for a seat in the Texas Senate, and as you can imagine, this sort of conduct has arrisen. I reverted some of the changes this user made too the Shapleigh article, and am currently researching the portions of his/her contributions I did not revert. I will document my findings on any other revert on the article's talk page. I also left a message on their talk page on the topic. Getting to the Margo article, what raises concern is that not all the contents of the article are exactly true. I have already tagged the article with {{Unreferenced}} and {{Not verified}}, and will be going through it over the next couple of days to check the facts. Also, although the author attacked the Shapleigh article with a sort of smear-campaign-style contribution, only a sentence of the Margo article deals with the upcoming election. In all honesty, Margo is somewhat of an unnotable person--although accomplished, his most notable quality is that he is running for a position as Texas senator. Hence, I also marked the article with {{Importance}}. I need to know how to attain the IP of a user, that way, I may run a trace to see if this user is indeed who I think they are. Please, if you have a moment, look into this situation. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Somnabot 15:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:Only people with checkuser permission can do that... See Wikipedia:Requests for Checkuser. Otherwise, it seems like you're doing the right thing by yourself. You can also warn them about WP:NPOV and possibly WP:AUTO. If the problem persists after that, come back here. Grandmasterka 01:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:If these folks are merely candidates, then both articles should be on AfD, IMO, where candidate pages are pretty routinely sent to the bit bucket. If they're both independently famous and important but charge and countercharge are in the news, you might also look at the Slashdotted article -- depending on how many spurious edits you think the articles are getting. After the Mark Taylor (politician) situation (and I mean the Wikipedia article) hit CNN, other politicians will no doubt have learned a "lesson" about politicizing us. I agree that we have to be extremely vigilant. Geogre 19:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::I am continuing my efforts in regards to this matter. I have replaced all three tags after Stampedem removed them, and expained why on the discussion page. I'll keep you all up to date. Somnabot 23:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:The user continues to fight my changes, and seems to be unfamiliar with civility. I continue to explain my perspective to him/her on the discussion page, yet he/she keep fighting me. Please help. Somnabot 20:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I gave her many, many chances to change her attitude and editing style before reporting it, but Thewolfstar is back, this time in the form of Whiskey Rebellion, making the same strange edits. See her [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Whiskey_Rebellion talk page] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Whiskey_Rebellion contribution history] for evidence. This one seems like a no-brainer, but I would like to have others take a look into it. --AaronS 20:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:Doesn't look like a complete no-brainer (assuming it's Maggie, she's gotten a lot smarter), but a Checkuser may be in order. There's a suspiciously advanced knowledge of Wikipedia markup, combined with a similarly tendentious (though toned-down compared to previously) editing style. Watching Maggie's initial meltdown (I didn't participate (much?), but watching was more than enough) was deeply unsettling; it wouldn't be pleasant to watch it happen again. However, we need to be absolutely sure before we do anything drastic. Captainktainer * Talk 20:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::To help with this, perhaps you should take a look at User:Lingeron's edit history. She was also a sock puppet of Maggie, and was also a bit more careful. The fact that she has toned down a bit is the reason why I waited so long to report anything to WP:AN/I. But I've been dealing with her for weeks, and it's pretty obvious to me, now, that she's a sock puppet (and my initial hunches tend to be correct regarding sock puppets, anyway). She's doing the same old thing, accusing people of being part of a communist conspiracy, calling them anti-American, claiming that there's an anti-American bias imposed by America-haters, and so forth. She's also highly sensitive, and lashes out quite a bit, per usual. Now she's accusing us of editing while drunk. --AaronS 20:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Actually, AaronS, it was DTC who first made the observation that you and Blockader were editing Wikipedia while drunk. This is evident by your conversations on talk:Anarchism. You both sound drunk and have all but admitted that you edit while drinking. I'm sorry that you think I am this (these) users. I'm just not and it's frustrating that you've driven good users away with your constant accusations like Two-bitSprite. As far as knowing markup, I've already explained to Bunchofgrapes that I've been using computers for 11 years, (since I was 9 years old), and can do quite a few things concerning their use. Another thing that you mentioned, the anti-American thing, This user says she is anti-American on her page, and this user also claims to be 'un-American'. That is what started me wondering and saying such a thing! I never said there was a communist conspiracy. What a thing to say! I have also, btw, been accused of being possibly User:RJII and User:Hogeye here: User_talk:Bunchofgrapes. Whiskey Rebellion 22:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Interesting. As far as the facts are concerned, Two-Bit Sprite and I got along together quite well, actually, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. When you work a lot on an article and get to know all of the editors there, the bad with the good, it becomes easy to recognize who's whom. It's like reading the same few authors over and over again. After a while, you can be presented with a short paragraph from an unnamed book, and, without much effort, name the author and title. Regardless, I don't consider myself to be one of the partisan editors; it's just that I consider the actions of the partisans on one side to be a bit more offensive than the partisans on the other. Needless to say, I get along quite well with everybody from both sides of the spectrum, save a couple of editors who have been notoriously nasty to all who disagree with them. --AaronS 00:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Well, I brought this issue to Bunchofgrapes' attention a week or two ago (now in the archive), but at the time they didn't seem it was clear enough to block yet. Also see User talk:Bishonen for another conversation (also in archives). Anyway, they have definitely toned their edits down as mentioned above, although it has gotten worse the last few days. I however am convinced this is thewolfstar. I also think DTC and That'sHot should be checked into as well (DTC is accused of being an RJII sock, and I also mentioned this on both Bishonen and Bunchofgrapes' talk pages), but am not as confident as with Whiskey Rebellion. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 23:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:::It could very likely be her. One way to find out is if she comes here to WP:AN/I and starts posting about my crappy edits, my slanderous statements about others, or simply about the fact that I don't know the name of Trunk Highway 100 which is located in Minnesota. (Or is it SPUI who's supposed to make that complaint? I forget.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:It's pretty clear to me. The account name is straight out of Maggie's farm. (Read about the Whiskey Rebellion: it's her kind of topic.) The evidence is certainly clear enough for a check user. Since enough folks are questioning the identification here, we'll need to RFCU before blocking, I suppose. Geogre 19:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::Yes it is. I thought that was obvious enough though. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 01:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::Me, too, but it's a good thing, generally, that we do the RFCU if there is any doubt, and that the question came up here, first. This way, we can tell the overworked, good humored folks at check user that we aren't bothering them frivolously. Geogre 12:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This user is busy in with a elaborate campaign of POV violation, which lies beyond the scope of this noticeboard. His methods of complex vandalism do not: the user is extremely fond of Wikilawyering, using it mainly to strike sources opposing his views from articles, especially the old problem article of Anarchism. He has made a complex 3RR violation striking an excellent source (a violation so complex no admin made a judgement). He insists on removing a slew of sources, some impeccable, despite my repeated pleadings for him not to and explanations as to why not on the talk page. Later other editors gave fuller defenses of some of these sources here which the user has ignored in striking them from the article, unilaterally, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=72632593&oldid=72604126 first one excellent source], then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=72657169&oldid=72656511 a bucket of sources] (as he had [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=71747153&oldid=71744807 before]). Having thus removed sources opposing his POV he frames his POV as the scholarly consensus. Due to his dishonesty (he claims, twice, to have read all the sources and not have found the claims in question) his aggressive misrepresentation of sources (as discussed in the talk page) and of Wikipedia policy (concerning what is an acceptable source) I believe it impossible to consider his acts as those done in good faith. I ask for administrator intervention explaining to the user the unsuitability of manipulating Wikipedia in this way, since he has been edit-warring for weeks and has brushed off all attempts at mediation (note how his list of "verified" sources is unchanged since a week ago, despite some of these sources being justified on the talk page in the mean time). I have not mentioned all the details here for conciseness - I can be contacted for a fuller explanation of the points on my talk page. Thank you in advance --GoodIntentions^talk 06:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Now for the real story. You're the one that put in those sources and I gave you ample time to come up with page numbers so they could be verified but you couldn't do it. Why couldn't you do it? Because you never accessed the sources. You took them out of another Wikipedia article, which you admitted. Apparently you don't know that information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. If you cite a whole book and claim that somewhere in there is the specific claim that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, how is anyone to verify that? I looked through some of those books and I didn't see the claim in them. And you didn't either. The burden is on you to show that you allege to be sources actually are. You need to give us a page number, and a quote as well would be better. When and if you do, I'm going to look it up in the book to verify it. If you assume bad faith, that's your problem. I haven't given you any reason to assume bad faith. I have even deleted sources that were claimed to say anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism, because I went to verify it and it didn't say what it was alleged to say. But if you want to assume bad faith, go right ahead. Your assumption of bad faith is not going to stop me verifying the sources and deleting any that can't be verified. And yes, please send us some intervention, preferably from someone who cares about Wikipedia having reliable information. DTC 06:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not asking for intervention in a content dispute, but for someone do address the violations of WP policy (through manipulation of sources) that DTC has been guilty of. The content dispute is a different matter, and as old as the hills. It's made unmanagable by the edit-warring of this single-minded bad-faith editor. --GoodIntentions^talk 02:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

70.35.237.67 began by adding speculation and unsourced statements at Lexington, Kentucky which was removed several times by myself and another user. The IPUser argued and began digging through my user contribution list, editing Louisville, Kentucky, Urban exploration, Big Dig, The Atlantic Paranormal Society, Waverly Hills Sanatorium, Parapsychology, and University of Kentucky. The IPUser was given clear instruction on proper procedure at Wikipedia regarding the original incident, but ignored all suggestions. He was then warned after vandalising numerous pages and the IPUser has gone as far as to remove the warning templates. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 11:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

: I also reported it earlier at the Mediation Cabal, to which the IPUser has already vandalised with irrelevant garbage. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 11:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::Blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing spreading over several article. Also engaged in taunting editors with uncivil play on their user name. --FloNight 00:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to do anything, newcomer. I suggest you take it easy until you learn the ropes. I'll be happy to get you blocked if you need a lesson. Have a nice day. -999 (Talk) 22:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

really? Thank you for the threat, you will be reported to admins.--Shravak 22:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC

--Shravak 22:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Well, 999 doesn't seem to be brimming with good cheer, but that was part of a three revert rule warning. Please try to work out your disagreement on the article's talk page, respond graciously to requests for citation, and avoid getting grumpy notes about edit warring on your talkpage by not edit warring. Jkelly 22:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Shravak, you are not the first person that 999 has been uncivil towards so I've asked him to be more polite in future. However, I must also point out that 999 has very strong evidence of sock puppetry against you. I must also warn you that sock puppetry is a much stronger offense than incivility. --  Netsnipe  ►  03:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:I think that because the user is rather new, some lineancy is called for. I did block him for 3RR, though, as he was propperly warned. El_C 20:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As once stated on this noticeboard, I was unfortunately involved in an edit conflict at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive131#Revert_war_in_Pluto the article on Pluto] with {{user5|Nixer}}. This resulted in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive26#User:Ryulong_reported_by_User:Nixer_.28Result:Not_blocked.29 one] of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive26#User:Ryulong_reported_by_User:Nixer_.28Result:_not_blocked.2C_see_above.29 two] WP:3RR reports filed against me by Nixer, both of which were deemed pointless in blocking me for disruption of Wikipedia three hours after I had stopped, in which the first case, he editted the outcome twice to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=71981257 remove the "Not blocked"] and again to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=next&oldid=71982843 "No consensus"] not half an hour later.

When I found that Pluto had been reverted to one of Nixer's versions, again, I rewrote the intro, which led to the above mentioned second AN/3RR filing. This reversion made me suspcious and I filed an RFCU on Nixer, and it was proven that {{user|Verger}} was a sockpuppet of Nixer. Because of my own, and administrator Cactus.man's involvement in trying to discuss this with Nixer, and his subsequent 24 hour blocks for 3RR and disruption and sockpuppeteering, Nixer filed an RFCU on myself and Cactus.man, which we both proved to be useless and used for fishing (we both supplied our IPs from however we managed to retrieve them, and by my contacting Voice of All, he left a clerk note stating the fishing reason).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ANixer Nixer has been blocked on and off for the past year] because of WP:3RR and other violations, totalling up to 918 hours and 15 minutes (over 38 days) (give or take, due to blocks and unblocks) and in the recent week has (to the best of my knowledge) just been trying to get me blocked to make a WP:POINT, by saying "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nixer&diff=72075534&oldid=72074013 It seems the rules completely obsolete in Wikipedia: some users allowed to do what they want and others arent allowed anything]," or "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nixer&diff=next&oldid=72082738 (Cactus.man) is obviously a friend of Ryūlóng]."

I do not know if this user has exactly exhausted the community's patience, or not, but he has surely exhausted mine and Cactus.man's. With such an extensive history of 3RR, sockpuppeteering, and other such violations under Nixer's belt, I believe that the community should decide upon such an action (if need be, I will try to file an ArbCom, but input on anyone who was involved in the prior "Revert war in pluto" conversation to comment here). Ryūlóng 00:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• After reviewing the evidence it appears to me that the project would benefit from banning User:Nixer. Temporary blocks have obviously had no effect on him. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed. Nixer simply does not respect the rules of this community and should have no part of it. --  Netsnipe  ►  03:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. The user has been blocked over 20 times in one year (from yesterday), all for 3RR and edit warring. The lesson has not been learned, dispite intervention by other users. It is with heavy heart that anyone should be community banned, but this takes the cake. Teke ^(talk) 04:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Nixer's RFCU request did have one shiver of light. The need for a checkuser to strongly reject/decline a request was seen. I created this new RFCU template after talking with Mackensen: {{Thrown out}} --Kevin_b_er 04:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Agree This users attempts at calling to points in policy and ignoring the spirit of the same gets no sympathy from me, we allow too many breachers, pointers and provocateurs already. --Alf ^melmac 07:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Oh dear, it's an either or situation. Certainly, his block log is a complete train wreck of 3RR violations, and he shows absolutely no sign of being able to modify this disruptive behaviour. Something needs to be done however, and if it's not a community ban then his behaviour must be examined by arbcom. His recent behaviour before and after my recent block of him is completely unacceptable, including sockpuppet abuse and frivolous RFCU requests in spiteful retaliation. As a recently involved admin I offer no opinion on a community ban, leaving that to others. I will of course participate in any RfAr if submitted, or possibly even get round to it myself, time permitting. Ryūlóng seems to have provided all the necessary diffs, but if anybody needs further info re my involvement, drop me a note. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:* I suggest an RfC in the first instance, and a warning that there will be a one week block for the next violation of any kind. This does appear to be a serial violator of 3RR, but I see at least some sign that perhaps a productive editor might exist underneath it all, although edit-warring over what he appears to see as the appalling crime of calling Pluto a dwarf planet (which it is, according to the IAU) surely qualifies for WP:LAME. Just zis Guy you know? 11:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::*I posted a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANixer&diff=73024295&oldid=73005663 pointer to this discussion] on Nixer's talk page. Hopefully he will take heed of comments here, respond appropriately and move on. Let's wait and see. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Nixer can really be a pain to deal with due to his stubbornness, but he has a number of good contributions and in my opinion he in general was an asset rather than a liability. I am against indefinite community block on this stage but I would support some limiting of his edit warring (e.g. 1RR or 2RR instead of 3RR) as well as some sort of a formal mentoring ( I volunteer to be a mentor, but I would need an assistance from somebody in a Moscow timezone). If we need a formal Arbcom decision for this, I would support the Arbcom. abakharev 14:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• If Alex and another are willing to mentor him then giving him one more chance might make sense. JoshuaZ 22:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Liftarn [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Liftarn_reported_by_User:Mantanmoreland_.28Result:6_hours.29 was reported] for a 3rr vio at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; he was continuously removing :category:Holocaust denial and :Category:Anti-Semitic people, claiming that these removals were valid as per WP:BLP and therefore not subject to 3RR. Due to the fair number of sources in the article documenting Ahmadinejad's disdain for Israel and etc., I don't really buy it; however, i blocked him for only 6 hours, out of good faith and in the hopes that they could maybe chat about this on liftarn's talk page. Some people are unhappy with this. So i figured i'd bring it up here. Liftarn continues to claim that his reverts are not subject to 3rr, while other editors feel i didn't block for long enough.

