This editor had an article about his micronation speedily deleted and protected from re-creation. Instead of filing a deletion review, the editor is complaining to me and several others in a very insulting, abusive, and arrogant tone we are trying to offer help. S/he is on other users' user talk pages calling them "anti-socialist" and "10-year-old swashbucklers" (examples: User talk:Fan-1967, User talk:RidG, User talk:Friday), and has blanked his/her user talk page. The user also happens to have a history of abusive edits and vandalism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this from WP:PAIN because I've never used either of these before (never had to), and felt that it was more appropriate here because of the editor's history. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have left a note. I notice that User:Friday has had a run-in with this editor as well, and may have insight into the problem. Jkelly 19:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have to admit to being a little confused, though. I've never before been insulted by being called a swashbuckler. Is it considered a derogatory term somewhere? I always thought it meant a character in an old Errol Flynn movie. Fan-1967 22:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

S/he called me that too. It's certainly the strangest insult I've ever received. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on some things posted a few months back when the article was being deleted, this is a high school student. Fan-1967 01:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this editor is up to no good again. I've left a {{npa3}} warning on his talk page, but I don't think s/he is going to stop. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

He blanked his user talk page again. I restored the warning and applied a {{wr}} tag. This is getting ridiculous. Something seriously needs to be done about this editor, as he will likely end up doing the same things tomorrow. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 23:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

He's not stopping. Another insulting note left for Guy [1], a POV edit on Marshal Tito [2], and a nonsense article created [3]. I think this is a game to him. Fan-1967 21:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend a block, but I'm not an admin. Then again, leaving an abusive message on an admin's user talk page is not the smartest of ideas, so he'll probably end up blocked anyway. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 02:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Prior to disabling my "e-mail this user" feature, I had blocked the above editor for a long history of anti-semitic, and sometimes childish vandalism (this is characteristic [4]). Please review my actions: I believe they were justified, but always welcome a second opinion.

I immediately received over 300 copies of the following message:

What is your problem you lying despicable scumbag??? All I did was

write factual information about Israel and you've banned me twice. It is

people like you that give Wikipedia a bad name. Within the next 10 years

Iran or Syria will undoubtedly get their hands on a nuclear device and

then you can say goodbye to your cherished illegal state. I won't shed

a tear. They had no right being there in the first place. My edits to

the page about Israel are clear for all to see. All backable by

historical text. You are a dickhead and when Israel gets nuked I'll throw a

party in your honour.

Fuck off and die you nasty little shit!

Wayne Smith.

Currently this person is blocked for another week. Please keep an eye on him: he has a splendidly long history of vandalism, and I have a feeling we haven't seen the last of him. Antandrus (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What an unfortunate little fellow. You'll want to forward the email to the relevant authorities. A note to his ISP would be in order, as would one to the internet crimes unit of the local police services, should such be available. Incidentally, is that a static, unshared IP? We ought to lengthen his holiday if it is. —Encephalon 08:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I was of the impression that IPs couldn't use the email this user feature, has that changed? But the IP reverse lookup goes to bandersnatch.slq.qld.gov.au, which is The state library of Queensland --pgk^(talk) 09:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this the same User:Wayne Smith on Wikipedia?? --TheM62Manchester 10:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've checked, but don't see any obvious connection; that they both seem to be from Australia is probably coincidental. Antandrus (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately it is quite possibly a terminal in the library used by members of the public rather than an employee. I suspect it is not therefore an unshared IP in the strict sense. However, there don't seem to be many other editors from the IP in recent times and we can limit the ban to anonymous users.--A Y Arktos\^talk 10:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This user is also UniverseToday (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (currently blocked) and Universe Daily (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (currently active and editing), and probably others. Without a checkuser I'm uncomfortable blocking them, but the edit histories make it quite clear that it is the same person. He spams his website all over the place, and includes "Wayne Smith" as the owner; in addition the hate mail I received was from "Universe Today". Antandrus (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks now like this guy's been a problem for even longer than I realized: see, for example, this post on long-term abuse. He spams relentlessly and often enough blatantly vandalises. Not sure what to do at this point, other than to alert others to watch for his activity, and to be forewarned that he's a truly nasty one. Antandrus (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that an "obvious sockpuppet" situation (per above with Lingeron)? If so, you don't need to go bugging chuckuser...er check user. I know you're involved already, so, if you want someone else to do the honors, I understand, but I'd say that getting all the personae is merely conducting a single block. I.e. you're blocking this one single user, who happens to be at multiple accounts. Geogre 16:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, since I was involved in the "conflict", such as it was, I didn't want to become too block-happy. I'm also not entirely 100% sure about a lot of the alleged sockpuppets (e.g. in Category:Wikipedia:Sock_puppets_of_Universe_Daily) since I was never part of the original conflict. Antandrus (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Universe Today (with space) is also his, and not blocked. He emailed me today as UniverseToday (no space, account blocked), called me a jerk, and demanded to be unblocked at once. Much of what he does is add links to sites he owns. These often seem to be close to the names of other popular websites. I say block any account identifiably his. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I would support that. If we work backward from the belovéd website links, we're going to find him. Is it likely that anyone else is going to think of his websites and want them linked? If not, the socks are obvious. The 300 copies thing is way, way over the line into the block and block again. Geogre 11:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked Universe Daily (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of this neo-Nazi and hate-mail spammer, as suggested in this discussion. We don't need people like this here. Antandrus (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The page is here, her comments are here. She is calling it an attack page, but it only contains descriptions of edits which is explicitly allowed in Wikipedia policy. This is a list of edits that I consider objectionable. I'm not making personal attacks; I'm factually commentating on content in a civil manner, which is specifically condoned by WP:NPA: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack—it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user."

As Tony Sidaway has put it [5], "Deuterium is permitted to gather evidence on matters concerning the construction of the encyclopedia and people's conduct within the community." Deuterium 07:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have asked Deuterium four times what the purpose of the page is, and he is unable to explain. I regard it as an attack page, and have asked him to remove, or in some way neutralize, the descriptions of the people who are listed. We're here to write an encyclopedia, and keeping pages like that is, at best, a waste of time, and at worst causes unnecessary ill feeling. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to butt in, but as a third party, I've just read all the banter, and it appears he has in fact explained it to you... 74.136.222.198 07:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can translate for me, because I'm not getting it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I will try my best. He says "It is useful to gather evidence regarding people's conduct as part of the overall process of building an encyclopedia". I take this to mean that he is using the page as a tool to catalog edits which he characterizes as problematic. This helps him both by allowing him to later study similar trends in problematic edits to improve his own writing and conduct, and to keep track of possible evolving problems much the same way you might use a watchlist or recent changes. 74.136.222.198 07:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly correct. Deuterium 08:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL!! I wonder why you didn't say it yourself if it's "exactly correct." So you're studying similar trends in problematic areas to improve your own writing and conduct? So far, not much improvement, sadly. Maybe you need to add more names. :-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that Hillman's dig pages (see above) seem to be getting the all-clear, a page of this type is nowhere near as problematic, and I don't see why it needs to go. Proto::type 07:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Hillman's page tracks long-term problems with pushing of POV in certain well-defined areas. The page under discussion seesm to be a random collection of "OMG! Rouge admin abuse!" But I could be wrong. For example, calling Magabund a holocaust denier was harsh, but as it turns out Magabund has made numerous edits supportive of holocaust deniers, so although it's a poor kind of an edit summary it is not without a basis in truth, especially since Magabund seems to me to have been deliberately ratcheting up the tension in Talk. If you want to trawl the database looking for edits where people are accused of being holocaust deniers I suspect you will find a large number, almost all form editors with a less illustrious edit history than Jayjg. Just zis Guy you know? 14:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I want to point out that I have offered to discuss removing any specific listings that SV (or anyone else) might have a problem with. I have removed one when Timothy Usher pointed out I made a mistake, and I've just removed some others that people have expressed objections to as a good faith gesture. Deuterium 08:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It could alleviate some objections to not organize it by sections on the users who made the attacks. —Centrx→talk • 08:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it would also make it a lot less useful as I can't see who the troublesome editors are. Deuterium 09:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's see, you claim that my description of User:Magabund as a "Holocaust denier" is a "personal attack". Now, this is the same User:Magabund who, in his first edits felt the need to defend Holocaust denier David Irving [6] [7] [8] [9], to buff up Irving's article [10] [11] [12], to add Irving to the List of historians, [13] and to add links to Irving's website to other articles. [14]. His first edits also contained a defense of Holocaust denier Fred A. Leuchter [15] He later returned to defend Irving some more, buffing his article [16] and insisting he shouldn't be described as a "Holocaust denier", [17] [18], and buffing up the article of Holocaust denier Germar Rudolf for good measure. [19] He returned again a few months later for more defenses of Irving [20] [21], then a defense of Rudolf [22] and some support of Irving's views. [23] This was all in his first 100 edits, and I've left out a number of his other dubious edits. Now, in exactly what way do you feel "Holocaust denier" doesn't fit? Are you arguing, for example, that "defender/supporter of Holocaust deniers" would be more accurate? Jayjg ^(talk) 09:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, since he hasn't actually denied the holocaust, accusing him of being a holocaust denier is a baseless personal attack. And I don't see the use of characterizing him as a defender or supporter of Holocaust deniers either, as someone can edit in favour of a cause without supporting it, it's called being a devil's advocate. Remember WP:NPA: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Also #

'# Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. Deuterium 09:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Now you're being absurd. People don't defend Holocaust denial in order to play devil's advocate, just as they don't insist 2+2=5 to see what it feels like. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Absurd? I thought WP:AGF required us to not make assumptions about other editors' intentions. Regardless, given that the user in question has not actually denied the holocaust accusing him of holocaust denial is a personal attack. Deuterium 09:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, if it helps, I've changed the listing to be more neutral and removed the characterization of JayJG's edit as a personal attack. The facts speak for themselves in this instance. Deuterium 10:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Deuterium may have the wrong politics. But there is nothing wrong with Deuterium's page. Nothing said on that page is a personal attack--just as those who call the page an "attack page" have not made a "personal attack." --Rednblu 10:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've come late to this discussion, but after reading it, I decided to change the layout of Deuterium's page a bit, leaving the actual descriptions pretty much the same. I managed to fit my rationale into the edit summary: "refactored to better emphasize the "bad edits" themselves, not the people who made them... section headings were an assumption of bad faith, that you expect the same users to make more "bad edits"". Could this be an acceptable compromise? —freak(talk) 14:54, Jul. 30, 2006 (UTC)

I think it is kinda silly that we would allow users to keep these kinds of pages. It seems like Deuturium is just trying to get back at certain users that he has had disagreements with and it does nothing but create tension. How is this at all an acceptable use of user space?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• If I may say so, this is a perfect use of UserTalkPages. These kinds of necessary arguments and civil discussions should be kept out of the MainPages and out of the TalkPages. What do you say? --Rednblu 18:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You can say what you'd like, but in this case you'd be wrong. It's a page designed to engender bad feelings among users, often filled with inaccurate and false statements, much like this page: User:Deuterium/Timothy Usher and this page: User:Deuterium/Andjam and this page: User:Deuterium/JayJG. In the latter, the first edit, which he describes as "Deleting relevant, sourced, correct information" is actually the deletion of completely unsourced and factually incorrect material, and the second edit, which he describes as "Removing perfectly good link" in fact involved removing a link to a POV blog. On top of that, he seems to be creating attack biographies - e.g. [24], and has started wikistalking me (e.g. [25] [26]) It's a disturbing pattern of behavior for one so quick to inaccurately point fingers. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the emotional intensity in what you say. But then isn't Deuterium partially right in saying that you were "Deleting relevant, sourced, correct information"? For in just simply clicking on the link in the paragraph just before what you removed, I find the following paragraphs at the end of that linked page.

Far-right parties running in next week's general election in Israel have built significant support with anti-Arab platforms.

The Yisrael Beiteinu party advocates redrawing the border to place about 500,000 Arab-Israelis inside a Palestinian state. Yisrael Beiteinu is expected to win about 10 seats in the 120-seat parliament, meaning it could hold the balance of power. Another right-wing coalition is expected to take a similar number of seats.

--which seems to be about 10/11ths of what Deuterium said in the paragraph that you were "Deleting as relevant, sourced, correct information." Perhaps the source misspelled Beiteinu's name you say? In any case, it seems to me that it would be a good thing if civil discussions such as this would be kept off the MainPages and the TalkPages of Wikipedia. Perhaps civil discussions such as this should be here on this page--perhaps on Deuterium's pages. What do you say? --Rednblu 01:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, he was wrong, because he provided no sources for his claims, and his claims were wrong in any event. He claimed their platform "involves the removal of Israeli Arabs by supporting Arab immigration", when it supported neither the removal of Arabs, nor Arab immigration. As for the rest, there's no "emotional intensity in what [I] say", and if you want to take your discussion elsewhere, be my guest. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding those other subpages, I don't use them anymore and they aren't linked from my main userpage. I would delete them if I knew how, but I'll just blank them for now. Feel free to delete them yourself.

Regarding FreakOfNurture's changes, yes that is acceptable for me and your argument about bad faith makes sense. I'll arrange future listings in that way. Deuterium 04:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

To delete pages where you have been the only substantial editor, stick {{db-author}} on them. Be advised that doing this for pages whose talk pages contain warnings issued to you, or pages that are being linked as evidence in things like ArbCom disputes, is a bad idea. --Christopher Thomas 04:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added the template to those pages. Deuterium 04:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with Deuterium's page. I don't think it's comparable to Hillman's, which I support. Phr (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

These two (Lonyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 70.118.115.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) seem to be tagteam vandals everywhere they go. I don't have the time to mop up after them, so if someone else does, I'd appreciate it. Tomer^talk 04:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, most of Lonyo's edits seem fine. Could you point to specific difs? Thanks. JoshuaZ 04:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Good lord. Try this one on for size. Tomer^talk 07:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

To clarify my original request, putting aside my guess that they are one and the same person, I don't think either of them are exclusively vandalistic, but both display vandalistic propensities. Tomer^talk 07:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, we should keep an eye out on them. JoshuaZ 02:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Material has been placed in the Christopher Michael Langan bio that comes from an poor source. The material is "hype" for a documentary film on Langan. The paragraph appears only in a mouse rollover on a picture of Langan on a website. There is no author given. This can hardly be a reliable source and the presentation of the material is insensitive. Seems like a clear violation of WP:LIVING. DrL 06:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Futher explanation The source in question is the production company of a documentary about the biographee. One would think a production company gets to say on their own website what they construe the documentary as showing, and the statement is attributed to the correct source. I do not understand what the problem is, except that it is less than flattering to the biographee (although by no means harmful or abusive)...I think that perhaps DrL would like to look at the box over here, which clarifies some matters to do with vanity articles. The WP:BIO articles do not imply that every biography should be a hagiography; rather, they are there to keep libelous and defamatory material out, and the statement in question is neither.

She has been using the documentary to establish the notability of the subject, so it is only appropriate to include information about what the documentary portrays. And I can imagine few more reliable sources of that information than the production company that made the documentary; DrL seems to be of the opinion that her personal viewing of the documentary affords a better and more neutral source, which is obviously not correct. Byrgenwulf 06:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Using 'she' to imply a certain view of DrL's real life identity might not be proper, or has it been used before that? --Philosophus ^T 06:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The technical details of the construction of the website are not relevant to the issue. As for the author, the website, errolmorris.com, is the website of Fourth Floor Productions, Earl Morris' production company. The description of the documentary by the producers of the documentary is certainly a reliable primary source. --Philosophus ^T 06:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• I do not think that a mouse rollover at a website (that has no contact information other than an info@ email address) could possibly constitute a reliable source. NPOV and WP:V are very important in a bio, particularly wrt living persons. According to WP:LIVING

Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page.

Obviously this source is not suitable for inclusion. DrL 06:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not "obvious", DrL. As I explained on the talk page, the fact that the webpage is contructed like that is irrelevant: all of the information about that series is included in that manner; and it is not a random website either, it is the website of the production company which produced the documentary in question. As has been pointed out, there can be few higher quality sources of information about a documentary than the people who made it. Personal testimony by one (biased) person who has merely seen the documentary is a far less reliable source than that. The source is not unreliable, it is just not flattering, and I think that is why DrL is so adamant it must be removed from Langan's hagiography. Please read the link I gave to the vanity policy, DrL - I see you included the vanity policy in your own comment on a second thought, but it doesn't strike me that you have read and understood it at all, particularly that clause to which I have drawn your attention. Byrgenwulf 06:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

(FYI, I referenced WP:V (verafiability)) DrL 07:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's not a reliable source and certainly not a "high quality reference" and that's why it should be removed. It's really as simple as that. Why don't you just let the administrators take a look and decide? DrL 06:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've rarely heard a sillier argument about a source. Simple question: is the website a reliable source -- period/full stop? If "yes", then the form that conveys the information is utterly irrelevant, whether it be plain text, fancy text, photograph, banner graphic, Flash animation, mouse rollover, or a chorus line of dancing pixies. --Calton | Talk 12:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read Biographies of Living Persons. Noncontroversial material about a living person may be taken from that person's own statements or an authorized web site. This is not to say that it shouldn't be significantly rewritten to meet NPOV, encyclopedic tone, etc. If there is some reason the statements may be considered controversial or factually doubtful (and not just because it it self-sourced, but for some other legitimate reason) then it can be removed pending more dependable sources. Also, this is not a good forum for this dispute. Admins can block accounts and delete pages, but are not content referees. Since the solution here probably won't involve blocking either of you or deleting the article, you might try a request for Wikipedia:Third opinion or an request for comment on the article content. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that a rollover on a website could be considered a "high quality reference". This is because it is more a part of the interface and the browsing experience rather than the content. Also, it is unauthored, the comments in the Wiki article are inaccurate, plus they speculate on state of mind, rather than factual material. I've edited it a little more accurately and will wait to see if it is satisfactory to all concerned before I take the matter further. Thanks for your advice as to where to bring my complaints if this inaccurate editing persists. DrL 14:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand the fixation on the material being in a "rollover". First of all, not all browsers interact with the page source material in the same way; what's a rollover for you may appear as "alt text" for someone else (or be read out loud by an audio speech generator for a browser used by a blind user). In the absence of contradictory evidence, there is a presumption that the material was published by the web site owner in its normal course of editorial production and was not some secret unauthorized material snuck in by a hacker. Or are you arguing otherwise? And given the prominence of Errol Morris and his documentary production company, I see no reason to doubt his own official web site as a reliable primary source as to the content of a film about the subject of the article. Moreover, I'm not sure what this is doing here (with the request for administrator intervention), since it looks to me like a garden-variety content dispute. --MCB 17:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• WP:LIVING clearly states:

• Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below).