But i'm not looking for a resolution to this content dispute; i have some specific questions:

• what are the limits of WP:BLP, and what happens when someone believes they are using it legitimately and others disagree?
• How can a category such as Anti-Semitic people possibly exist, containing living people, in a npov fashion, not impinging on BLP guidelines? how do we decide--even with sources--whether or not someone is an anti-semite in a situation such as this?

thoughts?

--heah 00:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:Frankly, I don't see how it's possible for :Category:Anti-Semitic people to mesh with WP:BLP. Especially unnaceptable is its statement that "Wikipedia defines anti-semitism as X." That's original research, boys and girls, and the worst possible kind: it's for the purpose of labelling people with a highly-loaded term. It could be replaced, I suppose, by :Category:People who are called Anti-Semitic or :Category:Allegedly anti-semitic people—which would have the criterion that some notable source had called them Anti-Semitic. This criterion, unlike the current one, is at least self-consistent under NPOV. -- SCZenz 00:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This category has been nominated for deletion 4 times and each time resulting in no consensus to delete or rename. It sure as hell isn't going be ironed out on WP:ANI either. I can clearly see why Liftarn can easily justify to himself why 3RR wouldn't apply to him either. I think the proper thing to do here is keep it reverted (since the Category still exists) and together start a discussion/debate on WP:RFC so we can finally have a policy to work with in future, because I can see this definitely happening again and again in future. --  Netsnipe  ►  00:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:A very valid point. One thing I note is that it hasn't been nominated since before WP:BLP became a widely-known official policy, and it may no longer be consistent with our current mechanisms of handling biographies of living persons. I'll look at the category a bit more and possibly re-nominate it. But yes, this isn't the place to discuss it; if anyone wants to argue with what I wrote above, or discuss the general issues here (rather than the specific incident), please direct that to my talk page. -- SCZenz 01:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

{{user5|Liftarn}} should be unblocked here. His edits were quite certainly in good faith relative to WP:BLP. (→Netscott) 01:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:Nonsense. Whatever shred of "good faith" one can attest to his reversion of the anti-Semitic people cat, despite all the evidence on that, does not apply to his reversion of the "Holocaust denial" category. In that regard he was engaged in a one-man reversion war. He had zero support for that reversion on the talk page. For that alone his block should have been far more than the six hours imposed. That was no way a good-faith invocation of BLP, by any way shape or form. I think Heath errs is treating reversions for the anti-Semitic cat and the (relatively uncontroversial) Holocaust denial cat as being equivalent.--Mantanmoreland 01:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::It's up in half an hour, and his continued removal of :Category:Holocaust denial wasn't problematic under BLP. Which is why i still went ahead and imposed a short block. SCZenz pretty much echoes my views, but BLP wasn't applicable to everything going on with the reverts. --heah 01:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::In this rename discussion the majority of views were either for rename or delete on :Category:Anti-Semitic people. I imagine in DRV that renaming might go through.... I'm not really sure why the renaming wasn't instituted. (→Netscott) 01:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Not exactly. The admin who closed discussion noted that "there is consensus for the category to exist." Actually it was nominated again two weeks later, and more voted to keep unchanged than to rename. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_27#Category:Anti-Semitic_people_to_Category:People_accused_of_anti-Semitism] --Mantanmoreland 01:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm honestly at some loss at to understand this. He reverted two cats, one definitely not a good faith reversion under BLP. If he had reverted that alone would it have warranted a longer block? I fail to see how reverting two cats is less problematic than reverting one. Also note that on his talk page he views this whole 3RR thing as "wikistalking."--Mantanmoreland 01:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::I'm not sure about the Holocaust category as I'm not that familiar with Ahmadinejad's story in that light and I'd have to research that... but if Liftarn was targetting the anti-Semitic people category and that other category was in the mix... then I'd say it was fair game per this section of WP:3RR. (→Netscott) 01:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::MA would consider it "libelous" not to be called a Holocaust denier.--Mantanmoreland 01:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Agree with Mantanmoreland. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::Well the anti-Semitic people category has been very contentious and it is very evident that there is no consensus on that. If the Holocaust category wasn't clouding the issue I doubt Liftarn would have been blocked here. I suspect the issues with these categories may need to be discussed on the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. (→Netscott) 02:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::::If you let Liftarn or any editor revert infinitely the "anti-Semitic category" tag, then you might as well do away with the category. That may be all ducky for an editor such as yourself who opposes both the category and MA's inclusion therein, but seems a rather backwards way of approaching the situation. There is such a category, and if the evidence is mountainous that a person belongs in it, as in this instance, citing BLP and revert-warring using that language is bad faith and should be subject to 3RR. Otherwise you have endless edit warring.--Mantanmoreland 02:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::: What is the problem exactly? Not enough WP:RS? I'd say not. Or we are afraid that MA (as BLP) is going to sue WP? Highly unlikely. It seems to me that certain uncomfortable events or speeches are so uncomfortable for some users, that they want to hide them under the rug hoping the problem goes away. Sorry, human history is full of uncomfortable events and good encylopedias should expose, describe and systematize them. Oh, and this particular issue has been discussed to death, so starting another discussion is not going to help. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether the category (anti-semitic people) should exist or not is not a discussion for this forum. It is not WP:OR to say the MA is Anti-semitic; the US senate went on record as such, and his Holocaust denial is beyond denial. With verifiable reliable sources, I do not think it can be considered libelous (libel needs to be false, see Slander and libel), and as such, does not fall into the scope of WP:BLP. If anything, removing sourced and cited material is vandalism, in my opinion. -- Avi 04:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:No 3RR exemption. Here's a tip for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: if you don't want to be seen as a Holocaust denier and an antisemite, stop denying the Holocaust and stop making anti-semitic statements. Remember, I said if. El_C 06:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of power. VAndalizing my page and viloating the 3RR rule. Warned several times and continued to vandalize.TheTruth2 00:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's not considered 3RR to revert vandalism, and removal of valid warnings are considered just that. Danny Lilithborne 00:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• TheTruth2 has been repeatedly warned for removing warnings from his/her talk page. I will give one last warning that TheTruth2 will be blocked if they don't stop. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• TheTruth2 has already tried to report Ohnoitsjamie at WP:AIV (result: I declined to block) and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (result: no action against Ohnoitsjamie). Enough already. NawlinWiki 03:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Abuse of power Vandalism and 3RR violation. Jamie could have gotten another admin involved. Also Zoe I have not removed the warnings since early yesterday. Jamie is abusing his power.TheTruth2 05:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry, it's a misreading of policy to assert that somehow someone who is warning you can't block you because he or she is "involved in a dispute." They're not "involved" - they're enforcing policy. FCYTravis 16:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Jamie is abusing his power. Period.TheTruth2 16:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:*Do you see any other administrators or fellow editors here agreeing with you? Three (corrected)separate administrators apart from Ohnoitsjamie have blocked you in the past. Two other administrators and four editors including myself agree that your reports to WP:AIV and WP:AN3 are groundless. Please learn to accept community consensus. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Then it needs to be updated then.TheTruth2 18:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• What needs to be updated? Danny Lilithborne 23:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Chadbryant has been subjected to ongoing harassment over a long period of time, particularly by :Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dick Witham. The latest ploy is to upload a picture from his personal website onto a user page of a sock, as in Chabba, now indef blocked. He has recently been sent a [http://www.chadbryant.net/wikipedia/chabba.txt harassing e-mail through Wikipedia from Chabba]. Can the sending email address be blocked from using the system? Tyrenius 01:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:I should point out that Chabba/Linden Arden is not the same individual as "DickWitham", but is working in tandem with that user. - Chadbryant 01:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:I deleted the image, as I don't think it needs to sit at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for the next couple of weeks. Jkelly 01:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:Any user who has been doing more or less what most sockpuppets of Dick Witham have been doing, especially harassing Chadbryant, using his images in "abusive" ways or whatever, can be indef-blocked. What do you mean by "blocked from using the system"? Do you mean Wikipedia's email tool? --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

User:TJ Spyke and User:KojiDude have been edit-waring over some trival matter for a while now. 65.175.202.243 01:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:Both have been blocked for 24 hours for the moment. --InShaneee 22:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Can someone pleeeeeeeeeeeease semi-protect my userpage and talk page ASAP? In the last hour alone my talk page (not to mention other pages I've edited) have been vandalised with defamatory statements by 6 seperate sockpuppets of {{vandal|VaughanWatch}}/{{vandal|JohnnyCanuck}}.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APm_shef&diff=72955329&oldid=72955094]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APm_shef&diff=72955078&oldid=72954913]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APm_shef&diff=72954893&oldid=72954276]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APm_shef&diff=72954249&oldid=72953827]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APm_shef&diff=72953791&oldid=72951265]

That's not even to mention the other 20 sockpuppets who've done essentially the same thing over the last 5 days. Thanks in advance. -- pm_shef 03:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Make that 7 in an hour [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APm_shef&diff=72956254&oldid=72955339]. -- pm_shef 03:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Done Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 03:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:*Okeydoke, so they're not trolling my talkpage now thanks to the protection, but they've moved into the main space, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pire] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Opli]. We just gonna keep blocking them as they show up? Is there nothing we can do proactively? -- pm_shef 04:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::* Not really. Luckily this is a really stupid troll, who makes the socks completely obvious :-) Just zis Guy you know? 11:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::* He has a couple of different types of sock puppets. He seems to lash out with these really abusive socks whenever his other socks aren't successful. I think this attack may have been as a result of semi-protecting Fränkel and Vaughan municipal election, 2006 yesterday. I have also seen a similar attack when I was blocking & reverting all the socks voting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Responsibility. (Although, if you want to talk stupid, those socks were still very active after it was clear that the result of that AFD would be keep, which was his desired outcome.) -- JamesTeterenko 18:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

From two users: LegionUltraBoy (talk • contribs • [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=move&user={{urlencode:{{ucfirst:LegionUltraBoy}}}}}} page moves] • block user • [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=block&page=User:{{urlencode:LegionUltraBoy}}}} block log]) and Spartanpass (talk • contribs • [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=move&user={{urlencode:{{ucfirst:Spartanpass}}}}}} page moves] • block user • [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=block&page=User:{{urlencode:SpartanPass}}}} block log]). It's not in the contribs, of course, but in the upload log: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/upload]. Unless I'm missing something obvious here (and a lot of album covers look like vandalism to me) -- this is a huge string of unreverted vandalism and it's been going on for a while. Can someone else assist me with this? I'm going to start reverting. Antandrus (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:Anyone want to help me delete the bad revisions? Otherwise this idiot kid will just make another account and revert back again. Thanks for any help, Antandrus (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::I'll jump in and delete a few, sure. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:Well, I reverted up to the point where I started finding your reversions, Antandrus. :( I wish I could help further. Ryūlóng 04:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks all. I've finished with LegionUltraBoy; next up. Antandrus (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I've been working on it. Mak (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::I know. Thanks. :-) Antandrus (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Any image upload vandalism should be cleared from the following accounts, which appear to be a sockfarm. (And the accounts probably should be blocked if they are not already)

{{user3|DKsRule}}

{{user3|GreenLanternDC}}

{{user3|BlazingLasers}}

{{user3|CentipediaNES}}

{{user3|KidIcarusNES}}

{{user3|CaptainMarvelDC}}

{{user3|GlobalGUTS}}

{{user3|CthulhuCommandsYou}}

{{user3|GottaCatchEmAll}}

{{user3|ChildrensCrusade}}

{{user3|IWashMyselfWithaRagOnaStick}}

{{user3|FallOutChoi}}

{{user3|DoubtingElDandy}}

{{user3|BlackestNight}}

{{user3|I Totally Rule}}

{{user3|Jefferson Carship}}

{{user3|GoGoGobots}}

{{user3|ChicaGLoFire}}

{{user3|ChicaGLoBulls}}

{{user3|ChicaGLoTribune}}

{{user3|JeffersonCarship}}

{{user3|FallOutBoySucks}}

{{user3|HerkimerCountyBlowhole}}

{{user3|LaserChallenge}}

After a short while, I'm sure you'll figure out how I got that list. But I'm going with BEANS otherwise. If I were you I'd torch the talk edits as well. Kevin_b_er 05:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:Yup. Took me a few ... seconds to figure it out.

Kevin, GTBacchus, Ryulong, Makemi, and if there was anyone I missed, thank you for helping out. Antandrus (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A user, {{user|Snowbound}}, was given numerous warnings for anti-social behaviour, civility and warning removals by {{user|GIen}} (an administrator) after he/she posted a very confronting and incivil message on my talk page. He/she did this because I reverted his blanking of warnings off his/her talk page. Since, Snowbound has archived his/her warnings off the page, which I have no objections to. However, he/she added a link to the archive box which was incorrect, so I fixed it for him/her, per WP:ARCHIVE. I also left a helpful edit summary, as well as a message, detailing the fixes I made to conform with the Wikipedia policy linked previously.

This user has since posted a message on GIen's talk accusing me of Wikistalking, as well as stating "I have previously requested that the user Daniel Bryant do not edit my talk page". He/she refuses to acknowledge the fact that anyone can post anything, within Wikipedia policy, on any user's talk page. I am under no Arbitration Commitee sanction at all, and this user needs to be reminded about these regulations, as well as to not falsley accuse people of stalking another's talk page, however I do not wish to inflame this user's misconcieved thoughts that I shouldn't post on their talk page.

Considering the serious warnings handed out by an impartial administrator, any administrator who reviews this may wish to take further action under Wikipedia's blocking policy. However, I believe a sufficient heads-up to procedure should be sufficient. Daniel.Bryant 06:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:Issue has been dealt with, however {{user|Snowbound}} is currently not contributing to Wikipedia. If he/she consents, all will be fine. If he/she doesn't, then this discussion will have to be re-opened. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Now under a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbiv&diff=72249226&oldid=71374413 week-long block] for pretending that the ArbCom decision in his case doesn't apply to him, {{User|Dbiv}} has created a sockpuppet ({{User|DavidBoothroyd}}) and is trying to redirect the User Page thrown up by his IP (User:80.177.212.6, also blocked) and alter his own message left on my Talk Page ("Remove personal attack", says his edit summary: nice of him to admit it upfront). Minor, but still irritating. --Calton | Talk 13:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:No-one's blocked the sockpuppet... shall I? The Land 13:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::Calton, aren't you an admin?? I've blocked the sockpuppet. If Dbiv ceases to use it to evade the block on his main account then there's no reason to believe it's a malicious sockpuppet, and it can be unblocked. However, he doesn't seem to realise that even though he is an ex-admin the rules still apply to him. The Land 13:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Calton is not an admin re his talk page header. ;) Syrthiss 14:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Really, I thought he was. The Land 14:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::I've never hidden that fact: Say it loud! I'm a non-admin and proud mildly content! --Calton | Talk 14:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Tragic cases like this raise the chicken or egg question about whether desysopped people are pushed over the edge by their rejection or whether the community made a good call. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 14:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

: The original block was specifically for editing Peter Tatchell, from which Dbiv is banned. --Tony Sidaway 14:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::The stated purpose of the sock is to protect the article on himself, David Boothroyd. Although creating the sock is a techincal violation of his week-long block, it would be unfortunate if someone took advantage of Dbiv's situation to inappropriately edit the David Boothroyd article. As long as the sock sticks to that purpose, I find it hard to get worked up over it. It should be tagged as a friendly sock, should not edit any other articles while Dbiv is blocked, and should never edit Peter Tatchell. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::Indeed. It is unfortunate that that was necessary. I feel blocking his sockpuppet was slightly more the letter of policy than the spirit. Equally, he is being deliberately disruptive (though in a minor way) and he should know better. It all fits with the pattern of behaviour that led to his desysopping.

::If User:DavidBoothroyd were not be used as a tool to evade blocks, I would be quite happy to unblock it (at least at times when Dbiv is not blocked). The Land 14:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not an admin by any stretch -- just an amateur busybody -- and whether the sockpuppet is indefbanned or not is of no concern to me. Being blocked for the duration of his existing block IS -- especially if it stops his oddball gameplaying, like reporting me to WP:PAIN...for not letting him remove HIS OWN personal attack from my own talk page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard&diff=73020794&oldid=73020479]. I'm wondering if he's going mental. --Calton | Talk 14:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:Technical question: I thought User talk:80.177.212.6 was semi-protected. I thought that meant brand-new users (like User:DavidBoothroyd couldn't edit it. No? --Calton | Talk 14:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::"New" in this case means 4 or 5 days I think. USer:David Boothroyd was created 10 days ago. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:: :User:DavidBoothroyd isn't a brand new account - it was created on the 21st of this month, not the 31st (confusing, as the only activity has been on those two dates). So it predates the week-long block. I'd suggest that the account is blocked for a shorter period, but not indefinitely - there is a legitimate use for it, and David has been open from the start about the fact that it's a sock/alternate account (see the edit history). --ajn (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:The plot thickens. Dbiv has removed the notice saying I'd blocked his sockpuppet. I restored it; he did it again; I have protected his talk page. Also very regrettable. The Land 14:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::It would be really nice if we could de-escalate this situation. CanadianCeasar's question is highly relevant. I've seen several former admins turn on wikipedia and we should do as little as possible to contribute to that. In the spirit of being nice and assuming good faith I would like to ask that User:DavidBoothroyd be unblocked and for everyone to leave him alone. Yes, its a technical violation and Dbiv is evading his block, but if Calton had left him alone then quite possibly the only edits would have been the redirects he set up. I also don't have a problem with redirecting the IP talk page to Dbiv's as long as it really is a stable IP; I have seen this arrangement before with noncontroversial editors and no one objected. The bottom line is, if Dbiv uses the David Boothroyd account for other than its stated purpose, that will become immediately clear and action can be taken then. With his stated refusal to accept the article ban Dbiv is on the wrong path but the last thing we should do is push (or even nudge) him farther down it. I know my opinion is not technically correct either, but its how I feel at this time. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Yes, I probably agree: I have unblocked the sock and unprotected the talk page. Let's hope for the best from David. The Land 15:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::I may be speaking about stuff that ain't my business, Thatcher, but here it goes: rather than an appeal by Dbiv (that was rejected by ArbCom), why not make a motion in prior case and replace the article ban with a probation or a revert parole? If Dbiv will really want to improve the article and not go edit-warrying again, that's just fine for WP. If not, well he'll be blocked. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Without reviewing the arbitration case, I'm sure that such remedies were considered. (You can look yourself; it would be on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Workshop if I typed that correctly.) And I suspect it's much too early for the arbitrators to agree to entertain such a motion. Actually, I agree with the article ban, not because the content of his edits was bad, but because the manner in which he made the edits was bad, and his recent behavior does not fill me with confidence that he would have adhered to the 11th-hour compromise he worked out with Irishpunktom. Since he does not agree with the article ban, an escalating series of conflicts is not entirely unforseeable. In the meantime, since Dbiv could just as easily create User:QwertyJoe to defend the article on himself, we're probably better off allowing him to do it openly.Thatcher131 (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::: Well, I'm obviously not the best person to argue on this case. I would just like to state for the record that such a remedy was not considered at the workshop. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Hmm. Well, after subsequent events, it's hard for me to imagine the arbitrators considering such a motion without several months of quiet, polite productive edits. Dbiv can edit the Tatchell talk page, of course, although that's apparently not good enough for him. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::If one were to tell a friend to please not borrow the car for awhile because they smoked in it, and they borrowed it again, it makes sense to take away the keys for awhile. We all have a certain amount of respect for Dbiv, but when people step beyond bounds of what's acceptable, even if they're nice about it (e.g. using an ashtray in a smoking-verboten place), we should not permit that. Allowing them to do so if they paint the cigarettes like straws is not kosher -- neither is changing the rules so they can smoke. Dbiv should show better sense than this, and we shouldn't be bending over backwards to permit or reward broken behaviour. Please reblock the sock and let him wait. --Improv 15:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

: I think Improv is right (I never meant my clarification of the block reason to imply that the sock should not also be blocked). Members of the Arbitration Committee specifically expressed severe reservations about Dbiv's conduct during the arbitration case, specifically his insertion of his own point of view into one of the proposed findings of fact (on a page that is reserved for arbitrators and clerks). His conduct since the case ended includes two separate repeated instances of edit warring on the Peter Tatchell article from which he is banned, in what he openly describes as a direct challenge to the Arbitration Committee's authority.

: Whatever injustice may have been perpetrated in this case, it could not be remedied by subjecting Dbiv to special treatment. --Tony Sidaway 16:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::Agreed. One question though - if Tony [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Dbiv blocked] Dbiv for one week at 21:35, 27 August 2006 (BST), how has he managed to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dbiv edit] since then in the past few days? I'm thinking an unblock to reblock is in order, as this seems to be a block that has not taken hold. I agree with the de-escalation sentiments, this is a previously prolific and valuable contributor. However, he is actively sticking two fingers up to an ArbCom ruling and using 3 accounts to circumvent that and resultant blocks for violating the ruling. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::: Blocked editors still have the ability to edit their talk pages; Since 27 August, Dbiv has edited only his talk page while logged in at that account. --Tony Sidaway 19:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Woops, of course. A complete misreading of which accounts / sockpuppets / IP's edited which pages and when. My mistake. --Cactus.man ✍ 23:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::I'm not arguing for special treatment. As I understand it, socks used to evade blocks should themselves be blocked. This is normally considered egregious misconduct by the blocked user. However, the fact that a sock has been used to evade a block does not necessarily mean that it will be in future. If Dbiv can avoid the temptation to wind people up with his sockpuppet, then that is a valuable step to his addressing the problems that led to him being blocked in the first place. If he continues to evade his block, then we can just issue more blocks on one or both accounts with relatively little effort. (I hope that what I maen is at least vaguely clear). The Land 20:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Syphonbyte was recently indefinitely blocked for creating and utilizing disruptively impostor sockpuppet accounts of User:Cyde all confirmed by RFCU. This case looked over but relative to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AGotem&diff=55680044&oldid=55672761 this diff] wherein Gotem states, "I am also Syphonbyte" it appears that he's now editing as Gotem (talk • contribs • [{{SERVER}}/wiki/Special:Log/move?user={{urlencode:Gotem}} page moves] • block user • [{{SERVER}}/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User:{{urlencode:Gotem}} block log]). User:Gotem is denying this but User:Syphonbyte repetitively denied utilizing sockpuppets and this is likely a further example of this. Perhaps someone with a mop could take a look at this? Thanks. (→Netscott) 14:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:Pretty obvious sock. Indefinately blocked. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As a goodwill gesture and an act of kindness, I shortened Mccready's 7 day block to 2 days. The blocking admin was fine with the change. (see talk page discussion for reason). Immediately after returning to editing he made highly uncivil/PA edits and continued his original negative disruptive editing style that caused his block. I reblocked him. Mccready now is claiming that my block should be reviewed because I have a grudge against him. Please review and change if consensus supports it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mccready#Blocked_for_disruption] --FloNight 15:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:Duncharris has unblocked, so apparently that's at least one who thought it was too much. I wouldn't have unblocked, myself, but I can't disagree with it too much either I suppose. The block sent the message it was intended to send. The message does not appear to have been received, but maybe there's little to be done about that. Friday (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We really need a bot for archiving and transcluding old questions, is there anyone who has an open source bot, they wouldn't mind sharing, that could be adapted for our needs? Crypticbot was supposedly going to go open source, but never did. If anyone has bot source code that might be adapted to suite our needs, please contact me on my talk page--VectorPotential^{71.247.243.173} 16:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

During a recent WP:3RR ban Hardouin took it on himself to send emails to several admins "warning" them of my "behaviour", and, so it would seem, making the accusation that I am a stalker/reverter when nothing of the sort is true. Ending his WP:3RR break with another revert, he left accusatory messages on the article talk page - I answered these on his talk page. Later under the cover of a declared 'archiving', he effaced my first answering message, then another refuting the accusation itself - and has removed at least three since, even a one-line messages indicating where the removed posts are, as they were effaced, not archived, and I am seriously considering a WP:RFC case. This is certainly not what once could call 'Wiki-fun'. The effaced messages are here. THEPROMENADER 16:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

: What do mean he "effaced" your first message? Please provide a link. In general, if he removes your messages from his talk page, I wouldn't talk to him there. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Sorry, perhaps that wasn't the right word - the only place you could have found the message was in the page history. The 'archiving' is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hardouin&diff=73002417&oldid=72991719 here] but the archives are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hardouin/Archive&diff=prev&oldid=73002394 here] - messages gone. If you'll look through the page history you'll see that through today I tried twice to reinstall them and later to simply leave a link - all removed. THEPROMENADER 17:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I suggest having a look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:ThePromenader ThePromander's block log] and at ThePromenader's hostile messages at User talk:Captain scarlet (the whole page, not just the last messages) to better understand the sort of harassment I am being subjected to. Then the purpose of his complaint here will become quite clear. Hardouin 17:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK I see. The reason I asked for more info was that my response depends on what you meant. Had he edited you comments to make it look like you said something that you did not, well that's one thing. But if he has simply deleted your comments, then just let the matter go. It's his talk page. Hee doesn't have to archive messages from you. Defend yourself somewhere else, i.e. not on his talk page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

: Alright then, thanks. I'll keep the messages on my own talk page. THEPROMENADER 17:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:PS: I had thought there was some sort of convention against this sort of behaviour. Sorry for your time. THEPROMENADER 17:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::Although it is generally considered bad taste, editors do have the right to remove non-warning messages. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just blocked {{user|Abstract Idiot}} for 192 hours for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=move&user=Abstract_Idiot&page=&limit=100 pagemove vandalism]. His last edit before today was weeks ago, so I was wondering if his account has been compromised, and if there is any better solution to just blocking for a short period? Thanks, — FireFox ^(talk) _{17:42, 31 August 2006}

• I'd block indefinitely, if it is compromised then the real owner can still contact us, if not then the block stands. Just a couple of observations though, the first edits were only at the beginning of the month. The first edits was to install popups in their monobook.js, so I would suggest this wasn't a brand new user per se. --pgk^(talk) 18:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• I agree. I've reset the block to indefinite for now. Grandmasterka 19:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This IP has been blocked three times previously, and is still regularly vandalizing pages with various nonsense and outright homophobic slurs which have nothing to do with the articles in question. Perhaps a longer blocking period than a day or two is required to discourage this person from amusing themselves with idiotic behavior. Unigolyn 19:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:Shared IP with many good contributions; short blocks can be made where necessary, but it looks like that vandal is gone for now. In the future, please, report these to WP:AIV. Thanks :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::They haven't done much in the last few days. I'm hesitant about warning them, since the vandalism died down awhile ago and the wrong person may get the wrong message. Don't report them to WP:AIV unless they do it again. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Stampedem continues to troll the Eliot Shapleigh article, and is ademently defending the presence of the Dee Margo article, although I have already explained that candidate pages are pretty routinely sent to the bit bucket. I need an IP address linked to this user. I believe these contributions are coming directly from campaign headquarters. Somnabot 20:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A thread I posted to got archived without any response. See IncidentArchive130. I'm having difficulty finding out where the current discussion on this is taking place. Can anyone help? Thanks. Carcharoth 22:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