That seems pretty clear. I will try to find the correct page for challenging content - thx. DrL 18:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a misreading. It is self-published web sites that are unacceptable as sources. Someone's personal hate-site or fan-site isn't considered a reliable source. The web site in question, however, appears to be that belonging to a television program, and thus published with the backing of the organization that supports this work. That doesn't mean it's a reliable source; it just means that it doesn't voilate WP:LIVING. --Christopher Thomas 23:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the article talk page. There's no admin issues I can see. Phr (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The pages linked to from Special:Linksearch/http://members.comteche.com trouble me. Nearly all are in userspace, with the corresponding users created; their titles resemble article titles (prefixed with User:), and they have copyvio-like contents (although I can't find evidence of copyvio). I noticed this after a stretch of user-creation patrol; after seeing two userspace articles created as the first or early edits of a user with identical external links, I grew slightly suspicious. I'm not sure what to do next, so I'm posting this here. Is it possibly a spammer experiment? --ais523 09:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Google pagerank. Hipocrite - «Talk» 10:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure extlinks in user pages get served with rel=nofollow, so Google doesn't spider them and doesn't count them for pagerank purposes. Phr (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Phr is correct. Dumb+Google Pagerank? Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but shouldn't some of those usernames be reviewed? Like Porn Actor and THE VATICAN?--Anchoress 10:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not exactly a copyvio, but the text from Porn Actor is from these classified ads.--Anchoress 10:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have nuked the spam pages and blocked the accounts - 40 blocks in one hit! a new personal best :o) - and logged the domain at the spam blacklist. Just zis Guy you know? 13:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Congrats. Nice one. Tyrenius 18:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

User 67.150.* keeps posting huge, uncited quotes from Mr. Masters in the article, and reverting any changes he disagrees with (he removes unreferenced tags, etc.) Also, vandalization of talk page including deleting comments, and editing others' comments. (Even pretending to be Wikipedia administration at one point, to "apologize" for my behavior.) Page was semi-protected, but he came right back after it was lifted. Refuses to discuss any disagreements civilly, and generally behaves very childishly. --- Bennie Noakes 20:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Roy Masters#Quotes Citations and Talk:Roy Masters#Citations & Editing. ---Bennie Noakes 20:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That article is a disaster waiting to happen. As per WP:BLP I have stubbed the article until proper sources are found and provided. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, he just came by and reverted all your changes. Less than an hour later! Well, this guy's dedicated, that's for sure. If only he could put that same energy into looking for credible sources, or learning how to cite properly. ---Bennie Noakes 18:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Should the following edit: [27] to Jorge Cauz (the biographical article on the current president of Encyclopaedia Britannica) be expunged? Nobody outside has complained about it, and the content is patently ridiculous. OTOH, it is a defamatory remark about a living person, and even though Mr. Cauz sometimes says naughty things about us (I hereby propose a "Wikipedia:Simon Cowell award" for the editor who can successfully haul the most articles to AfD, in honor of Cauz's brilliant prose regarding the respective merits of his and our respective encyclop[a]edias), we ought not be saying naughty things about him. At least not in article space. --EngineerScotty 23:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Lest I be seen as promoting a deletionist agenda, we probably ought to balance that with the WP:Paula Abdul award, for what exactly, I'm not sure.  ;) --EngineerScotty 23:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Ummm editors that violate WP:BLP by having affairs with the subjects? (or something like that) Pete.Hurd 01:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

66.28.250.194 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log) has been going around adding the ® and ™ symbols to Frisbee articles. They claim they represent the Wham-O corporation. I'm not sure if we use those symbols on Wikipedia; I've never seen them used before. --Liface 00:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't use those symbols; see WP:MOS-TM. Phr (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the symbols at Frisbee (may need to get to some other articles) and left the user a message. The IP address resolves to a law firm in San Francisco, so maybe the foundation will get a call--that's life. Phr (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Not long ago, I came across Academic seduction. This area is outside my expertise, but I noticed that the article dealt with the topic only in a rather limited number of cultures. Thus, I added a {{globalize}} tag to the article. (diff). I was mistaken in writing then that the article dealt only with academic seduction in the United States; it does not. User:Aine63 pointed this out while removing the {{globalize}} tag (diff). (S)he then messaged me regarding the removal of the tag (see User_talk:Zantastik#Academic_Seduction) and posted his/her rationale on the article's talk page.

At this point, I argued at length why I do not believe that this article's examples and perspective represent a world-wide view (article talk page).

In the meanwhile, I noticed that another article Aine63 had written, She Creature, was identical to a review of the film on amazon ([28]). I messaged User:Aine63 about this matter, asking if (s)he had had permission or had written the review in the first place; I also made some suggestions as to WP:STYLE. (diff)

User:Aine63 did not respond to my question, deleted my remarks from his/her talk page and stated:

you are definately "hounding" now (your word, not mine)which is a good word for following specific people around Wiki trying to poke holes in what they--sounds like it wasn't my pride that was wounded.) Aine63 18:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC) (diff)

I found User:Aine63's response to my long critique on the article's talk page overly personal and uncivil); I was essentially told to either globalize the article myself (I lack the expertise to do so) or "back off". (diff)

User:Aine63 has made thinly-veiled personal attacks on his/her user page, each of which was added onto the user page at the same time that comments were made on the user's talk page and the relevant article talk page. (see here).

I would like to emphasize that I believe User:Aine63's contributions to Academic seduction to be valuable. But his/her lack of civility and willingness to work together to build consensus in order to improve articles is a problem, and I believe that at this point a fresh perspective from an experienced, neutral administrator would be best. --Zantastik talk 00:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My comments on my user page are not directed at Zantastik, but common problems at Wikipedia I've experienced and witnessed on a number of articles. I've seen other such comments on user pages, including those of administators. As for his comments on the Academic seduction article, his earlier critique was that there was absolutely no non-US content, which is false as much of the content comes from non-U.S. sources. He had simply not carefully read the article nor checked any of the references. Zantastic then raised the objections that the content was too "anglophone" of which I agreed, and invited him to contribute said content of which he felt should be included. If he could not do so, he needed to back off of the article and wait for me or someone else to add the content. From that point I was accused of not being civil by a friend of Zantastics, User:Jersyko. Now the two of them are attacking another article I created last night, and which is still being constructed. To me, the two of them seem more intent on hounding me, and this post here in the Admin Notice board is just one more attempt. Aine63 01:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I made the accusation of incivility solely because Aine63 said the following to Zantastik (after Zantastik gave a detailed description of his rationale, which Aine63 apparently accepted, on the article talk page), "If you yourself don't have the time, or the inclination (though you seem to have much to say about the topic), then you need to step back." Additionally, while WP:AGF perhaps might compel us to assume that Aine63's edits to your his/her user page are, in fact, unrelated to Aine63's interaction with Zantastik and me, the timing and content of the edits to the user page coincides remarkably with our interactions on the article's talk page. For examle, the statement "Any idiot can criticize", which follows "This user is really sick of . . . Wikipedians with long-winded criticisms on what is lacking in content, the time and energy for which could have been used to contribute the content that is deemed to be lacking," was written a short time after Aine63's response to Zantastik's detailed commentary on the article's talk page. I would also note that Aine63 had no userpage until today. Finally, Zantastik and my "attacks" on Aine63's other article are merely questions of a possible copyright violation. I said as much on the talk page, and I'm still waiting for a response. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 02:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Given that there are under 150 unique Googles for this term, despite the prevalence of the underlying idea, this sounds a lot like a neologism. Just zis Guy you know? 08:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This article was proposed for deletion but was kept. --Zantastik talk 08:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't see why, it has all the hallmarks of a novel synthesis. The chances of any credible academic reference using the term "seduction" to describe sexual abuse by those in positions of trust is, I think, vanishingly small. Just zis Guy you know? 11:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. It's sexual abuse, and I've never heard of any department or university, in any part of the western world (mind you, western and northern) endorsing or permitting it. There have been failures to prosecute, and there have been winks & nods, but by statute it's harassment in most places. I'm as mystified by an AfD keep as JzG is. (It ain't seduction, if one party has a coercive power over the other.) Geogre 14:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Though not necessarily relevant to whether this article is OR, Zantastik notes on the talk page of the article that French universities do not prohibit professor/student relationships and that the practice was prevalent in ancient Greece. In any event, I've become convinced that it is original research and that these topics can be adequately covered in other articles. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 15:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that discussion of whether this article is novel synthesis or not is important, the appropriate forum for this debate is on the article's talk page. I'm pleased to see that it's moving there. However, I raised some rather serious issues about User:Aine63's beheviour that have not been dealt with. Being accused of "hounding" him/her because I raised a question about a potential copyright violation (still unanswered, by the way), the implication that I am an "idiot" and being told to "back off" if I only critique Academic seduction rather than massively edit it... this is a serious matter. I believe that I have demonstrated good faith in these matters but would like an outside assessment of the matter. Potential copyright violations and insults against other users are contrary to Wikipedia policy. --Zantastik talk 18:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Starneptune (lowercase n) managed to get StarNeptune's (uppercase N) username changed. --SPUI (T - C) 02:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And I thought I was cryptic to the point of obfuscation. - brenneman ^{L} 02:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

An impostor got someone to change the username of the real user. See the contribs. --SPUI (T - C) 02:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The use of impersonation may point to this being the same person as the blocked vandalism, impersonation, or troll-only accounts Darth.Culator, RmfitzgeraId50 (note capital I in place of lowercase L), Darth Vacatour regrets..., Zotoros Infinite, Darth Vacatour, Christopher Keim, Dan MacQueer, Dan MacQueen (who stole my real name), and Sozferka, all of whom have trolled or vandalized Wookieepedia. I suspect it's a vandal we blocked from that wiki. —Silly Dan _(talk) 02:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A little more explanation, since it seems there's a bit of confusion. Somebody came on IRC, complaining that their username had been changed without cause. A quick look turned up the request, but you should become suspicious once you look at the diff. Looking at Special:Contributions/Starneptune, we can see the account was probably created for the sole purpose of screwing somebody over. It's unfortunate, though probably understandable, that this wasn't caught earlier. In short, we have somebody whose username was changed without their consent, and they are understandably upset. Luna Santin 02:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The name change was done without my knowledge or permission. I had tried to log in a couple of days ago, and noticed my account didn't exist anymore. I think Wikipedia had just had a database error, so I assumed it was due to that and recreated my account. It was only pointed out to me today by one of my friends that my acccount was renamed due to a request by an imposter account named User:Starneptune.

I don't beleive this is an isolated incident, as myself and at least two of my fellow administrators over at Wookieepedia have been harassed here on Wikipedia by a user named User:Swainstonation because we had banned him from Wookieepedia for homophobic remarks. User:Silly Dan has had at least two accounts made to impersonate him (User:Dan MacQueer and User:Dan MacQueen), and User:Darth Culator has at least two as well (User:Christopher Keim and User:Darth.Culator). I have reason to believe that these are all connected, and I ask that you check and see if all these imposter accounts are the same person.

Thank you for your time. StarNeptune 02:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe SiIly Dan (again, note capital I), SiIly Dan eats Pelican Shit, and Silly Dan still eats Pelican Shit are additional socks. Anyway, thanks for your help, and sorry a dispute on our wiki carried over here....—Silly Dan _(talk) 03:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The real rko (talk · contribs · count) just removed the AFD tag from Wrestling General Board (IGN) again [29]. He removed it eariler just two days ago [30], which I reverted and warned him for [31]. Now, should i warn him again, this time with {{drmafd2}}, or does this kind of deliberate behavior warrant a block? Hbdragon88 03:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A new user, Abbaenok, presented a very long entry into the Talk at 02:27, 1 August 2006, defending the subject of the entry, which was reverted by Crum375. The material presented by Abbaenok included a series of personal attacks and allegations, with a name presented, and legal noises made. Similar defamatory attacks have been posted to this entry previously, by other users or via other user names, in an attempt to shape the entry, presumably by intimidation. I would think this would require admin attention, given what would seem to be legally defamatory material being posted, and having been posted before, and possible removal of the defamatory material from the History. Hence this post. Arcsincostan 05:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel like I'm sticking my head in a lion's mouth, but here goes: While reverting vandalism from User:203.184.36.120, I came across some terrible personal attacks directed to him, on his talk page, from User:Tagishsimon. I haven't refactored them, but they are incredibly offensive and hurtful and in no way are convincing this young IP editor to contribute to the work rather than tearing it down. The IP user did tell Tagishsimon, on Tagishsimon's talk page, that he feels he has an open invitation to vandalize any and all WP articles because of the way the welcome message is phrased, but that's no excuse for behavior like this. I felt I had to call attention to the exchange, even with all the Colbert nonsense that's happening tonight. Thanks - Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 06:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Frightening. I don't consider that acceptable at all. Vandals are not immune from WP:CIVIL. Powers 12:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Re Druidictus (talk · contribs): not sure if we have a neo-Nazi or just a troll on our hands here, but I thought I'd give the heads-up, since he recently made his first edit in a while, at least his first under this account, and it was a bit of a doozie: an edit to Talk:Ashkenazi Jews that effectively talks (as if it were a commonplace) about how much German science benefited from Hitler kicking out the Jews. Normally, I'd just go "troll, do not feed", except I looked at his contributions, and I decided a note here might be in order. Given the hiatus and then the return in the same style, might a user check be in order? I suspect that he's been editing under a different account and is back to this one because of a block. Of course, I could easily be wrong. Still, alghouth it may be un-wiki of me, but 'm not willing to extend any supposition of good faith to someone who would make that edit. - Jmabel | Talk 06:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct link for that diff: [32]. Phr (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry. - Jmabel | Talk 17:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed three groups of suspected socks here: [33]. Is there anything else I need to do? Thanks. Tortfeasor 07:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Sorry for posting, an admin got to it. Thanks. [34]. Tortfeasor 16:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I doing the right thing, looking through Special:Allpages/User, finding banned users' subpages and applying {{db-ban}} to them??

I'm trying to be helpful, let me know if it was wrong. --TheM62Manchester 08:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Depends on what is on them; db-ban is for any pages created by banned users, not necessarily the userpages of banned users. If the only contents of the page are notices about the user's ban, then don't db them, they are a necessary record. Also, anything created before they were banned is not subject to deletion; it's only the creation of a banned user if they create it after they are banned. Essjay (Talk) 09:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, I was using them on subpages of AI (talk · contribs), Lir (talk · contribs) and Sunholm (talk · contribs) - if I'm wrong, they can be restored. The content wasn't too offensive, I was only trying to apply CSD G5. Sorry about that! --TheM62Manchester 09:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sam Sloan (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is a highly opinionated editor (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Dorsch) with long-running disputes against many people on and off Wikipedia (see also Sam Sloan). He just posted this [35] on my talk page. Am I alone in seeing a threat in there? Just zis Guy you know? 09:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Judging by what I've just read, I'd say block him for a period for making threats. --TheM62Manchester 09:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm the target I'd appreciate it if some other admin did the needful, but yes, I am very much of that view. Just zis Guy you know? 09:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Shall I post {{threatban}} on his page, JzG?? --TheM62Manchester 09:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope the Executive Board of the United States Chess Federation can afford a spellchecker. I don't see these as serious threats (everyone has a right to open an arbitration case if they feel an admin has done something wrong), but they are undoubtedly breaches of civility (deletion of articles by the proper routes, involving discussion by many other people, does not constitute "vandalizm"). A warning and pointing out the criteria for notability would be more useful. --ajn (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sloan has a long history of pursuing tendentious edits, and off Wikipedia he is known to have launched vitriolic personal attacks. He undoubtedly brings his battles to Wikipedia. I am not sure what action to take against him and will go with whatever the cabal thinks. Just zis Guy you know? 10:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that chess players seem to be even more prone to infighting and personal abuse than Trotskyists or objectivists. You've done a pretty good job of refuting his allegations on your talk page, and I'd be quite happy to back you up if he ever manages to post a valid request for arbitration. --ajn (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm seeing incivility there and elsewhere in his contrib history, if it continues after further warnings a short block seems in order to me. JzG, if you don't want to do it yourself, ask away, many of us ROUGEs would be happy to help... ++Lar: t/c 12:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw that message on JzG's page too. I'm wondering what's going on with Sloan. I've been dealing with Sloan on Usenet for longer than Wikipedia has existed, and while I've had my differences with him, he's at least usually a good speller. He's been doing stuff here and on Usenet recently that are weird even for him, and I'm wondering about his sobriety when he posted that thing, and even about his current mental health. His personal situation (because of the USCF election stuff among other things) has to be stressful (look for his name on Susan Polgar's blog [36] to get an idea of what's going on). I have to recommend some sensitivity with him at this point. Phr (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this has gone way out of control. Apparently we are now saying that 9/11, the London terrorist bombings, and many more were carried out by the respective governments. Because Alex Jones says so. And Mr. Jones' web site is an encyclopedic source because Mr. Jones' web site is a reliable source for what Mr. Jones thinks. Thus WP:RS is apparently satisfied. What??? Rapidly running out of patience... Weregerbil 12:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Any bets on the time and date of the anon surge? I say 11pm tonight, British time. That's what tipped the last AFD Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 14:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the conspiracy theories of Alex Jones should be kept in the article about him. -Will Beback 18:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No need for socks and stockings, when AfD has a great many "keep everything omG you dont want to be meen to anyone" voters going through and voting without, apparently, reading. (Take a look at Us russian alliance and it's AfD. Nominator, one vote, and then me wondering why that keep voter is acting as if on drugs.) Geogre 23:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Above user is a blatant sock of the indefinitely blocked user Bluegold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Isopropyl 12:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Syrthiss 12:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The apparent same person at this IP keeps inserting a singular piece of arbitary minutiae that editorial consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance#The use of in-universe statistics all disallow.

I've given him these links links and requested three times at User talk:24.74.50.252 that he read these policy/guidelines and consensus. But he just keeps going back and back and back, though never three times in a day.

I and at least one other editor, User:Eric TF Bat, have kept fixing the page in question (Thor (Marvel Comics)). Is there anything you can do to help? Thanks very much -- Tenebrae 14:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This user keeps removing a warning on personal attacks from his talkpage despite he has clearly made one, in which he called me "a troll pure and simple". I reported the matter as a personal attack as this wasn't the first incident, my request for intervention was however removed because I did not warn the user first. After this I did, to avoid this in future encounters. Up until now the user has deleted the warning for 4 times (1, 2, 3 and 4) Rex 14:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for removing warnings and personal attacks. Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 14:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this block. While it's certainly not polite to call someone "a troll pure and simple", it is not the kind of remark that has ever, in my experience, resulted in a block with no warning. I'm not familiar with this editor, or the one he's in dispute with, but I'd point out the Rex Germanus has recently been blocked three times (within a two-month period) for 3RR, so it looks as if he has a history of going against consensus, whereas CyrilleDunant had a clean block history. Rex Germanus reported the "troll pure and simple" post at WP:PAIN without giving any warning,[37] in violation of the PAIN instructions. His report was removed because there was no warning. He then sent a message to CyrilleDunant, this morning, not for a new attack, but for that one, warning that he would report him (he already had reported him and the report had been removed). Cyrille removed the comment, and Rex reverted him. Then Rex replaced it three times more.[38] [39] [40]

It seems that if Rex had reported this at WP:AN/3RR, it would have been rejected on the grounds that 3RR is not generally enforced against users on their own user space, except in cases of vandals removing genuine vandalism warnings. Only two days ago, I made that point when I dismissed a 3RR report,[41] pointing out that warnings are not meant to be used as black marks which we give to naughty people who then, as punishment, have to display them on their talk page for a certain length of time.