{{vandal|Chalklit73}} seems to be a vandalism-only account. I've only blocked for an hour, but, if someone feels a longer block is appropriate, please be my guest. (This is my first block which isn't a repeat of a previous block for the same type of condition.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:Changed block to indefinite. If he wants to create Chalklit74 or Chalklit 73, it's up to him, after the IP block drops off. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Edipedia has engaged in a long edit war on Han Chinese and other Chinese-ethnic-related articles such as Overseas Chinese, pushing his POV in apparent ignorance of Wikipedia policies. Attempts to discuss with him and to educate him in Wikipedia policies failed (see his talk page and the long discussion at Talk:Han Chinese); Edipedia edits regardless of talk page discussions, sometimes with abusive edit summaries [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overseas_Chinese&diff=prev&oldid=71044672] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overseas_Chinese&diff=prev&oldid=71188424]. Edipedia does not seem to be fluent in English [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zheng_He&diff=prev&oldid=71195219], which can be understood and is completely acceptable. However, any note or warning that went into his talk page was abruptly removed without any reason [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edipedia&diff=72630152&oldid=72411325] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edipedia&diff=72402555&oldid=72401396] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edipedia&diff=71624221&oldid=71623164] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edipedia&diff=71412887&oldid=71410182] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edipedia&diff=71218964&oldid=71189157] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edipedia&diff=70605430&oldid=70533796] etc., despite continuous reminders not to do so. Attempts to discuss from about five established users in Wikipedia, including User:Sumple, User:Nat Krause, User:HongQiGong, User:Instantnood failed miserably as Edipedia refused to listen to any advice, making comments like "I do see a lot of Stuff and nonsense here" and commenting that he thinks Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and therefore he is free to edit anything [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Han_Chinese&diff=71183266&oldid=71103564]. He also tried to correct what he see as grammatical mistakes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zheng_He&diff=prev&oldid=71195219] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zheng_He&diff=prev&oldid=71181826], but most of the time it was he that was wrong, and he refused to listen to it and started to tell others to "study English grammer" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Han_Chinese&diff=70446284&oldid=70446000]. He then started to politically accuse others of being "Taiwanese" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Han_Chinese&diff=prev&oldid=70991742]; then, despite reminders of WP:NOT a soapbox [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Han_Chinese&diff=71102700&oldid=71101592] he continued to accuse others of various political matters [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Han_Chinese&diff=71400160&oldid=71367909]. In the meantime he continues to make POV or wrong edits around the article Han Chinese (in various parts of the article; all of the edits are reverted by separate contributors, to be added by him again). I requested the page Han Chinese (and later Overseas Chinese) to be fully-protected to try to make Edipedia discuss logically; however, Edipedia immediately requested the page for unprotection twice [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=71183835&oldid=71182033] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=71617270] (second one using one of his sockpuppets, Epedia, as he was blocked for his third violation of 3RR), claiming that "edit war has died down". The second request succeeded. However, he immediately started an edit war, making 4 reverts under 40 minutes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han_Chinese&diff=72223493&oldid=72210416] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han_Chinese&diff=72224929&oldid=72224405] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han_Chinese&diff=72227462&oldid=72226852] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han_Chinese&diff=72229605&oldid=72229454] (without any discussion or edit summaries, to be reverted by User:Instantnood and User:HongQiGong). Any attempt to discuss with him failed; he then engaged in pure vandalism, including the placing of obvious illegitimate warnings [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HongQiGong&diff=prev&oldid=72401324] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aranherunar&diff=prev&oldid=72399698] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HongQiGong&diff=prev&oldid=72405906]. After being blocked 48 hours for the fourth violation of 3RR [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Edipedia] after three more reverts in Han Chinese (reverted by me and HongQiGong), he created a sockpuppet account, User:Editor 1 and continued edit warring [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_people&diff=prev&oldid=72653400] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_people&diff=prev&oldid=72643438] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_people&diff=prev&oldid=72629713] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overseas_Chinese&diff=prev&oldid=72452132] and pure vandalism, including the disruption of Administrators' noticeboard (the particular case about Edipedia) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=72680542]. More evidence of sockpuppeting is here. User Edipedia continues to blank his talk page. Edipedia has another sockpuppet, User:Epedia, which he sometimes uses when he is blocked. Epedia is an obvious sockpuppet: see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=71617270].Aran|heru|nar 03:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Without regard to this report, I blocked Editor 1 for 4 days for 3RR violations, disruption, and personal attacks (per this) alphaChimp ^laudare 03:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::Edipedia has made another obvious sockpuppet, Yepre. He is continuing his reckless edit warring in Chinese people, making four reverts under 24 hours with the account alone. Aran|heru|nar 02:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::Edipedia is trying to remove the sockpuppeteer tag from his User page. He has removed it three times already[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Edipedia&diff=prev&oldid=73036907][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Edipedia&diff=73042995&oldid=73038776][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Edipedia&diff=next&oldid=73043832], and will most likely keep going until an admin stops him. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::This is getting ridiculous. He illegitimately put a sockpuppeteer tag on my user page as retaliation for my edits[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:HongQiGong&diff=73050072&oldid=72965017]. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Edipedia is once again removing warnings from his Talk page[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edipedia&diff=73269284&oldid=73269015]. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday I successfully put the article "Benoît Chamoux" into production but when I search on "Chamoux" the article is not listed. Is there something that I need to do to update the indexing for search? Thanks, CCC Cclauss 08:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Make a redirect. Create a page called "Chamoux" with the content only reading "#REDIRECT Benoît Chamoux". Danny Lilithborne 08:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, that may not be the best advice for two reasons:

1. Chamoux isn't the rarest name - there's a Jean Chamoux, photographer, Matthieu Chamoux, some kind of producer, Chamoux-sur-Gelon canton... we'd need a complex disambiguation page rather than a simple redirect, which may be more work than Cclauss is signing up for.
2. And even that won't solve the "Search" issue Cclauss is asking about. The issue with that is that the Wikipedia Search database can take several days to be fully updated with new articles. The only real cure for that is patience. It will come, grasshopper, it will come. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've created a disambiguation page for the two main Chamoux articles (Benoît and Jean). I normally don't include pages that don't have the disambigued word in their title in the disambiguation pages I create (so no links to the producer etcetera), but everyone's free to add those if they feel it is necessary of course. Fram 08:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, it's not so simple at all, I'm afraid. In the French WP, [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamoux| Chamoux] is primarily the canton, not a disambiguation at all, and I guess they should know. Here's "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Chamoux what links here]" for the English page - both for the canton (or are they different cantons?), neither for either Benoit or Jean. It looks like using it for a name disambiguation is inappropriate. And using the administrator's noticeboard/incidents to discuss the fate of a minor dab page is even less appropriate, now that I think about it...AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• For the moment, seeing what other articles exist, the current disambig page is the correct solution. What would you do? Create a Chamoux page that redirects to Chamoux (disambiguation)? That's overkill. What you can do, if you think it is necessary, is add a link on the Chamoux page to Cantons of the Savoie département. The page is not intended for name disambiguation only, it is intended for all disambiguation, but as there are no other articles for some specific Chamoux for the moment, no other items were needed there. I think I have followed Wikipedia:Disambiguation completely, but nothing there prohibits the adding of more articles to the page. Also remember that while a French canton may be the logical first page for a search term on the French Wikipedia, it is not necessarily so on an international one. By the way, the village Chamoux (the main article on the French Wikipedia has a massive 83 inhabitants. I do agree with one thing though; if this discussion is necessary, it should be done at either the article Chamoux (for the specifics) or at the WP:disambig page (for a more general discussion). Fram 19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Could someone fix the spelling of "receives" on the featured article notice on the main page. Thanks. –Shoaler (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Fixed. Mackensen (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Would like some eyes on the following problem: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jessefriend; 3 editors and 2 IP's have made the same edit to the Jesse Macbeth article, reversing the meaning of the intro without discussion. Between the editors, the page has been identically reverted 14 times in the last 24 hours (3rr violations by 2 of the editors, 3rd blocked immediately as imposter). See also Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Deepthroat123_reported_by_User:Mmx1_(Result:24_hour_block). --Mmx1 01:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:Article is now semi-protected. Naconkantari 01:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• {{IPvandal|66.11.160.31}} — blocked for 1 week by User:Cowman109 for abusive account creation
• {{IPvandal|72.137.247.10}} — only two edits, both rv to Jesse Macbeth
• {{vandal|Jessefriend}} — blocked indefinitely by User:Cowman109 as vandalism only account
• {{vandal|Deepthroat123}} — 24 hour block for 3RR violation by User:ERcheck; block changed to indefinite by User:Cowman109 for vandalism & sockpuppet of Jessefriend
• {{vandal|Nobunaga25}} — impersonator of User:Nobunaga24 — perm block for impersonation by User:ERcheck.

— ERcheck (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mystar has violated wikipedia's policy against personal attacks several times and contines to do so despite tactful requests for him to alter his behavior, notification of the offical policy against it, warnings to stop in Talk:Terry Goodkind and several warning templates in his user talk page. This comes in the form of rude, hostile and unfounded accusations of misconduct, labeling others liars without proof, name calling and generaly aggresive and belligerent posts targeting specific editors. The majority of these incidents can be found at Talk:Terry Goodkind and Talk: Sword of Truth. His behavior is not only disruptive and rude but hey refuses to heed very patient warnings from other editors. NeoFreak 03:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:I've been trying to get an idea what this is all about. It's really quite difficult with all that history - lots of material archived, etc. Mystar does, indeed, often fail to assume good faith, and he has said a lot of things in the past that probably cross the line into personal attacks. Obviously, he shouldn't do that. It's also slightly concerning the extent to which he seems to be taking instructions from Terry Goodkind himself. All the same, I'm not sure that this is the right time for admins to intervene, unless something especially outrageous happens. We may just inflame the situation, right now, when there is some hope for it to cool down.

:It's basically a content dispute, and it looks as if a number of you are prepared to try mediation. I think the mediation should go ahead if at all possible. Also, I'm getting a sense (perhaps I'm wrong about this; I haven't gone to enormous lengths to check the merits of the dispute) that Mystar isn't just being mad or bad here - that he has been provoked in part by some unencyclopedic attacks on Goodkind's literary reputation using inappropriate sources. I suggest that admins keep out of it for the moment, while we see if the mediation works. All the history will come out if it ever ends up with Arb.Com. For now, I'll watch developments. I just urge that everyone try to be civil and assume that other current editors are acting in good faith, and that everyone do their best to be understanding of other viewpoints in the mediation. Of course, you (or Mystar if it comes to that) can come back here if there are any urgent problems that I'm not seeing, or haven't yet come up, which might require warnings or page protection. Comments from anyone else? Metamagician3000 13:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::There does seem to be some soigns of a deescalation without the need for any further outside help. I'm hopeful this will continue. Thanks for looking into it. NeoFreak 22:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have warned user Ruthfulbarbarity numerous times in the last few days about his personal attacks and incivility directed towards me - all violations of WP:NPA. Today this user - in an effort to inflame already-high tensions even more, erroneously corrected my spelling of the word 'né' to 'née' (he did this in MY text, section title, and comments) claimed that the word 'né' did not exist, [http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19970822 see] then personally attacked me again, violating WP:NPA. I pointed out that my usage was correct, and he was wrong, and asked, then demanded that he correct the improper and erroneous edits he made to MY text. Thus far, he has refused. I ask that he be give a much needed and deserved 48 hour (or more) block as remedy - so that he might reflect on his actions - and that we can get some work done.

You will find his edit here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Protest_Warrior&oldid=73121715#Question_about_Alan_Lipton_n.C3.A9e_Davidson Ruthfulbarbarity's edit of my text] and the general talk page here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Protest_Warrior Talk]

NBGPWS 03:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:{{checkuser|NBGPWS}} was recently blocked for a few violations. This complaint might be considered a form of WP:POINT. I have never heard of anyone complaining about spelling correction as a personal attack. Regardless, spelling is a content argument, not a personal attack. --Tbeatty 04:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:: User Ruthfulbarbarity's WP:NPA violation "First of all, it's spelled "nee," not that you would actually know that. " NBGPWS 04:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::You're requesting a 48 hours "or more" block for that? It's not a nice remark, but many people wouldn't call it a PA at all. Please note that in any case only extreme personal attacks are grounds for a block. Why not correct the edits to your text yourself? And remember to comment on content, not on the contributor. Calling an edit "contentious" is acceptable, calling the editor contentious is quite unnecessary. Avoid ascribing motives to other editors, especially bad motives, such as saying "in an effort to inflame already-high tensions even more". This good advice is all official policy. Bishonen | talk 16:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC).

Damn! Oh, well - thanks for weighing in. NBGPWS 17:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A rash of IP user(s) from Australia have overtaken the edits on the MySpace article. Among some of their better edits, they continue to reinclude WP:OR and WP:NPOV sections. I marked these as vandalism because of the editor's (or editors') ignoring my edit summary pleas for discussion on the talk page and the lack of any citation on certain claims of criticism and so on. AlphaChimp sent me here claiming my WP:AIV was incorrect because the edits were not obvious vandalism. Can someone take a look at the past few hundred changes (these edits span only a few days but their style is to change 3 letters or a word and hit "Save Changes" making it insidiously difficult to differentiate between WP:OR or WP:NPOV violations and grammar correction). Thanks. ju66l3r 05:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the best approach to dealing with marketing puff at PA Consulting Group, it reads like it's been written by their marketing people and the contribution history by the individual who put it in seems to support that. ALR 09:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

: Well, a huge chunk of it is blatant plagiarism from PA's website. The company logo and infobox are fine and standard for a large corporation. However, the intro, 'Activities', and 'PA Ventures' sections contain verbatim lifts of their website content, while 'History' and 'Awards' seem to mostly contain original phrases. I've got to go right now, but in the meantime I changed your tags from {{POV}} and {{weasel}} to {{advert}}, which is what I think you intended to do in the first place. I'll check here when I get back and see what others suggest. I say leave the history and rewrite or cut the rest, but I'm kind of cranky right now. ;-) Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 11:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

: The section 'PA Ventures' is a blantant copy past from http://www.paconsulting.com/ventures/ I was about to insert the Copyvio template, but that is for the entire artilce and not just a section. Should it just be added to replace the section? or should it be added to replace the entire article? or not at all. - Angelbo 16:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The article has had vast chunks of non-GFDL web site content dumped into it. I've reverted the article to the latest non-infringing version, tagged the userspace page wherein this content was amalgamated (Userspace isn't for copyright violations, either.), and placed a prominent notice not to do this again (this not being the first time that this company's web site has been dumped into the article) on Talk:PA Consulting Group. Uncle G 19:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know what's happened here, other than Folken de Fanel and I starting off on the wrong foot on a minor issue which degenerated into inflammatory comments. Attempted an apology as a form of mediation but was met with even more trouble. Honestly, I have no problem with him (up to this point) or the article, but he's set in thinking I'm trolling him in some way or fixated on being "right". Help here would be sincerely appreciated.