There was a similar case last October, when a new admin blocked an established user for removing warnings from his talk page. Kelly Martin undid the block, and David Gerard commented:

You can't hammer someone into making your comment stay on their talk page. 3RR is not in fact generally held to apply in this situation. If you put it there and he removed it, he saw it. It's not like the diff has vanished. This has been well established in many cases where annoying trolls were bugging people on their talk pages then tried to nail them with 3RR when they removed them. If he doesn't want to keep your comment there, that's up to him, not you, and you don't get to edit-war otherwise. . . . You gotta be joking. He had a 3RR warning put on his talk page, then he removed it. So he was warned and can't deny he was warned. Then what is the point of repeatedly replacing the warning except harassment? That's precisely why 3RR isn't generally applied to a user in their own userspace - people harassing others with repeatedly replacing removed additions, then trying to nail them on 3RR. (David Gerard, 10 October, 2005, this noticeboard)

The issue of removing unwanted posts from one's talk page has been discussed often. Some people think it shouldn't be done, but there is definitely no policy against it, and there are troublesome users who seem to delight in sending unwarranted warnings to their opponents (particularly admins) and replacing them when they're removed. Alienus comes to mind in particular.

So, if we discount the 3RR violation (and I'd very much want to know why Rex kept replacing that post once he knew that Cyrille had seen it), we're left with the "troll pure and simple" remark. Bearing in mind that people are never blocked without warning for something as mild as this and are very seldom blocked for "attacks" that were made the previous day, that Rex had been edit warring with other users, and that no report has been given of personal attacks made by Cyrille after Rex began harassing Cyrille at his talk page, I do not think the block is justified.

I don't want to wheel war, but I'm hoping either that Will might be persuaded to lift the block himself, or that there might be some agreement here that the block can be lifted. AnnH ♫ 16:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Has there been any further conversation about this? Jkelly 17:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I left a note for Will, and a few moments ago, he posted back to me to say that he had unblocked. I was particularly concerned because Rex Germanus replaced the warning on Cyrille's talk page (violating 3RR himself in the processs) after he knew that Cyrille had been blocked. I warned him on his talk page, and he apologized. I hope both editors will now stop squabbling and will just get back to writing an encyclopaedia. Thanks, Will, and thanks, Jkelly. AnnH ♫ 18:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking me (I never knew I was blocked). I never thought I would get blocked for removing annoying messages from my talk page...CyrilleDunant 18:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

User:How dare you? has placed the image Image:Howdareyou.jpg on his user page. What is the policy on inappropriate content on user pages? (I know of a case when a user created a rather offensive one, and it ended before the Arbitration Comittee.) Should it be nominated for deletion? - Mike Rosoft 15:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen SPUI's user page? There are some questionable parts on Freakofnurture's as well. Unless it gets complained about, I say we leave it alone. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Inappropriate content"? It's just a middle finger, c'mon, we're not a children's television network. We have faaaaar more "offensive" stuff on-wiki. And keep in mind we aren't censored ... Cyde↔Weys 16:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to weigh in on whether or not these individuals are sock puppets, I'm simply going to say that this seems to be a rather unilateral decision made here with a number of blocks for which I see little basis. The evidence pointed to on one user is a year old, and his latest evidence seems to consist mainly of "contributions". I'm no John Nash, but I'm certainly not sure I see the pattern here. One user has this evidence link on his user page [42]. I'm not sure how Kramden and some of the latest fit into this picture. Having a look at the alleged puppetteers targetted articles, I'm just not seeing it on Kramden's list here. They may very well be sockpuppets but I don't see the connection to Spotteddogsdotorg (talk · contribs). I just want to make sure the 'i's are dotted and the 't's are crossed.--Crossmr 16:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection request for Kvens of the past. An unknown user, recently appearing under names WeBeToys, It'sAparty and PauWau, and also using just IP addresses, is without any explanations vandalizing the article and today also the discussion forum. This has been going on for a while now and does not seem to be slowing down. User behind the many sock puppets refuses to participate in discussions. I can check the page every day and revert it, but semi-protection would be preferred to slow down the vandalism. --Drieakko 16:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Not enough recent activity to justify s-p imo. Days have gone without any vandalism. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Based on earlier discussions at Talk:Kven, the puppet master seems to be Art Dominique. He seems to have got very disappointed with everyone not agreeing with his opinions, and is now just overwriting other works with his own without bothering to explain anything anymore. The user is spreading a lot of misinformation that he could easily check himself to be false, but his motivations seems to be something we don't know.

Wow, I feel like I have opened Pandora's box. Yesterday, I opened up a Suspected Sockpuppet case, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VaughanWatch. This is really a continuation of a previous issue, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/VaughanWatch.

All of a sudden, a whole bunch more socks have come out of the woodworks. For user IDs that are clearly socks (vandalism only, targetting those involved in the VaughanWatch dispute), I've been blocking indefinitely (as have other admins). I've also temporarily blocked a few IPs (again, so have other admins) that fall into the same boat.

In all cases, I have been logging it in the SSP noted above. Since I am now a participant in this issue, please let me know if you feel I should not be blocking these users. If this is the case, I ask a few admins to watch the SSP noted, my user page, as well as User:pm_shef's user page. -- JamesTeterenko 17:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This puppeteer is getting sneakier. Creating impersonization accounts to vandalize then immediately reverting with another sock. -- JamesTeterenko 17:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is vandalism, but I've saved a Userbox in my own userspace for my own personal use, and User:Edipedia has been editing it. Please advise. [43] --- Hong Qi Gong 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Although no one owns a page, I think that Epipedia should respect your wishes when editing your userpage. He doesn't have to have the userbox on his page. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are an admin, can you please warn him? --- Hong Qi Gong 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I did leave him a note. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ask him to subst: it then he can change it if he wishes. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have a problem with the Userbox itself, he doesn't even want to use it. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want userboxes on your userpage to change, then subst them. I find it disturbing that you think editing something on the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit merits a warning. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that will solve my problem. He doesn't like how the userbox appears on my userpage. That's why he's editing it. He'd still edit it even if I subst it. He doesn't use the Userbox himself. His behaviour is basically the same as modifying people's personal information on their userpages. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, you've both been edit-warring in Template:User Han Chinese, and you're both thoroughly entitled to 3RR blocks as a result. Please don't do that. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see your problem but the best solution is for you to subst if he changes it revert it, if he changes it again ask him nicely not to do it again and revert. If he does it again then dont revert paste the diffs here and a sysop may be willing to do something more to prevent it. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm ready to ignore all rules on that template. But that is a seperate issue from the fact that he's editing a userbox on my userspace that he doesn't even use. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Woha, You have so violated 3RR, i will remain neutral for now and just warn you. But i advise that you both make no more reverts for now.

I have given you both the 3RR boilerplate and started a discussion on the template page and reverted to prior the edit war. This template should be left like that until your issue is resolved. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And if User:Edipedia reverts your edit? --- Hong Qi Gong 19:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You will both be reported and a 24 hour maybe more (67 reverts in 4 days!) block will likely be imposed on you both. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 19:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Cooler heads have prevailed. A second template for Edipedia's POV is now accesible here Template:User HanChinese. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Could I ask for a slightly-speedier-than-normal speedy keep of this discussion? The stub article Monica Coghlan was nominated for deletion, I expanded it, the only participant changed their opinion to Keep, the nominator withdrew nomination, champagne was shared by all, Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard at its finest. But then the main author of the stub began expressing unfavorable opinions of the nomination in the first place, which isn't going to help anyone, and may cause hurt feelings. Since the discussion meets speedy keep criteria, can I ask someone to close it, and possibly nip an unproductive conflict before it escalates further? Thanks, AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Done! Excellent work, by the way. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, you are fast! AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am hoping someone can help me with a user with multiple accounts who is bothering me. They have vandalized my user page and are now posting dozens of times on my talk page. Known usernames include:

• 70.233.181.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Qho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• QH0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HELP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Missingno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

However, this user claims that some edits are by his brother, and also claims there are four more usernames. Perhaps someone with access to CheckUser could verify this. I don't know what the policy is on blocking an IP when there might be more than one person using it, but I need help. I'm not sure if there is more than one user or not, but I did notify this person that "Impersonation is a form of vandalism on Wikipedia" as edits by Missingno and 70.233.181.36 have been signed by Qho. I'm quietly making my edits and I really don't want to be harassed. I would be happy to provide more examples and details if necessary. Thank you so much for your time. — Reinyday, 21:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Qho replied the other way around over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hel-p me. I'd like to move discussion there so we can deal with it all in one place. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry if this is the wrong place, but 172.137.108.138 has been continually vandalizing Redan High School (Contribs). — SheeEttin {T/C} 22:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

18:11, 1 August 2006 Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "172.137.108.138 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (vandalism) ~Kylu (u|t) 22:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• User:I Kick Vandals In The Balls
• User:WhenMyUncleVandalizedIKickedHimSoHardInTheBallsWeNowCallHimAunt
• User:WhenMyDadVandalizedIKickedHimSoHardInTheBallsHisToupeeFlewOff
• User:MyGrampaOnceKickedAVandalinTheBallsSoHardHisOwnDenturesShattered
• User:IKickedAVandalInTheBallsWithRocketPropelledShoes.YoureWelcome.

I dont know if this user thinks he's being funny or what, but it's getting annoying. Should we just stay on the lookout for these types of names and permblock on site?Ernie001 22:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We seem to already be doing so. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

85.155.14.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is spamming extlinks that go to a porn site. Phr (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This user persistently uses Wikipedia discussion pages as a means to advocate, propagate, and debate her political beliefs, as though they are mere blogs, thereby disrupting the editing process and violating Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. For evidence, one only needs to check some of her recent contributions, particularly her ones to Talk:Anarchism and Talk:Anarcho-capitalism. I've told her on several occassions that her use of disucussion pages for general political debate is unacceptable at Wikipedia, and that she should comment contructively on the content of articles, only. She responded to those notices by denouncing them as "assinine", "total crap", and "harrassing"; by removing them from her talk page; and by personally attacking me: removing this assinine bogus warning from a non-admin airhead, [44] removing further total crap left by a delusional editlor. [45] I admonished her personal attacks using the appropriate template, but she removed it.[46] Needless to say, virtually all of her comments to me and other editors (except those who agree with her political beliefs) have been uncivil.

She has told me that "I really don't much give a @#!& what you think and I can't for the life of me see how any of this is any of your business." She has also told me not to comment on her talk page again. [47] Accordingly, any form of mutal dispute resolution, including RFC and mediation, is out of the question, as those processes are reliant on the editor's respect for the opinions of others.

In summation, her disruptive conduct is analogous to that of a troll and likewise obstructs the improvement of this encyclopedia. And, unfortunately, her evident intransigence, incivility, and disregard for the opinions of others suggests that any type of personal reform is unlikely. I believe that immediate punitive action, at the very least, is in order.

(Please note that I have only worked with this editor for a few days and have already experienced two personal attacks.)

-- WGee 21:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note: The user has been blocked indefinitely as an obvious reincarnation of the permanently blocked user user:Thewolfstar. It took me a while to get a handle on the procedures, as I'm not usually the block-forever kind of person, but Wolfstar is someone I'll learn the methods for. Geogre 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Although I have not personally worked with Thewolfstar, her disruptions to Wikipedia have gained a sort of infamy. Thank-you very much for dealing promptly and effectively with Lingeron; your assistance is greatly appreciated. -- WGee 22:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  I think we have more than one thread about this user, I'll repeat, I support this indef block. ++Lar: t/c 22:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

-) If we needed more proof that it's Maggie Wolfstar, the fact that Lingeron has managed to get three complaint threads going on AN/I at once would be fairly conclusive. Few manage to be that nasty without being instant blocks the way that she can. De nada on the block. I don't like issuing blocks, but this person is richly deserving. Geogre 01:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel the same about blocks (even though I'm not an admin), but you're right, it was called for in this case. Thanks for all of your help, everybody. She was disrupting a lot of the articles I work on. --AaronS 01:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Strongly support this block. The sock alone has caused too much disruption in the Wikipedia community, primarily to the RfA process. — Deckiller 03:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• • That is, assuming that I look through the evidence and agree that a connection can actually be made....— Deckiller 03:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I made a comment in the other section pertaining to this user but I will also comment here. I would appreciate it if somebody would produce some evidence linking Lingeron with Thewolfstar. The fact that Lingeron might be doing some things inappropriately does not mean we arbitrarily select a former, banned user and pretend like they are "obviously" the same. The differences look pretty clear as far as I can tell: Lingeron is an anarchist capable of writing legible text; Thewolfstar was a borderline psycho Democratic ideologue prone to emotional rants. If you all want to give more ammunition to the critics of our community who say we arbitrarily ban people who rub the right people the wrong way, then by all means keep up this behaviour. — GT 03:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• I just noticed that "new evidence" wasn't dug up; this is still based on the old speculation. A checkuser should be performed before the block. I'm withdrawing my support of this action until a checkuser (or something to a lesser degree) is performed. — Deckiller 03:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Indeed, this isn't enough to go by. I'm unblocking this user until solid evidence can be obtained. This isn't necessarily an obvious case. — Deckiller 03:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points, all. Those differences are important. Lingeron is by no means a Democrat. She has, after all, accused me of shadowy Communist subversion and sedition. --AaronS 03:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I was out of line to support the block without even checking to see if new evidence had been obtained. I hope I have redeemed myself. George, I understand why you blokced the user; but it's going to take a bit more process and time to come to a conclusion. Now, I will leave you guys to come to a conclusion as to the user warrenting another block outside of sockpuppetry (which has yet to be proven). — Deckiller 03:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Same here, and agreed. --AaronS 03:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I was one of the first to observe that Lingeron appeared to be Thewolfstar. It's certainly fair to ask for supporting evidence though. I don't have the time or energy to do a full job right now. Here's a little:

• Political stance: GT said " The differences look pretty clear as far as I can tell: Lingeron is an anarchist capable of writing legible text; Thewolfstar was a ... Democratic ideologue prone to emotional rants". Thewolfstar was no Democrat: see [48] for example: "I'm a life-long anarchist and environmentalist... I already stood up to an administrator and a huge troop of drooling, controlling idiots in this place. They're mainly Democrats." The confusion may stem from the fact that Thewolfstar spent her time editing articles on the Democrats, but she was mostly inserting stuff that the Democrats there didn't seem to care for. Example: [49].
• I believe they also both frequently discuss Thomas Jefferson; here is an example of that from Thewoldstar.

More to come if I have the time. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

More:

• The Lingeron account had had I believe no interaction with Bishonen at all before Bishonen made this post on her page. It's fairly cryptic, and not a direct accusation: "You're making yourself increasingly easy to recognize. Again." How does Lingeron respond? At first, reasonably. A little later, though, she deletes the section with edit summary "and removing this nut case personal attack and lame, senseless accusation". I just don't see that kind of reaction occurring unless if she knows Bishonen knows she's Thewolfstar.
• After Bishonen warns her more directly, Lingeron posts this, including the fascinating "I am currently looking through (Maggie)Thewolfstar's contributions, pages, etc. and do not find this user to even be abusive". Forgive me, but if Lingeron's investigation was even cursory, that statement either makes her insane, or Thewolfstar. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that Thewolfstar's last contribiton may be recent enough for a checkuser. Think we should set up a request? — Deckiller 05:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I suppose we need to. Care to do the honors? Hopefully a simple pointer to this thread will be all the evidence needed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Sounds good. Again, I apologize if this all turns out to be confirmed and I look like the paranoid idiot here — I've seen some strange things happen in the past, after all. — Deckiller 05:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This user has been disruptive, see the warning I placed on their page. I think it is a Bad Practice to overturn a block without seeking consensus first, that leads to wheel warring. I'm not sure I'd characterise the correlations reported by several admins as "old speculation" either. So I oppose lifting this block of a disruptive and incivil editor. ++Lar: t/c 04:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand, and believe me, either way I was stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one — I continue to endorse the block, I get in trouble. I unblock the user for further discussion, and I get a few people mad at me. The block was for sockpuppetry, but nothing had been proven; and the last thing I want is to see a huge embarrassment case made out of this if we're wrong. Either way, bad practice was not my intention; I just want to keep this resonable. By old spculation, I meant the speculation that I already read about (meaning, nothing new was proven prior to the block). — Deckiller 05:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's thewolfstar, although I only had a small number of dealings with that user (which is funny since my talkpage is linked as evidence of thewolfstar calling herself an anarchist. how did you find that btw?). I actually tried to avoid her after her second post to my page. Thewolfstar never edited the anarchism articles as far as I know, which has been Lingeron's main area of editing. There do appear to be some similarities though, both politically and behavior wise (the constant ranting against socialism, saying it's just fascism for example). It looked like they might be wising up after our discussion a few days ago, but based on some of their edits to their talk page I'm not quite so sure. I say that we wait and see what happens with checkuser and with her future edits before taking such a drastic action as indefinitely blocking, but regardless of if they are a sock or not, they are on thin ice. The Ungovernable Force 05:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Do you think a shorter block would be in hand for the other, non-sockpuppet allegations? I think so; but, given the current circumstances, I am no in position to do the blocking myself. — Deckiller 06:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It is more likely than not that Thewolfstar's most recent contribs are too old. Be sure if you file an RFCU to list other confirmed socks that are more recent. Thatcher131 (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Lingeron's first edit was June 18, and Thewolfstar's last edit was May 9 (I believe). Is that still too much of a gap? — Deckiller 06:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

We have records on Thewolfstar; I'll check into it. Essjay (Talk) 07:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