I apologize in advance if this is not the proper place for this kind of discussion, so feel free to move if it's any trouble. Thanks. Voice of Treason 12:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

: So far neither of you are edit-warring over your differences, so this situation could be a lot worse. However when I looked at Talk:Tullece & the talk pages of both of you, I failed to find anything that I would consider an apology from you to Folken de Fanel -- unless your offer of an "online purple nurple" is some form of an apology I have never encountered. You might want to try apologizing again to him, in a more obvious manner. -- llywrch 18:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that User:V6g3h7 seems to have begun editing the articles on pretty much every single nation on the planet (he/she has made it to "E" so far) inserting empty lines with "Common language" everywhere but no content (except in the case of Japan). In my view this pretty much messes up the country templates, since e.g. the article on Russia could list a massive number of languages. Do anybody know if this has been proposed anywhere? Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 12:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Not according to Template_talk:Infobox_Country. I'll block him for now, because those edits are moving way too fast. - 131.211.210.12 12:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:*You didn't consider asking the user what they were doing first? --bainer (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::*Could someone take care of the unblock request in this case please? The guy has been blocked for almost an hour now ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:V6g3h7]), and no warning, no contact from any admin on his talk page and no response to his unblock request. I do think he was making these edits in good faith. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::*I'll unblock him and let him know that he should discuss things before making such a widespread change. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• (cross-posted to his talk) Yeah, sorry about that. I should have left a note after blocking you. I couldn't find any evidence changes to this template had been discussed, so I was worried about the speed with which you were editing the over 200 articles involved. If you had used edit summaries as Golbez suggested above, I might've found out you suggested the field to begin with. Please consider the above suggestion of raising suggestions to change major templates on the related talk pages and I'm sure blocks like mine won't happen again. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

User:RyanGerbil10 has been engaged in a dispute content with me and other editors at Battle of Bint Jbeil. In clear violation of WP:PROTECT, which states that "Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." - he has reverted an editors change to his preferred version (while admitting in his edit summary that he does not have a string case for his version) - and immediately protected the page from further editing. I ask that the page be unprotected, and that User:RyanGerbil10 be reminded of the relevant WP policy. Isarig 17:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:It's not quite accurate to say he reverted and then protected; there were 4 edits by other users between his last edit and the protection.

::You are corect. I misspoke. He waited until the page was reverted to his favored version, then blocked the page after he had edited it. Isarig 22:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:However, admins should in general avoid protecting articles when they have been involved in the edit/revert war, unless it is a case of simple and obvious vandalism. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::The issue here is fairly complicated, so bear with me. I have been "involved" in the Bint Jbeil article as sort of a referee. I was asked, about a month ago, for my opinion on a possible 3RR violation on this article. After sorting that out, I decided that since the article was so controversial, rather than let it hit the admin noticeboards for 3RR, RFPP, etc. every three days or so, I would watchlist it and keep a lid on disputes which occurred. I have reverted a few times in the past month, mainly for vandalism or for edits which ran afoul of talk page consensus. I am not interested in this article as an author in any way. I am just doing my best to keep a contentious article from perpetually clogging admin noticeboards. That said, a revert war over sources has broken out in the past few days, and although no one broke 3RR, I decided that the revert war was severe enough to warrant protection. Unfortunately, it had to be full protection, as several users involved in the reverting would not be covered by semi-protection. The reason I reverted Isarig's edits before I protected is because Isarig is the only person advocating his particular side of the revert war. I have even read the news article cited in this dispute, and have decided that they do not corroborate Isarig's point of view. Therefore, I reverted before protection because I would rather have a page protected on the (seemingly) more correct version than the less correct version. In addition to all of this, I would add that protection not be removed from this page, as I have seen no evidence that the revert war will not continue should protection be removed. Sorry if I have flouted policy, I thought my actions have been for the best from the start, but if the community feels otherwise I will undo them and even recuse myself from further editing of this article if need be. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 19:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::: Ryan, the situation with this article may be as you describe it, but the Talk page & the edit summaries tell little more than this is a hotly contested subject, & people disagree with Isarig. (For everybody else, the Battle of Bint Jbeil was one of the incidents of the recent Israel military action in south Lebanon. Yes, another Israel/Palestine-related conflict.) The rest of us could use a bit more conversation on the Talk page in order to understand what is being disputed & why. Transparency is a good thing. -- llywrch 20:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Ryan, you are making things worse for yourself by engaging in a dishonest description of the situation. I am not the "only person advocating his particular side of the revert war" - the most recent revert to my version was by user:Threeafterthree, who in addition to me, is also the only editor who has discussed his change on the Talk page - something you have yet to do. Furthermore, you cannot claim on the one hand to be "not interested in this article as an author in any way", and in the next minute tell us that you "have even read the news article cited in this dispute, and have decided that they do not corroborate Isarig's point of view" - describing a clear content dispute. In any case, disinterested editor or content-disputing editor, WP policy is clear and unambigous on this: "Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing" - there are no exceptions for self-appointed "refrees", disinterested editors or any other editor. You have admitted above to flounting policy. you have been instructed on your Talk page by another admin not to block pages you are editing - undo this block now. Isarig 22:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::::The locus of the dispute is over whether or not a link should be included to an MSNBC on-line news article which states that there are still Hezbollah fighters in the area of Bint Jbeil, and whether or not Bint Jbeil remains a Hezbollah stronghold. Isarig continues to remove the link to the article, and the mention that Bint Jbeil remains a Hezbollah stronghold. Various editors have reverted him on this. After having read the article in question, I have reverted Isarig, considering his edits to be both disruptive and false. I hope this clears things up, but I will be happy to provide more information if required. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 22:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::What you are describing above is a content dispute you have with me over the interpretation of the articel. You are not allowed to block articles that you have a dispute over and have been actively editing. Policy is clear on that. You are out of line. Undo your block. Isarig 22:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::As an editor and especially as an admin it is easy to find yourself engaged in disputes that you came to only to assist with the resolution of a constant dispute, to remove content spam, and etc. It can be somewhat confusing as to what should be done at this point, and have found myself in similar situations. If ryangerbil did just come to that article a month ago to help diffuse a constant conflict, i can't say that i'm opposed to what he did, and that this is the reason WP:IAR exists. (And this is the first time i've ever mentioned IAR in defense of anything . . . ) --heah 22:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Being in a "confusing" situation (of your own doing) is not reason enough to break well established policy. In this case, we have a simple content dispute. As an admin , RyanG could have chosen not to become involved, protect the page to stop the edit war, and move on. Or he could have chosen to become an active editor, partcipate in the content dispute, voice his opinion on Talk, and edit the page accordingly. But he can't have it both ways. The proper thing to do is for him (or another admin) to unprotect the page, and participate in the discussion on Talk, like every other editor. If the revert war does not die down, there are numerous admins who have by now seen what is going on, and unlike RyanG are truly uninvolved, and they may choose to protect the page. Total protection is a very extreme measure, to be taken in very limited cases, and this one does not even come close to it. WP:IAR is not a loophole by which every admin abuse can be excused. Isarig 22:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think m:The wrong version applies here. Kim Bruning 22:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Freepsbane 23:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::Having been involved in the page edit war to a limited extent, it would be prudent for me to disclose all the related information I know and have observed on this case, first and foremost Administrator User:RyanGerbil10 did not revert before protecting the disputed page. He only protected the page after a barrage of reverts came in over the past two days and did what was necessary to prevent the sustained edit war from spilling over into related articles. As stated on the label protection does not amount to an endorsement of the extant version and was correctly done out of prudence. Further more User Isarig has been extremely active in the reversion of that article and has proven unwilling to compromise with other editors, and consistently reverts the article to his specific version; against the consensus of other editors and uses only a single ambiguous source (the source appears to say the opposite of his claims) to backup his position. Additionally Isarig often has taken a belligerent attitude towards other editors, and has engaged in numerous revert wars. Often employing what may border on character assassination against other users along with intimidation, due to these reasons he has been blocked in the past for what has been called “utterly uncivil behavior” [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Isarig] a thorough check by an administrator of his User contributions and Talk archive [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Isarig/Archive_1] will show that this is little more than the same type of bullying he normally employs against Junior editors. This time however it has been directed against one of the most respected members of the Wikipedia community. And is unlikely to work; a good thing as I consider User:RyanGerbil10 to be one of the most helpful administrators in Wikipedia. Respectfully Freepsbane 23:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::You are incorrect in your description of the events. As [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Bint_Jbeil&action=history|this] shows, on 19:37, 31 August 2006 User:RyanGerbil10 reverted my edits, well before he protected the page on 13:18, 1 September 2006. As to your description of my actions as "unwilling to compromise with other editors" - I point you, yet agian to the undeniable fact that neither you, nor User:RyanGerbil10 nor any of the anonymous editors who revrted my change have ever bothered trying to explain your edits on the Talk page. User:Threeafterthree and myselfare the only ones who did so. User:RyanGerbil10 may be one of the most helpful administrators in Wikipedia, but that does not earn him an exception from clear cut WP policy. Isarig 23:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

For those interested in how this turned out, and especially anyone who may have been fooled by

RyanG's claim of 'I am not interested in this article as an author in any way.' - as of Sept 3 the mask has come off, and he now openly declares 'I am no longer a disinterested editor, nor will I claim to be in the future.' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Isarig]. Quite a turnaround in just 2 days. Keep this in mind the next time you say an abusive admin feigning disinterest. Isarig 03:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to report vandalism and abuse but at the Tahirih Justice Center article, the son of a volunteer/benefactor of Tahirih has been building blatant advertising for weeks. He will not back away even when caught. His name is UberCryxic on this board and Egand Kolosi in real life. His mother is Roza Kolosi, a benefactor of the Tahirih Justice Center. His job is to advertise for their coming fundraiser ball on September 27th in Washington DC.

Worse, he has reverted twice and will show no sign of being reasonable. He is acting like he owns the entire article.

I can almost see no action possible except to ask you to investigate or report this blatant manipulation by an organization to the media in a press release.

I am referring to UberCryxic.

This 19 year old man thinks that a Wikipedia article belongs to its namesake and, since the Tahirih Justice Center asked him to be their Wikipedia Webmaster, this young man who recently moved here from Albania just assumes he can revert, revert, revert when another tries to make a reasonable change.EnglishGarden 18:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:Note to administrators: I am the person in question. However, I have told this user that my mother does not work at the Tahirih Justice Center. Furthermore, the article is Featured and will likely be on the Main Page this month. This user is being disruptive and has been accused of sockpuppetry by someone, though admittedly I don't know how well-founded the allegations are.UberCryxic 17:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:Furthermore, my name is Erald Kolasi and my mother's name is Roza Kolasi. Please do not make this personal. Thank you.UberCryxic 17:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:Please go [http://www.online-dating-rights.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=444 here] to find out what this user has posted about me. The material is highly personal and unnecessary.UberCryxic 18:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Erald's mother is a fundraiser volunteer for the Tahirih Justice Center. He has written a blatant fundraiser advertisement. Please check the changes I made. Here is the proof that she is a fundraiser/volunteer [http://72.14.221.104/search?q=cache:TUl_1Q0NcPQJ:tahirih.org/legal_tahirih_app/docs/TahirihNewsletterWinter06.pdf+kolasi+tahirih&hl=de&gl=de&ct=clnk&cd=1 Mrs. Kolasi]

Wikipedia should not allow this 19 year old to dominate an article that his mother is a fundraiser for. The press could be alerted to this. It is immoral. This young man needs to be banned or we need to start working together reasonably. EnglishGarden 18:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing could be more frightening than to see a 19 year old say that his blatant, one-sided article is featured and will be on the main page this month...and then watch him get away with this.EnglishGarden 18:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I am trying to keep this as much away from the personal side of things as possible. I don't specifically know what my mother's involvement at the Benefit on the 27th will be (although I'll call her up and give you a multi-page report on it tomorrow), but I do know that your claim that she works at the organization is false. You stated that she works there. She does not.UberCryxic 18:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You are still not disclosing whether there is financial remuneration in this for yourself. A 19 year old male isn't going to work hard as the webmaster of a Wikipedia article on a women's political organization in the Washington area whom his mother is a fundraiser/volunteer for...without some kind of interest. You were never harmed by an American male dating a foreign woman. Your interest is military history, etc. There is no reasonable explanation for your interest in the subject matter of this women's organization, except that you are getting financial remuneration from your mother who is a fundraiser for the organization. You are guarding the article like a lion. This shows that you fear that your webmaster job is at risk. You do not want to fail. You want to be congratulated. I'll bet you are planning to go to the fundraiser. - This is not funny Erald. This law is serious business and there is a lot of media attention about to come its way. The article must reflect that Tahirih is deeply involved in two lawsuits and that at least one newspaper article per week comes out critical of what Tahirih is doing. You must cease and desist acting like the article belongs to you as the webmaster. EnglishGarden 18:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I would be wary of editing articles where a conflict of interests might be presented. On one hand, you're a Wikipedia editor and must maintain NPOV when editing. On the other, it is your job, or a family member's job, to promote this organization. I would steer clear of the article if you're unable to be neutral. Furthermore, it is incorrect for you to assume bad faith in the complaining editor. He may have been accused of sock puppetry in the past, but that is niether here nor there. Please remain on topic. Regards to both, Shazbot85^Talk 18:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:Note The edits look more like User:EnglishGarden is trying to put his own brand of spin on the page. I'm not an administrator though, but that's as it appears to me, a fellow editor. Shazbot85^Talk 18:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Shazbot, your points are well taken, and I can certainly address them, but the main priority as of now should be to get EnglishGarden to stop making all of these personal allegations and references. That is completely unnecessary and contravenes the spirit of Wikipedia. It is also frankly making me irritated.UberCryxic 18:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:I understand, but take it in good faith and brush it off, you'll be better off afterwards for it. If someone is making personal allegations that seem inflammatory to you, don't react to them as if they were or the goal of such hypothetical inflammatory statements has been reached, i.e. pissing you off. I'm not saying that is EnglishGarden's aim, I'm just providing some advice on how to deal with allegations. Refute what evidence is provided politely and civily, and the rest will take care of itself. The more banter taking place, the more muddled things get, and the more emotional people become. Regards, Shazbot85^Talk 18:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::I would advise all concerned here to concentrate on the content, not the personalities. Maligning User:UberCryxic's motivations for editing the article gets nowhere. He certainly does not have to have a financial motive for editing it. In general we frown on 'outing' Wikipedia editors' real-world identities; to the degree that anyone is doing it, stop it.

::Address the content issues and the behaviour issues, not the personalities. There are established dispute resolution procedures; if necessary, take further steps along those lines, but bear in mind that your own behaviour will also be at issue.