IP evidence is consistent with previous Thewolfstar socks. I'd call it  Confirmed. Essjay (Talk) 07:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm a bit surprised and sorry to have been critical of Geogre and others before. Admittedly I didn't do much more than a short review of Lingeron's contributions. But at least it is, apparently, all settled now and in my opinion this Checkuser should have preceded any indefinite block. — GT 08:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If, in the opinion of the blocking admin, the sockpuppet is obvious, then checkuser is not required; we routinely decline such requests under the rubric "Obvious sockpuppets may be blocked without the need for checkuser." If someone disputes the position that the sockpuppet is obvious, then a checkuser can be requested. To my knowledge (I haven't checked RfCU) no checkuser was actually requested by either side; it was mentioned above, but if I hadn't decided to do it sua sponte, it would not have been done. Essjay (Talk) 09:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well not that it's necessarily my interpretation that means anything, but to me "obvious" is quite different from "probable" or "likely" or "strongly suspected". — GT 09:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so is someone going to redo the block? The Ungovernable Force 09:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Having handled hundreds of such requests (possibly thousands, I'd have to go look), I don't feel particularly conceited to style myself as somewhat of an authority on the subject. Had the immediate reaction been to list this on RfCU rather than block, and had I been the checkuser who handled it (until about a week ago, it was about a 75% chance I would be), I would have rejected it as obvious. Additionally, we do not generally perform checks of this nature (that is, to clear up questions about a block) until someone asks us to do so; given that RfCU is the appropriate location to do so, such checks are generally not done until listed there. Essjay (Talk) 09:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of reblocking indefinitely, referencing this thread, and I welcome review of my actions. I got an email from Deckiller explaing that s/he felt s/he had no choice but to lift the block. I guess I sympathise with the prudence, but don't agree it was warranted. The lift seems to have not taken, which is fortunate, no harm done, but in future, really, I think taking the word of other admins and asking for further investigation before lifting a block may be a better approach. An obvious sock is just that, obvious, and when several admins come to the same conclusion, engaging valuable Checkuser resources, while arguably prudent, and understandable, might be reconsidered. Admins need to, by default, trust each other, and to assume we're all here for the same reason, to build an encyclopedia. ++Lar: t/c 09:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's perfectly fine with me that the block was lifted. The actions that followed were all by the book, and I'm pleased that there were questions, that they generated a check user, and that a block has been reinstated. We should be skeptical when indefinite blocks are involved, and I welcome any review of further blocks. (In other words, no hard feelings at all. I'm glad that there were questions and that the questions prompted precisely appropriate actions.) Thewolfstar is pretty dedicated and...upset. Geogre 12:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think questioning, skepticism, asking for clarification and all are fine but I don't see the need for rash action, there was little harm and some considerable benefit in leaving the block in place (or reducing it to a definite one for the disruption caused) and none in lifting it, in my view. As I said, we could have discussed this without one admin overturning another that way. we were fortunate this user didn't cause more disruption, but that was luck. ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Clarification: For the record, just so folks know, Wolfstar wasn't a Democrat: she was an anti-Democrat. Her campaign, pursued with the kind of monomania that's scary, was to alter the article on the Democratic Party to make it "socialist." I.e. she edited it a lot because she wanted to tell the world the secret truth about Democrats -- that they're all socialists. Lotsa edits doesn't mean interest. :-) Geogre 12:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this ban against Lingeron. It has not been proven that she is a sockpuppet of TheWolfStar. A checkuser must be run, and the IP results made openly available. This ban is out of process, and appears to be negatively motivated. I request that the out of process and ill-considered ban be removed (again, it was already removed once by a discerning user) until and unless it is publicly proven that the user is a sockpuppet. - MSTCrow 20:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• You do? Gosh. Check user was run. Puppetry confirmed. Folks are free to take a look at user talk:MSTCrow to decide for themselves whether this objection is motivated by due concern or prior hostility. Process was followed. Geogre 20:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Prior hostility to whom? I have not interacted with anyone involved in this entire issue previously, save Lingeron. I do not understand the thrust of your argument, and it damages your own character to stoop to questioning my motives. It is not enough for someone to claim that a checkuser was run, I'd like to see confirmation that a checkuser was run, and that the IPs matched. As banning a user is the ultimate action that can be taken against a user, the process must be as transparent and open as possible, to prevent abuses of power. - MSTCrow 23:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • As I've been saying ad infinitum on User talk:Lingeron, Essjay saying above that "IP evidence is consistent with previous Thewolfstar socks. I'd call it  Confirmed" IS the confirmation that checkuser was run. Essjay is one of a very small handful of people with the Checkuser right on wikipedia. He ran a checkuser, he gave us our results. The fact that they aren't in WP:RFCU is absolutely meaningless unless if you want to try to set some world record for Wikilawyering. As far as "seeing confirmation" -- the report of a checkuser is always like that, just a few words about the results. We don't get to ponder the full dump, both for privacy reasons and to try to keep sockpuppeteers from getting any better at what they do. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't understand what possible privacy reasons could be involved, or how it would help sockpuppets improve, but I see that per WP:RFCU, not much else can be done at this time. What isn't in WP:RFCU that is supposed to make one capable of wikilawyering? - MSTCrow 00:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
        • A full raw dump of a checkuser request would be akin to revealing private information about a user, most notably their IPs used and thus their ISP. Beyond that, revealing the methods by which sockpuppets are caught is akin to revealing what you need to avoid being caught as a sockpuppet. It's not hard to understand.--Rosicrucian 01:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Until recently, only things where the request was made at WP:RFCU did it get listed there anywhere. We just started trying to catalog results by checkusers that weren't requested on WP:RFCU over there. (Check out WP:RFCU/SORT if you want to leave a note that checkuser was used somewhere) Go check out Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thewolfstar. Evidence from here is documented there now. I'm to understand checkuser is used outside of WP:RFCU, esspecially by ArbCom (who holds the right to assign, and the majority of people with the permission). No need for discounting the checkuser results anymore now I hope. Unless, of course, someone wants to question Essjay's character, in which case we're in a whole new ballgame. Kevin_b_er 00:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk page protected[edit]

Based on this diff: [50] in which Thewolfstar is manipulating official notice templates in a way to cloud or obfuscate official findings (the checkuser is confirmed, it's over, this is a sock) I have protected the User_talk:Lingeron page, and Thewolfstar will have to use email to communicate further. I welcome review of this action. ++Lar: t/c 05:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I support it completely. — Deckiller 05:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Since Maggie's "contributions" before blocking were to suggest that Democrats are socialist and then, as this account, that she knew the real meaning of anarchism and that all the rest of her input was talk pages and trying to rally soldiers around the grand old flag of "Admins are abusing me: help, help, I'm being oppressed," her talk page is the primary thing to lock. Without the talk page stuff, she's easy to spot and nearly negligible. (I.e. I support the lockdown.) Geogre 11:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Oh, Admin, eh - very nice. And how'd you get that, then? By exploiting the editors! By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there's ever going to be any progress..." (sorry, I couldn't resist).[51] The Ungovernable Force 06:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't support the talk page protect, I don't see any reason for it, as there's nothing the user could possibly do from her own talk page. - MSTCrow 15:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The user was editing her talkpage to make it appear that she was not a confirmed sock but a suspected sock, and repeatedly denying that the admins had run a CheckUser. In other words, what benefit is there in letting a banned user and confirmed sockpuppet of another banned user continue to use a talkpage as an outlet to manipulate the process and make it look as if she was wrongly banned? Once Essjay steps in on a matter like this, the fat lady has sung. He is about as official a verdict as one could hope for.--Rosicrucian 19:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Given MSTCrow's own experience, I suspect he already knows why user talk pages are protected. --Calton | Talk 07:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

User emailed me with the following.. (my characterization: wikilawyering and wilful misunderstanding of what has been communicated clearly, several times now)