::Wikipedians will be more persuaded by showing them what happened, rather than complaining. We will also be much happier if we see more evidence of trying to sort this out in non-combative ways. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well ultimately, I want personal information about me removed from that website. Otherwise, I don't see how this user, or whoever posted those things, should have any credibility.UberCryxic 18:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is additional criticism that is relevant, then it should be mentioned in the article. The problem that I have seen from looking at the article's history is the tone of the criticism, its placement and citations. Those things need to be fixed before they go into the article. It should be worked out on the talk page rather than reverting one another. Excluding the ill-placed criticisms, the article overall seems to be slightly biased in favor of the organization, but not irrepairably. -- Kjkolb 23:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Court documents are reputable citations and that is most of what I cited. Please send an editor over with Online Dating article experience.

This matter should have been solved by neutral editors getting actively involved and actually making the changes. Don't assume that I, as the critic, want to spend more than 5 minutes online and continue the discussion anywhere. The young people who hang out at Wikipedia are asked to look at the facts and make real edits to that article.

You can still do so by reading the reputable information I provided and overriding the webmaster, for instance, in noting that a restraining order for one dating website is, according to the 5th Amendment fairness clause, a restraining order on all similar dating websites. The IMBRA law is dead in the water and not saying so is major POV. Why does an editor love this law so much that he is willing to fight so hard to make it appear like the Tahirih Justice Center achieved a wonderful accomplishment in getting a law passed that was quickly restrained?

Sure, the current article is a good skeleton with which POV can be taken out in a few minutes. If that is what one means by "slightly biased", then the article is now only "slightly biased."

With all due respect, people with lives cannot be expected to consider themselves "Wikipedians" in terms of hanging out here more than 5 minutes per week. You cannot assume that outsiders are "extremists" unless you mean that, to a high school or college student who lives on Wikipedia, a lawyer who actually knows the subject under discussion would be an "extremist." I just noticed that a lawyer made a few changes to the article in question and Ubercryxic, who is 30 years younger than the lawyer, made a revert with a condescending remark. The lawyer had to go back to his practice and his family. There is no time for a busy professional with a family to deal with obdurate reverting behavior.

I have provided tons of reputable information. Please deal with this yourselves. The Tahirih Justice Center fundraiser is in two weeks and people will be deciding whether or not to donate a lot of money to an organization that openly states that it wants to destroy the online dating industry (according to the reputable source called the IMBRA law, the term "marriage broker" describes all dating sites where non-Americans are >50%).

Would Wikipedians let the KKK put up a brochure two weeks before their fundraiser? Let's be fair and make sure that Wikipedians themselves edit that article to remove pro-Tahirih POV.

Also: Why is it so hard for people to personal message with this Wikipedia software? There needs to be an upgrade to this software. There should be a central point where all Wikipedians interested in "Online Dating" can be asked to check something out. Older people don't have the patience to learn the "Dungeons & Dragons ideosyncracies of the current software.EnglishGarden 11:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde has gone on a deletion spree of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&user=Cyde&limit=54 fifty-four vandalism-related pages]; make note of the contents of his deletion log (copied here for ease of historical viewing, hidden for courtesy of the uninterested; yes I'm aware the Nav classes don't work in many browsers/skins):

The Willy on Wheels' non-wiki appearances subpage was the result of a MfD, as the Outoftuneviolin subpage, and unless I'm missing some sort of major event, at the moment those seem to be the only deletions that had any sort of legitimate justifications under the official deletion policy. As Cyde has not made any sort of declaration or announcement of his actions (a quick contribs glance proves that easily), I highly suspect he will defend himself with claims that he has "full community backing" in the matter, and definitely "there is no controversy over WP:DENY" will come up many times (getting any deja-vu yet?).

I'm just starting to feel sick at the sheer, sheer, sheer disrespect for process occuring here. ~ PseudoSudo 14:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

: Just to interject, some of us are starting to feel sick at the worshipful attitude towards process which is infecting Wikipedia like a fungus. Why did you think WP:IAR was formulated in the first place? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::IAR is about things for which we have no policy; it is cited by people who haven't good reasons for what they want to do. If I deleted that page, would it be a cute case of IAR, I wonder? Geogre 20:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::lol That's a good one. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::The sooner we abandon it, the better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::You mean the worshipping process for its own sake, elevating it above the actual goals of the project, just so some people can get their jollies playing Junior-league Perry Mason? Hear hear! --Calton | Talk 17:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::When that occurs, we can deal with it. Until then, people who cite IAR are usually the ones playing to indifference and prejudice rather than reason. Geogre 20:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

TThe other relevent discussion is here: Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Indef blocked userpages - new policy and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedia blocked imposters and all subcategories This is a coordinated effort to eventually get rid of all vandal pages and categories. Some of them can go, but some are useful (see ANI discussion above) however I feel that Doc and Cyde are ignoring that fact and will soon be pushing thier total deletion agenda on everything. Check their deletion logs. pschemp | talk 15:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Ugh...that's disgusting. Such a gross level of out-of-process speedy deletions should be "rewareded" with immediate and permanant desysopping. jgp ^T_C 15:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::It's as disgusting as it would ever get, worse even than out-of-process userbox deletions... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I understand your concerns, but I don't believe the deletions were at all out of process. Put simply, vandals shouldn't be given their own pages on Wikipedia. All vandals want is attention and those pages were giving it to them. Those pages were just adding fuel to the fire, so to speak. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 15:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::: I'm not saying these pages should not be deleted, I'm saying these deletions are out of process, which is not the same thing. Yes, WP:DENY is an interesting essay, but it has to mature for some time before being applied. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

: Absolutely. Let's desysop him at once. because you know, Wikipedia is all about process. Screw the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 15:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::While these deletions are out of process Cyde's actions are understandable (if a bit too speedy). I agree with others that vandals shouldn't be "rewarded" by having more Wikipedia infrastructure than is necessary utilized to properly manage their disruptions. I'm guessing that if need be Cyde can as easily unspeedy these deletions for proper review but at first glance his motivations are surely in the right place. (→Netscott) 15:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Considering that he's just doing it and not really discussing it with anyone else (which is his "thing" anyway, if we recall, for instance, his stable version on Elephant action), I'm not even sure if we can say his motivations are surely in the right place. It seems to be that he's motivated to make things the way he wants them, and deal with the lack of consequences later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::So are you saying that his apparent motivation to reduce vandal "rewarding" is out of place Badlydrawnjeff? I do not concur if that is the case. (→Netscott) 15:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::I'm making no judgement call on the value or lack thereof, it's irrelevant to this. Given his track record, healthy skepticism is a requirement in my mind. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

: Administrative actions regarding meta-material such as this really don't seem — to me — to be worth wailing, gnashing of teeth, and shirt-ripping. Can we turn down the drama knob a bit? Nandesuka 15:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::If this were an isolated incident, it'd be one thing. This is one in a list w/Cyde, and a demonstration that certain members learned nothing from the userbox debacle. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sigh* "out of process" the wors possible crime to humankind. We should tear down oen of the 5 pillars over which wikipedia is built. -- Drini 15:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• And what pillar is "ignore everyone and do whatever you feel is best?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them." <-- actual policy. -- Drini 15:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Holy crap. IAR has never been policy until recently. Where was the discussion on this? That's absolutely absurd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• IAR has never NOT been policy except for a brief lapse in attention that allowed it to be reclassified. Jimbo himself caught the change a couple weeks ago and had a fit. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• That's quite the extended "brief lapse." I don't think he knows the can of worms that opens. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• He may have opened the can, but you'll have to eat them worms. Mackensen (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: In which way these deletions improve WP's quality, I wonder... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::Excercise left to the reader. submit before Monday 10:00 am. -- Drini 15:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Translation for those who don't get my point: Yes burn him!!!! 15:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Fine. You can have your damn pillar. Let's just allow corrupt admins to avoid doing pesky things such as "building consensus" (you know, the principle Wikipedia is supposed to be based on) before going off on massive deletion sprees. jgp ^T_C 04:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The real concern I have is where will this stop? Some need to be deleted, yes, but some are useful and that fact is being ignored. There is a perfect example of that on ANI right now, yet no one is talking about where the limits of the deletions are. pschemp | talk 15:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Exactly. A bit of rational discussion produces better results than stomping off on a crusade, almost every time. Friday (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Rational calls for desysoppings are usually better. -- Drini 15:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

OK look. I don't really care one bit about whether these deletions are in or out of process. Honest, I don't. And arguments that they are out of process truly miss the point, which is that we are getting some things tossed that we need kept, things that admins working hard to counteract sock vandals need to get their work done. I'm prepared to restore items that got deleted by mistake, without regard to DrV, and take the heat for it, if the case is made to me (in whatever manner you choose) that they're needful. This is starting to verge on throwing the baby out with the bathwater and arguing about whether it is in or out of process is itself wankery. (from both camps!) ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Agreed. Process is a means for determining community consensus; so is just plain talking. Let's decide if people think some of these pages are useful and restore them. -- SCZenz 15:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'll start. I looked through the deleted pages, and none of them look useful to me. Anyone else? -- SCZenz 15:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm in agreement with Lar here. While these items are useless, I'd be in full support of they're being restored "out-of-process" if someone can present a valid and useful reason. Bastique▼^parler _voir 15:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::Because, you know, community input isn't one. Is that how I should interpret this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::You need a reason that you wish them restored, sir. Not just an objection to how they were deleted in the first place. -- SCZenz 16:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::We have ways we go about doing these things, sir. An objection to how it was done tdue to lack of community input is an absolutely valid objection. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::No, it's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If you want the pages back, talk about the pages. -- SCZenz 16:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::Seems like the only disruption at this point was the out of process deletion. Too bad you're supporting such nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I agree with Friday. I've been open about what I'm doing all along - hense my post up above yesterday solicitating comments. I've been listening for any rational objections. I've sent the categories to CfD for a full debate. But changing things round here is always a matter of being bold and talking at the same time. Boldness only and you get backs up, talk only and you go in circles. I sense a consensus is emerging. Sure, it will need to be tweeked - a case for keeping some of the vandal-forensics may exist (I've yet to hear it tough). Nothing I've done is irreverable - although no-one has reversed anything yet.--Doc 15:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Doc, here is one Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MascotGuy that *is* useful, right now. Why? Because the people fighting that vandal said they need it. It is covered by your proposal to delete all LTA pages. It's been pointed out to you multiple times I think, although maybe you missed it. If it gets deleted, in or out of process, I'll speedy restore it on request, and to the devil with process. I'm turning my process wonk badge in, I think. I say that and yet I am totally in agreement with losing memorialising things, we don't need them. ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

For my part I completely support the spirit of what Cyde and Doc are doing. There is absolutely no sense in keeping monuments to vandals around just because we can't muster a supermajority on MFD to delete them. Any pages that are of actual ongoing utility to people dealing with vandalism are another matter, but it is unclear to me that these monuments are in fact useful in this fashion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:The case discussed at AN right now is an LTA page that was recently useful in convincing some admins that a new editor was in fact an old vandal. That's an excellent use of the LTA concept. No one needs an LTA page for Willy any more, page move vandalism is obvious and doesn't require investigation. We also don't need to categorize vandals except in the cases of subtle vandals that require investigation, and we don't need vandal templates as long as a reasonable summary is included in the block log ("page move vandal", "attack user name", etc.) Too much of the anti-vandal tagging and categorizing is about scorekeeping, and obvious vandals don't need to be tracked or counted. Just block and move on. I support 90% of these deletions and I would recommend that if any LTA pages that are needed for the more subtle vandals are deleted, to undelete them and make a note on the page/talk page. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:"There is absolutely no sense in keeping monuments to vandals around just because we can't muster a supermajority on MFD to delete them.".

:I see. We can't get a consensus on MFD, so let's delete 'em with no consenus. I'm afraid the implications of such a logic are quite far-reaching - and a little bit terrifying to say the least. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::Where is the MfD page where there is no consensus for deleting? Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels 2 was overwhelming consensus in favor of deleting. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/North Carolina vandal was closed keep because it was initiated by a troll, not based on the page itself. There are several CfDs in favor of deleting. Perhaps there could have been a few more MfDs to clarify the support of the matter, but there is no good reason to require posting all 54 of these pages to MfD. If any of them were deleted erroneously, they can be restored. —Centrx→talk • 23:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::So take it upon your own shoulders to undelete the set and list it under one single, five-day MfD; no one has objections for multiple pages on a nom. ~ PseudoSudo 23:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as one who deals with sockpuppets, keeping these kinds of pages really isn't very helpful, and I wholly support removing them. The things that vandals do--page blanking, page moves, insertion of inappropriate material--are readily recognizable as things which are bad for the encyclopedia and should be reverted. We don't need these monuments and shrines. I wholly support getting rid of them. Badlydrawnjeff is laboring under the mistaken idea that vandal pages have something to do with encyclopedia and fall under the rules which govern content. They don't. They're cruft. The community exists to serve the encyclopedia. You're here to serve the encyclopedia. If it's good for the encyclopedia it stays. If it isn't then it goes. If you don't agree with these propositions then you'd better go too, because you're here for the wrong reasons. Now, there is space for a debate as to whether these are useful and should be kept. The recent CfD debates suggest a general consensus to delete most of them, to the horror of vandals. Cyde, as always, has perhaps been exuberant in his interpretation of events. He does that. He also might be right. Instead of quibbling over process, let's ask whether he's right that we should nuke these pages. Mackensen (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Save for the LTA pages etc. (as necessary) Doc and Cyde are right. Less vandal monumentalizing and more encyclopedic work. (→Netscott) 16:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::It's funny, if he didn't act so rashly, we'd not be "vandal monumentalizing" to begin with. If you want more "encyclopedic work," start restraining the people who drag us away from it with their unilateral actions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I always giggle when I see someone call admin actions "unilateral" - as if some of us have a lil monkey on our shoulder that presses the delete button the same time we do :) FWIW, I have yet to see any argument for keeping the pages and I support the deletions. Shell ^babelfish 16:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Jeff, you've got, by far more comments on this topic than anyone. Nobody is dragging you from anything but yourself. Bastique▼^parler _voir 16:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Damn straight I do. I'm also not the one preaching about doing more "encyclopedic work." --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:I for one support deletion of all vandal trophy-cabinets. They glorify wrongdoing, and very likely do more harm than good. Vandals are vermin and should be reverted, blocked, and otherwise ignored. I also agree with Mackensen that there may be a few cases where forensic information is useful, but it is in a small minority of vandal pages: we need to discuss which may be in this category. Antandrus (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

: Mackensen, the thing is, where is a new user going to find information about a "prominent" (for lack of a better word) vandal if he runs into one? For example, how was I going to find out, back when I was a newbie, to look for the tell-tale signs of WoW? Or better yet, if I hadn't had found the page where it was documented, wouldn't I have been a bit unprepared to be an admin? Where would we have written the IP information when it came to the Squidward vandal a while back? IIRC, someone used it to make some phone calls to the ISP. I do agree that sometimes these pages are created unnecesarily, but it feels like you're throwing the baby along with the bathwater, and that many of these pages should not have been deleted. At the same time, explosive and spectacular antics like those seen here just distracts those who are actually trying to edit articles for a while and run into the latest meta-turf war. Titoxd^(?!?) 16:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

So, should we delete most of Wikipedia:Long term abuse, too? When subpages for individual vandals aren't useful, then nether are subsections for individual vandals on WP:LTA. --Conti|✉ 16:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Not necessarily, but this is exactly the threshold that needs to be debated. There's a difference in quality and scope: for example, some of the dedicated pages have their own logos and art work for specific vandals. This is the glorification that needs to go. Google also picks up these individual pages. Antandrus (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone want to take this to deletion review? --Ixfd64 07:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::Wow (pun intended), lots of heat, some light emerging - dons asbestos suit and medium strength sunglasses. Let's keep it simple folks. Doc made a very sensible post further up the page seeking comments to help guage feeling on the matter, then lobbed Category:Wikipedia_blocked_imposters and all sub cats onto CfD. Cyde is now speedily deleting much of the vandal related LTA pages, citing WP:DENY. This has been decried as circumvention of process and has upset some people. That's the heat.

::The light that's emerging seems to be a general recognition that the vandals should not be rewarded with immortalisation by whatever means (category, own LTA page, templates, specific logo's etc), but that some of the LTA pages are actually useful for dealing with the problems while still current. I would agree with that and suggest that a simplified heirarchy is adopted for the whole vandal fighting infrastructure:

::*No "imposter of Vandal X on Wheels" categories and other vandal / sock / username block categories whatsoever. Just maintain a single indefblock category.

::*A single template for indefblocked Users pages {{tl|indefblockeduser}}. No "Sockpuppet of ...", "Impersonator of ..." templates etc. The block log should be explicit as to the reasons for the indef block, nothing more is needed, placing it in the single indefblock category.

::*LTA pages should be created if required to deal with serious vandalism, but deleted when the immediate threat posed has clearly subsided.

::Perhaps over simplistic, but the current infrastructure is out of control. I think we need to head back towards first principles, simplify the process and eliminate the free publicity which many of these juveniles seek and which keeps them coming back in their droves. Just my 50p worth :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 08:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm late to this discussion. I'm also not a fan of the vandal glorification pages and am quite pleased to see them gone. Process, however, would have been fairly easy to follow here by means of an MfD on the lot -- which would pretty much have been the discussion that eventually happened here, and seems to be in favour of the deletion of the pages? -- Samir धर्म 09:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules&diff=70516723&oldid=69737512 On Ignore All Rules: The concept is important to Wikipedia. The nature of the concept makes it fundamental to the working of Wikipedia. It has a long tradition, and deep and subtle meaning.]

In other words, the capability of not doing everything by-the-process is fundamental to wikipedia. That's why it's a pillar. But again, that's only crazy jimbo opinion -- Drini 16:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:It's not a pillar, per se, simply a Jimbo decree, and one that we'd hope taht the rest of us in the trenches would have grown out of. "Long deep tradition" doesn't mean it makes sense now, and perhaps a wider discussion is in order since people are interpreting things the way they are. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::It has been a pillar for a long time. IT's the 5th pillar and has existed much before this (it was here when I joined a half and year ago). Jimbo just reinforced its policy status. I know you find it disturbing, but that's the way it is. You may want to make it stop being policy, go ahead and try. But now it IS policy. It is supported by jimbo (who's higher than even arbcomm), and we're following policy. Now, I think the discussion about the desysopping has ended, and if there are other topics, they can be discussed at proper places. -- Drini 16:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I think you're misinterpreting the pillar for your own agenda here. We don't have firm rules because we come to decisions largely on consensus, have no binding decisions, and our policies are fluid with the times. Now, I don't think the discussion is over about desyssopping - at some point, the community's patience with Cyde is over, and we may be very close to that point. Hiding behind IAR doesn't address the overbearing situation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::We're makign progress. YUou know acknoledge it's a pillar. And all policies MUST derive from the pillars. I think you're the one with the agenda, trying to mislead people thinking that IAR is not a pillar and it's not policy, and that was just recently added by jimbo, all of three claims being false. -- Drini 16:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::No, actually. I do not acknowledge that IAR is a pillar, I do not mislead anyone because IAR is not a pillar, and IAR was NOT a policy as listed until very recently. I was wrong about it not being a policy, absolutely, but that's because, well, it wasn't until it got snuck back in. I'll work to change that, but the other two, no, I do not agree with your interpretation one bit. I question your ability to administer with this in mind, knowing what I know now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: Jeff, I'm blocking you for 3 hours so you can calm down. When you return, please keep your rhetoric firmly in check, and maintain civility. Nandesuka 16:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::I agree with this block. pschemp | talk 16:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::I disagree with this block. What has he done that wasn't civil? Disagreeing with popular opinion isn't auotmatically incivil. --W.marsh 16:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::That is absolutely uncalled for; can you provide diffs of disruption? ~ PseudoSudo 16:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Seconded. He's (fairly civilly) expressing his disagreement; are we blocking people for merely that now? Kirill Lokshin 16:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Jeff is getting on my nerves. I do not think, however, that is grounds for blocking and agree with W.marsh. Bastique▼^parler _voir 16:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::::The only thing annoying is this pushing for dysysoping Cyde bit (aren't RfC's and ArbCom for that sort of talk?) but I agree with others that he shouldn't be blocked. (→Netscott) 17:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::::: He's been unblocked, and of course I will not re-block him. I remind him, however, that he should be addressing arguments to topics, and not ad hominem. Nandesuka 17:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

(Quadruple Edit Conflict) WP:DENY is only an essay and it is treated by everyone as a policy. Anomo 16:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Well, I'm not. It is just a good idea. That's enough. --Doc 17:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::So if it's a good idea, why don't we try to convince people of it and make it an acceptable policy guideline instead of forcing it? I have no issue with the idea, either, but, obviously, a lot of other people do. Didn't we learn anything from the userbox charade? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Yes, that some people spend far too much time on things that don't involve the encyclopedia. Mackensen (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I am indeed starting to wonder what you did learn from that affair. I sure didn't learn that process takes precedence over all else. Rather, it demonstrated that both blind adherence to process and blind being-stupid are harmful, and can form the two sides of a wheel war. Common sense is what is called for, and it is never always process or always ignoring it. The proper way to carry on a discussion in our hopefully common sense-based community is to argue the merits, not the process, of the situation. Dmcdevit·t 17:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Personally? I saw that policy by fiat causes situations to be resolved in a matter of months, with lots of waiting and gnashing of teeth, regardless of its merits, while a rational discussion before action can often come to the same desired conclusion harmoniously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Jeff, you saw in the userbox wars that a rational discussion before action can come to the desired conclusion harmoniously? Did I miss the part where that happened?

:::::My non-facetious point, which I don't wish to lose in the tone there, is that the idea that policy can be hammered out in discussion without testing through bold application and vigorous participation in the resulting discussions, is an untested hypothesis, and one that I don't find at all compelling. Wikipedia is a little bit like laws and sausage - the squeamish ought not to watch them being made. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::I don't think rational discussion was ever seriously attempted, not that massive deletions would have helped the case. I do see many controversial policies work via discussion and consensus, however - for instance, CSD A7 is a great example. Even WP:BLP, which I'm not a huge fan of, didn't occur overnight. The policy was created as the issues were discussed and slowly implemente. There's absolutely no reason this couldn't have been handled the same way, especially given the amount of work people put in regarding combating vandalism. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::I agree that the userbox situation wasn't handled all that well. I like to think that a few of us were attempting rational discussion, but there was enough noise to drown most of that out. I don't know much about the background of A7 or WP:BLP. I know Jimbo asked us, as a community, to discuss the reasons that userboxes are a bad idea, but most people couldn't be bothered to have those discussions, and many who tried found themselves sidetracked and running after red herring after red herring about censorship and disclosure of bias and everything else. I wish more people saw more value in more communication. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::No one is forcing anything. I posted to this board and spelled out what I was doing and asked for any reasoned objections. I sent the categories to CSD, where an overwhelming consensus (almost unanimous) is agreeing with my analysis. I'm sorry if I didn't jump through whatever procedural hoop you think I ought to - but consensus is clearly with me. Otherwise, I'd have stopped, or been reverted. THat's how things work round here. That's policy and consensus in action. Don't tell me there's lack of debate - we're debating it everywhere, and we are clearly winning the arguments. You are in a minority here. I don't claim IAR as a justification - I claim common sense and consensus--Doc 17:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Well, some of us can't revert you, which is part of the problem. It's not really policy and consensus in action, but I know that you and I have fundamentally different ideas as to how things should go here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this discussion here should end. There is no malfeasiance here, by anyone, that is so clear-cut that it calls for quick administrative action; thus this is the wrong page. Discussions of whether WP:DENY is a good idea should take place at its talk page. Discussions of whether people should be desysopped should take place at Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration. Discussions of the place of IAR, process, etc. should take place on the mailing list (per item 6 here). -- SCZenz 17:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Maybe. Except for the part about nandesuka blocking Badlydrawnjeff, that belongs here in any case. I find Jeff's comments in this matter not very helpful and swimming against the tide but I am not sure I support that block, and want to voice my opposition (even though it's been lifted). It feels like a block by someone involved in a content dispute to me. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::I appreciate the concern, but I was unblocked, he's not reblocking, and it happens. It got reversed easily, as I wish most wrong decisions would be, and it's a done deal on this end. I have no ill will toward him, and I don't intend to push that issue further - mistakes are made, and he's stated that he's not going to reblock. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::: Expressing disagreement with a policy or pseudo-policy is never a reason for a block, not even temporarily. I am both appalled and disappointed by this administrative action. At no time has badlydrawnjeff been uncivil throughout this thread. Silensor 18:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Seconded. It was an absolute shocker. But since an apology has been made and no hard feelings appear to be present, the debate moves on. Badgerpatrol 18:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Is this a User:General Tojo-related discussion? I never really saw much practical use for the vandal-tagging. I sometimes create redirects for some block-evading ips, mostly for my own memory. Why not just create redirects when needed? El_C 19:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

DRAMA!!! That's what we want to see! Nuke all worthless pages.--MONGO 20:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

(3X Edit Conflict) The problem is a lack of documentation. WP:DENY says it's a wikipedia essay. The only information about wikipedia essays is this tiny thing in the category that says, "Essays about Wikipedia and related topics. These are not policy and are primarily opinion pieces." I'm not speaking of whether this page deletion was right or not, I am saying the wikipedia essays need some more documentation, such as an agreed upon page describing when best to use them. Anomo 20:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Essays are used some decisions. I've seen WP:SNOW used as a justification to close an AFD early. Hbdragon88 04:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:That should emphatically not be allowed. IMO, any deletion debate that's closed per WP:SNOW deserves an immediate DRV. jgp ^T_C 04:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:Some essays are interpretations or extrapolations of other policies and guidelines that are heavily contingent or tentative or not fast-fixed, and there is also a difference between a truly personal essay someone just posted, and a more general explanatory essay agreed by many people. —Centrx→talk • 04:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Criminy! I only have to write a persuasive essay to get my way? Cool! Why have I been waiting around trying to get people to agree with me, before? I have lots and lots and lots of ideas that I can turn into essays. One of them is "Those who cite IAR are out of arguments and afraid of discussion." I can expand on that for a full screen. This has made my day! Geogre 12:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:*Hehehe - kind of hit the nail on the head there Geogre ... 16px --Cactus.man ✍ 22:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::I don't see anything offensive or harmful to the encyclopedia in what Cyde is doing. Metamagician3000 03:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::He is censoring. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:: That's exactly right, Geogre. I know you've done it before with varying amounts of success. If I were to really really disagree with your essay, I'd just write a counter-essay, but often you do write wise words. Did you know the "how to apply Ignore All Rules" and Bold Revert Discuss pages yet? If you hadn't, I suggest taking a look there before you start typing, perhaps they already cover much of what you're saying? That might save some time. :-) -- Kim Bruning 13:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

For an admin to ignore all rules, they need to provide a clear motivation and document why they are ignoring particular guidelines and following others.

In this case, that motivation and documentation was provided at Deny recognition. So it's not true that Cyde is trying to avoid explaining hir actions.

Deny recognition is not yet supported by everyone. That's ok, you are permitted to be bold and apply new guidelines anytime you like. You do have to expect to negotiate with people on the best way to apply them, and you do have to expect things won't go perfectly.

As per Bold revert discuss, "Out of process" is not a valid excuse to oppose any such action. You will have to provide solid logical arguments why your idea is superior to the solution chosen. Since we're talking about a process you're intimately familiar with, this should not be a problem. If you fail to logically argue your position (even with such a large advantage), then that process deserves to be overruled.

When you do have logical arguments for and/or against, please document them at WP:DENY and its talk page. What things did Cyde do right, what did he do wrong? Problems are inevitable when applying some new guideline. Try to help Cyde sort them out.

Of course, if the guideline is not viable at all, we'll find that out quickly enough too, and we document that, and people won't take this kind of action in future.

The bottom line is that if you think that following process is important, it still matters *which* process to be following right now, and how correct is that process? We have a process for things happening out of process. Follow it!

Kim Bruning 12:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:A round of applause please! Very nice analysis, AFAIC anyway. --kingboyk 13:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:Except WP:BOLD deals with articles. Policy pages/guidelines aren't articles. Also, even if WP:BOLD dealt with policy and guideline pages, there's that little "don't be reckless" part. We're at a point where we, as a community, should be able to move away from "ignoring all rules," because there's plenty of input which wasn't necessarily there when IAR was incorporated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:: Bold has often been applied to guidelines (Radiant used it there often). Bold Revert Discuss certainly applies to guidelines. I've already pointed out that Cyde was not reckless, because the reasons for his actions are well documented. Your concerns wrt Ignore All Rules itself may or may not be valid, but they're not relevant here and now. I'm certainly willing to discuss them with you elsewhere and/or later, of course! Please stick to discussing the logic of Cyde's actions right now. Kim Bruning 13:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Did someone throw some stuff out of the window? I haven't noticed a difference myself. --Alf ^melmac 22:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be more apporite to contiune this disscusion at RfC instead on the adimn notice board.---Scott3 _{Talk Contributions [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~essjay/edit_count/Count.php?username=scott3&submit=Count Count: 950+]} 22:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:WHerever it takes place I'm tired of seeing admins go off willy-nilly and take unilateral action undiscussed on controversial topics claiming IAR all the way along. Its conceivably the worst pillar or policy or guideline or whatever that has ever been created because honestly its a defense for any kind of behaviour you want to exhibit. If I want to be uncivil and flame and attack everyone up and down, hey IAR right? 3RR? I don't agree with those edits, IAR you can't block me. No. It doesn't work that way. --Crossmr 20:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Reguest for Page Protection failed. User:Afrika paprika continously enforces his edits to the Pagania article and refuses to discuss as can be seen on Talk:Pagania. User_talk:Afrika paprika page agrees with my previous statements (open refusal to discuss and usage of personal attacks). I suggest that a 24h block will make the user discuss and stop the edit war. Thanks in advance to whoever helped stop this edit war! --HolyRomanEmperor 15:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:I too request protection but from user 'HolyRomanEperor' who continues to push for his nationalistic version. Althought the consensus was reached and user 'Pannonian' wrote an excellent article the user'HRE' after being deblocked/unbanned returns again to start another flame/edit war. I suggest something to be done about this person, thank you. Afrika 04:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::Please refer to Talk:Pagania and the history of Pagania and it will be seen who pushes what. I wasn't blocked at all, either. HolyRomanEmperor 15:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::It is you who should refer to the talk page instead of posting your nationalistic crap. I plead once again - please protect the Pagania article with Pannonian's version and remove this person from Wikipedia. Thank you. Afrika 18:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Please do not make personal attacks. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::It is you who are attacking me not the other way around.Afrika 18:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::Calling people "completly derranged" is a Personal Attack according to WP:NPA. Please don't argue with me. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

::Note: while my account was temporarely disabled because I had fallen victim to a [User:HRE rather unamusing prank], this user has been blocked for 3RR and has been recently edit-warring a lot. I am not even a party in his edit war, I just came to save the article which I created. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::While I was blocked for 3 hours for breaking the rule of editing more than 3 times in one day you habe been completl blocked and banned. Now after unbanning you return again to push "your version" of the article which was discarced. This is public site and you cannot enforce your version without the consensus of all...consensus was reached and it is not the version you push for. Afrika 18:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Incorrect. I requested the ban and block and continued under User:HRE until this account was clean. The account was jeoperdized (no longer). I already explained this to the user on User_talk:Afrika paprika. I wonder why he still enforces it in conversation. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::I do not "enforce it"...I just mentioned it. It's there for everyone to see it...it's not my fault you got banned. Sorry. Afrika 23:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I was gonna take this to WP:AIV, but I figured someone would contest it. Do we really want someone with this name showing up in the edit histories of articles? And, what is the policy regarding email usernames? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

: No not really, I'd be happy to username block it. General policy on email usernames:

:"E-mail addresses: Using your e-mail address as your username is not a good idea. Wikipedia content is extensively copied and the site itself is one of the most visited sites in the world. Any edit you make on Wikipedia will have your username attached to it, and using your email address will make you a tempting target for spammers. Additionally, usernames containing "____@wikipedia.org", etc. are blocked on sight, as such a name may misleadingly imply that a user is a member of the Wikimedia Foundation. There is no official policy regarding whether to block non-"wikipedia" email addresses, so it is left to the discretion of the blocking admin. Note to new user patrollers: you may use the template {{tl|WelcomeEmail}} to recommend a username change to such users, or {{tl|UsernameBlockedEmail}} to inform them of a block." (From WP:U). Petros471 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Looks like someone else beat me to it (block). Petros471 22:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You people are too sensitive. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've left the blocking admin the following:

:Howdy! I see that you blocked User:Sexyafterdelivery@yahoo.com. I don't see a policy violation, and your block summary says that it's because you feel that it's a "possible bad faith account". It's a dumb account name, and probably just a one off that was abandoned right away, but I urge you to be easy on the block trigger. If an account name sets off your alert (but does not violate WP:USERNAME), I urge you to wait until you see an actual bad faith edit before blocking. To do otherwise is both failure to WP:AGF and a possible example of WP:BITE. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

: I can't work out why this fellow has been blocked. Could someone explain? --Tony Sidaway 01:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

::I would block such an account (with {{tl|usernameblock}}) on sight. I think this would meet the "Inflammatory usernames" section of WP:U. Prodego ^talk 01:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:::How is it inflammatory? We have many FedEx folks who are quite sexy both before and after they make their rounds. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked {{vandal|Cretanpride}} for one month, since checkuser has confirmed that he has adopted yet another sockpuppet identity ({{vandal|MegasAllexandros}}). Since I have become involved in the case (previously discussed here) I'm mentioning the block here, in case anyone disputes it or thinks that I have a conflict of interest. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:Update: MegasAllexandros is contesting the block on his talk page; note that he doesn't exactly didn't immediately deny that he's Cretanpride. I'll let someone else respond to the unblock request. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:Note left. Mackensen (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::Good one. :-) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cretanpride&diff=prev&oldid=73205794]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Cretanpride's seems to already back, this time with the name User:Heraklis, an account created this morning, that has concentrated his interests exactly where I thought his socks would strike, that is the few articles Cretanpride's socks had created or considerably edited. Just to be sure, I'll ask checkuser to make a control. If he's confirmed, what would you propose to do? Lengthen the block to three months, or ban him indefinitely?--Aldux 10:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I ran into a very unusual account just now. {{user|Egnp}} is a brand new account that is mass tagging all of the account names being blocked this morning by other admins. I'm not sure its exactly harmful but it's not at all productive and strikes me as quite strange. Anyone else care to look into it? Thatcher131 (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:*I've seen this happen frequently (daily?) and mistakenly reported one to AIV. I'm guessing it's somebody volunteering to tag all the blocked vandals, but it seems each day it's a newly created user with no other history doing the tagging. Curious as to why. Fan-1967 16:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::I've suggested on Egny's talk page that he/she explain what was the purpose of these edits so perhaps someone can channel these efforts in a more productive direction. Newyorkbrad 17:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Which message may not even be seen. If this is a single purpose account, it was done 45 minutes ago, and may be abandoned until a new one shows up tomorrow. Fan-1967 17:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::::We'll see. If I wasted 30 seconds trying to reach out to someone who wasn't there, I can live with that. Newyorkbrad 17:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::Hm, I don't want to assume bad faith, but I've seen a lot of this. New users creating userpages for nil-edit blocked accounts, and often attributing them as sock puppets of some notorious vandal. In at least one case the user doing the tagging was revealed (by checkuser) to be a serial vandal himself. Personally, I think we need to stop people creating userpages for nil/low-edit accounts. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose, creates unneccessary pages, and draws attention to the vandal. --Doc 21:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::Now there's an interesting point. A tagger turned out to be a vandal themselves? More fuel to the fire in the great WP:DENY debate. If it ever becomes a guideline/policy, perhaps accounts like this might be blocked on sight. I don't see that there's any way a legitimate new user would be doing this. Grandmasterka 21:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::As I indicated the othr day, I've just been deleting the userpages. --Doc 21:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:As part of WP:DENY that I agree with (I don't agree with seeing random LTA subpages deleted without forethought, especially certain ones), but they've been doing this for awhile, and seem to be quite decisive at knowing that certain accounts are certain vandals identities. For this, I think there's a small group of them organized from somewhere trying to see who can create the most offensive/annoying accounts to be blocked as possible. Their tagging should be considered part of the vandalism. Kevin_b_er 01:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello this users page User:ShortJason is calling for Drini to be desysoped. This page was also transcluded into drini's page in order to vandalise it (by User:Preserve Policy). I'm not sure of AN/I is correct for this or not. I have politely asked several times for the user to remove the material from his userspace and informed him it could be considered an attack page now. I feel that having such a page may cause additional and needless problems. I will of course understnad if you all feel that this is not the right place to list this. If so let me know so I will nto make such a mistake in the future. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 21:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:I'll look into it. Prodego ^talk 21:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:: Thankyou. Belatedly I figured out that it is an personal attack on Drini not an Attack Page by policy. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 21:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Yes. ;-) I have blanked the user page, and Tony Sidaway conflicted with my deleting the subpage. It is gone either way though. Prodego ^talk 21:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::: I'm not convinced the page constituted a personal attack. If the user had made the comment at ANI for instence or filed an RfC we would have little objection to the wording. It isn't clear to me why it should therefore be considered a personal attack when it is on his user page. Saying an admin made a mistake is not a personal attack, nor is saying that the admin should be desysoped for the mistake a personal attack by itself. I think the user is wrong and not focusing on the encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean his page needs to be removed. JoshuaZ 21:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Prodego! Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 21:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:No, but creating a userbox saying "This user supports the removal of Drini" is certainly a personal attack. With that in mind I decided the intention of the user page was the same. Prodego ^talk 21:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:: Which was how I felt about it as well. Reason I asked him to removed the content. And after several attempts to convince him I requested SYSOP support. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 21:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::: Understood. Consider my objections withdrawn. JoshuaZ 21:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::::He's also editing from an open proxy ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Drini&diff=prev&oldid=73285599]) -- \ \ \ \ Antandrus (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::::...which I just blocked. Hm, sockpuppetry and vandalism in order to complain about the deletion of a counter-vandalism page. Antandrus (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::I'm sorry, I don't see how calling for the removal of an admin is "certainly a personal attack". Making a userbox was probably dumb and counter-productive but not a personal attack. As for the accusations of sock-puppetry and vandalism, what evidence is there that User:Preserve Policy is User:ShortJason? --Nscheffey^(T/C) 23:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Don't need any. If a user's first edit is vandalism of a userpage, and is also an edit through an open proxy, there's two reasons for immediate indefinite block. No good-faith newbie does those things. Antandrus (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Antandrus is right- either a vandalism-only account or editing thru an open proxy is bad enough, but both at once is just too much. No problem at all with a block-on-sight for that. However it's also worth noting as above that calling for the removal of admin is not a personal attack, it's criticism, and we'd all do well to remember the difference. Friday (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::No, I understand that User:Preserve Policy should have certainly been blocked, but the use of pronouns above ("He's also editing from an open proxy," right after "I asked him to remove the content,") seemed to imply Preserve Policy and ShortJason were one and the same. If that wasn't the implication, I withdraw my concern. And, Friday, couldn't have said it better. Criticism of an admin is not a personal attack, and labeling it so confuses and inflames the discussion. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 00:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::Also I didn't mean to imply that User:Preserve Policy and User:ShortJason are the same (don't have any evidence either way, just a hunch they're not). The sockpuppet is just a garden-variety troublemaker, imho. Antandrus (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:::I'll agree with those who have noted that calling for an admin's desysopping is not – in and of itself – a personal attack, nor is the simple request or desire blockworthy. However, the manner in which it is done is very important. The right way is to employ some or all of the steps at WP:DR, remaining calm civil at all times. Approaching the admin first is important, as is discussing the matter in an appropriate forum (RfC or WP:AN/I) if polite one-to-one conversation fails. If those steps fail to resolve the issue, Arbitration is typically the last step.

:::Note that none of those steps involve the creation of a let's-rassle-up-a-posse-and-string-'em-up userbox. Recruiting a lynch mob is never an acceptable method of dispute resolution, and is blockworthy as eminently disruptive behaviour that runs counter to our goals here. That the editor has started creating sockpuppets and editing from open proxies to continue his crusade adds weight and merit to the initial decision to block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Agree. There are appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms available, but trying to propagate a userbox like that goes far beyond the limits of acceptable attempts at resolving disputes. -- Samir धर्म 02:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::Again, where is the evidence that ShortJason is "creating sockpuppets and editing from open proxies,"? --Nscheffey^(T/C) 02:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Not vandalism, but User:JoeDestructive seems to be uploading a lot of images that appear to be movie stills, and marking them as self-created, public domain. Can someone please take a look at this? -- The Anome 00:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

(On review) Yes, all the images seem to have similar problems. -- The Anome 00:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Margaret Choad has been (apparently) vandalizing Cracker (pejorative) (according to users Treebark and Wandering Star, anyway); has deleted one such warning from their userpage [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMargaret_Choad&diff=72295917&oldid=72276961] (with a contemptuous edit summary), and edits the article on Margaret Cho, which additionally brings up concerns re: the username. I'm not too conversant with the policy on this. I notice that there is a ban on names of well-known living people, as well a ban on using "creative substitutions" to abuse the above rule, as well as "defamatory" usernames. (Note that "[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/choad choad]" is a vulgar epithet meaning "a penis".)

I am curious as to whether the username constitutes a violation of WP:USERNAME. Thanks, Kasreyn 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:Yeah, go ahead and block it under the username policy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

::It's an obvious unfunny pun on a very vulgar Hindi word. The Margaret Cho joke has been made many times by those who speak Hindi. I've blocked indefinitely -- Samir धर्म 02:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

::Heh, I'm flattered by your confidence in me, but I am not an administrator. ^_^;; Kasreyn 03:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:FYI: I just blocked User:Margaret Chode for the same reason - GIen 03:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

::Would it be justifiable to conclude that a sockpuppeteer is at work? Kasreyn 03:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone remember that thread about this editor about a month ago? He just transformed into a full-blown vandal account: PEAR (talk • contribs • [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=move&user={{urlencode:{{ucfirst:PEAR}}}}}} page moves] • block user • [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=block&page=User:{{urlencode:PEAR}}}} block log]). I only blocked for 24 hours, since he has a history of some good work, but... what's up with this person? Antandrus (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Old thread is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive129#POINT_violation_by_PEAR. Antandrus (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:You got your block in about 5 seconds before I could. I was going for a 1 week block. Redirecting Israel to Nazi is not something you do by accident, especially given his string of edits today. He started going off the rails a couple of days ago. My guess is this is a "sleeper" acount, trying to build up a good reputation in the hope we'd deal with him less harshly when he started his vandalism spree. Gwernol 02:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

::Could well be ... (my first guess was it was Friday night and he's had a couple too many). Feel free to change the block length if you feel it's appropriate (you or anyone else). Antandrus (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm inclined to leave the current block and see what happens tomorrow. If he starts up with the same sort of vandalism again I'd go for a significnatly longer block on sight. There's always a chance he's a little worse for wear (that was my second choice of explanation) and will regret it in the morning. Gwernol 02:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I just read through the archived User: Gianot & WP:Civil section above and feel a tad compelled to say something. As a fairly new user who is still baffled and bewildered by the workings and nonworkings of Wikipedia, I feel as if I just read the transcript of a grade school yard dispute. "He said blah. Yeah, but she called me blah first. No, she didn't. Did too!" Excuse me. Has everyone here forgotten what your saintly mothers told you? Sticks and stones can break your bones, but personal attacks will NEVER hurt you. Kids, grow up. Worry more about the falsehoods and George Bush-quality English that's pooring into Wikipedia like water over the dikes of the New Orleans. That's what can really hurts us. Askolnick 03:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:I imagine you mean "pouring". ;) Metamagician3000 05:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

::Anyway, best to leave it there. Metamagician3000 06:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.