Dear Lar, Please reconsider taking the page protect off my page. I didn't actually know that I couldn't put the other template back up on this page. I put it there because it is the correct one, as I'm nobody's sock. I had put it there before with no objection and so thought it was ok. I promise I won't put it up there again. Please take the protect off my page. I just found this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Talk_page_protected "Based on this diff: [19] in which Thewolfstar is manipulating official notice templates in a way to cloud or obfuscate official findings (the checkuser is confirmed, it's over, this is a sock) I have protected the User_talk:Lingeron page, and Thewolfstar will have to use email to communicate further. I welcome review of this action. ++Lar: t/c 05:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)" I was not trying to cloud anything, for God's sake. I was trying, if anything, to lift the cloud of confusion and false sockpuppet accusations that are being made against me. How can you say, "Thewolfstar is manipulating official notice templates" and "Thewolfstar will have to use email to communicate further" I added the suspect template, not Thewolfstar. I am emailing you, not Thewolfstar. How can you make these statements when they are blantantly false? As far as confirmation goes, Essjay's 'confirmation' is based on IP, not users. He says: "IP evidence is consistent with previous Thewolfstar socks. I'd call it Confirmed." Essjay (Talk) 07:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC) My apologies to Essjay but this following evidence is no kind of confirmation. According to the checkuser page Thewolfstar's IP is 24.161.22.244 -- Our IP here is 24.161.28.255 The 24.161.. is part of a roadrunner range. Roadrunner is the only cable connection that people can get anymore around these parts, and in a lot of places, as this company has bought up most of the local ISPs across the country. My cousin has told me that he noticed that their IP was 24.161.28.255 back in March. From what I can gather about roadrunner IPs, they can be stable for some time or they can change fairly frequently, and this is at the discretion of Time-Warner Co. (Roadrunner). Like I said on my page, unless Thewolfstar snuck into my uncle's house at night when they were all sleeping and used their computer, it is impossible that her IP is the same as theirs. And as I have shown our IP here is not the same as hers. As of yet, there has been no real comparison run between Thewolfstar's edits and my edits. On this page the ones providing evidence are saying that they doubt or are unsure if I am Thewolfstar. To block me indefinitely because Geogre and Bishonen have some sort of strong belief that I am this user is outrageous and so completely unfair. Like I said before it's a good thing that this doesn't happen in murder cases in real life! Lars, this whole campaign against me, with it's accusations of being the sockpuppet of a banned user seems to be more about the fact that I voted oppose at Phaedriel's rfa, than anything else. I was exercising my right to vote. Why bother to have a vote if editors are not allowed to vote in the way that they choose? Ironically, I don't even hold any grudge to Phaedriel, nor does she seem to hold one against me. I left a friendly comment to her at her rfa. I was about to leave her a beautiful picture of some peaches on her page, and was working on the image format, which I'm not good at yet, when I found I was blocked. We left friendly comments to each other at her rfa: Dear Shannon, I absolutely Assume good faith on your part; and again, stare decisis and let's not make a fuss out of this; life is too short. I just wished to make sure that the missing parts in your puzzle clicked in its place, for I humbly believe I have no reasons to be ashamed over my actions. All the best to you, Phaedriel 22:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Phaedriel, thank you for your response. I will admit that it was said in a kind and gentle manner. I honestly am quite appreciative of that. And I agree. I don't want to make a fuss over this either. To be honest with you I don't feel any animosity towards you at all. . Right now after some of the dumb things that have been said to me in the last couple of days, I do feel some disgust with a couple of other people, though. Shannonduck talk 23:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Buchofgrapes said (on the noticeboard) "A little later, though, she deletes the section with edit summary "and removing this nut case personal attack and lame, senseless accusation". I just don't see that kind of reaction occurring unless if she knows Bishonen knows she's Thewolfstar." I removed that accusation for exactly the opposite reason. It was false. I was getting pretty annoyed at these accusations as who wouldn't? There are more editors who doubt that I am Thewolfstar than those who think that I am Thewolfstar. I can tell you unequivocally that I am not Thewolfstar. Please, Lars, in any case, lift the protect from my page so I can at least defend myself against these false puppet accusations. Please give me a chance. I am not who Geogre and Bishonen think I am. I am a good and able editor. If I propounded about the topic 'anarchism' it was only to continue a debate about whether libertarian anarchism is a legitimate form of anarchism or not. I and many others believe it is and only desire the allowance to edit the anarchism articles, and make these articles more well-rounded and more neutral. Also, this debate has been going on for years, it seems, please see the archives on the talk:anarchism page. I apologize for angry summaries. If you saw what has been going on at these articles, I believe you would be outraged at the activity of those who would dominate them, and of those who are destroying the featured article anarcho-capitalism. Compare this earlier version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarcho-capitalism&oldid=64001277 with the present one after deliberate edit warring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism with the exact mission of making it lose it's featured status. Please see here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Anarcho-capitalism I also apologize for nasty remarks I made. I will say that they were preceded with some real heavy insults and attacks on me. Still I promise to not personally attack again, even when attacked first. I mean this sincerely. Can you tell Phaedriel that although I voted oppose at her rfa, I have no bad feelings towards her at all and actually like her? Anyway, Lar, please unprotect my talk page and give me another chance. Respectfully yours, Shannon (Lingeron)

I see no reason to change anything and will not be unprotecting. ++Lar: t/c 04:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

She's not wikilawyering. I've noticed on Wikipedia that accusing someone of "wikilawyering" has become a form of name-calling without basis in fact, rather like how some people with no grasp of political philosophies will call anyone they disagree with a fascist. I do not see any willful misunderstandings present, unless they are in a non-public form. What exactly has been misunderstood? My understanding of the issue is that Lingeron was accused of being a sockpuppet with a previous user, that the IPs partially matched, but as it is on a network with a large pool of shared, dynamic IPs, it is very possible that she is not a sockpuppet, and that this possibility should be further investigated. Am I incorrect in any way here? - MSTCrow 18:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are incorrect in several and varied ways:

1. Lingeron is a confirmed sockpuppet of Thewolfstar, per Essjay. It's not really a debatable thing here. Essjay said so, that's it, it's over. She's confirmed. No amount of explaining IP addresses or circumstances or implausible theories can explain that way.
2. This finding has been communiciated, and the nature of it explained, at length, multiple times. Arguing against the fact that this is a confirmed sockpuppet case is not going to change that finding, but IS wasting the communities time, big time.
3. Thewolfstar through her Lingeron sock is in fact arguing against this and further, in my view deliberately twisting things around to obscure reality. That's wikilawyering, plain and simple. Sorry if you find it pejorative to call something what it is.
4. Note: Being labeled a confirmed sockpuppet is not the end of the world... (since, after all, we're not talking about murder, we're talking about at most the loss of reputation built up over time with an identity... even if the allegation were incorrect it's not a lot of damage), so why argue the point? If Thewolfstar actually wants to contribute positively here, as has been noted repeatedly, all she need do is do so. If she edits in accordance with our policies, remains scrupulously civil, avoids edit warring, and in general behaves herself, no one would ever detect her next sock. But my bet: we can count on the next sock coming out the same way this one did. Which is too bad, but a cost of how our model works here, as annoying as the cost is, it's worth it.
5. removing warnings or findings because you don't agree with them is a no no. It's just Not On. Do it when you are banned and your page gets protected. End of story.

Your tendentious arguing of this point may earn you some extra scrutiny in future as well, you might want to keep that in mind. Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you just come off a block for abusing warning templates? That's precisely the problem here with Thewolfstar that got the Lingeron user talk page locked, she doens't get to remove warnings or admin findings, as has, again, been explained at length, and she knows this already so it's not about warning her about it, it's about solving the problem.

Hope that helps and further, hope you or she don't retread the same tired things which have been thoroughly rebutted at this point. ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't just come off a block for abusing warning templates. I was blocked due to Calton's abusive personal attacks and vandalism, and then when I called him on it (repeatedly, I might add), he ran off to Bishonen, who then blocked me. A quick review of Calton's talk page, as well as the talk page history, will show that he has removed or vandalized warnings from both myself and Will_Beback. As this equals a ban, end of story, I sincerely hope you will act on this issue in an objective and appropriate manner. - MSTCrow 23:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Does repeatedly calling Bishonen abusive and corrupt count as a personal attack? --Ideogram 23:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course. But given MSTCrow's history of utterly transparent nonsense (see his post about me, above, which is, of course, 100% false in every important respect), he's quickly sliding down the slippery slope towards indefinite banishment. Just log the information for when that day arrives. --Calton | Talk 05:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Several times I have made this particular userbox template. At completion, it looked like this:

However, this template keps being deleted, with no TfD or even a note to me telling me why. As a non-administrator, I cannot view the history of this deleted template, so I do know know who keeps deleting it. Please look into it; I follow Modern Bushido and I do not like to be told that an entire philosophy is not 'good enough' to have a userbox (which several people use). FOr the moment, I am using my own userspace, but I don't think it should be forced into userspace without a TfD...or at least a reason. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 20:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean "As I am not an administrator" as otherwise the wording doesn't make sense. Anyway, according to template history, it was deleted as CSD's T1 "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory." and G4 "Recreation of deleted material." (even though G4 does not apply to speedy-deleted pages, but that's what WP:DRV is for). Anywho, on 17 July 2006, an admin placed the GUS meta-template on this, then it was deleted on the 21st. GUS is short for "German Userbox Solution" which basically means that the userbox is considered divisive and, in order to make it not look as though Wikipedia supported the userbox, it's deleted after giving people a chance to subst: the userbox onto their page.

The short version of all that is: "The admin in question gave you the opportunity to subst: the userbox and, when time was up, deleted it." If you're wondering, no, I'm not the admin who deleted it. Take care! ~Kylu (u|t) 06:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ohyeah, clarification: Wikipedia:German userbox solution if you want more info. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 06:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kylu. --Cyde?Weys 18:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, hold up there, Kylu. How on earth is this box "divisive and inflammatory"? So who deleted it? And is there a good, logical reason? I understand the userbox solution, but why not simply move it into userspace? And if I was supposed to be 'given time' to subst it, why was I not informed? I'm not an e-psychic. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 00:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You can see the article's deletion log entry without being an admin. Phr (talk) 06:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It can be considered "divisive and inflammatory" since we have this little piece of recent history: Bushido#History of the 20th Century. Note: I'm not saying that I find it "divisive and inflammatory" for this reason. -- Koffieyahoo 04:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, If you're wondering, no, I'm not the admin who deleted it. Nor was I the admin who marked the template as such, or redelected it as recreated material, etc... I was simply explaining the situation. No need to tell me "Whoa", since I'm neither involved nor a horse. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 20:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I should point out for future reference that the deletion logs are public record, and that even non-admins can see who deleted a given page by consulting them (there's even a link if you check the page that appears on a redlink!) In this case, look here to see who did the relevant deletions. And it should also be noted that technically G4, speedy-deletion-of-previously-deleted-material, does not apply when the only previous deletion was a speedy or a prod, although of course any speedy criteria that was applied the first time will likely apply again if it's really a 'substantially identical copy.' The only time this really matters is with A7, where if you follow the rules mechanically an exact recreation of a valid A7 with the word "notable" added to it is no longer a speedy candidate and must be taken to AfD... but A7 specifically notes you're supposed to do that with disputed A7's anyway. --Aquillion 06:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Cyde didn't follow procedure when deleting a userbox. Why am I not surprised? But all that aside, Bushido is not "divisive" or "inflammatory". Does the Spanish Inquisition make Spain or Christianity "divisive and inflammatory"? People today follow Bushido--I know I do! It's my philosophy. Not only that, but it IS NOT recreated material. At least, it wasn't until I recreated it after you deleted it...which I will assume good faith and say that it was obviously a mistake. So I will now restore the template. Thanks. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 02:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how a "Spanish pride" userbox might be divisive, but some of the Christianity ones have been, and if you'd have put a "I support the revival of the Spanish Inquisition" userbox up, I'd delete it as CSD T1 myself. The comment "Why am I not surprised?" regarding Cyde's actions seem rather incivil, and you may want to re-read that policy page before the problem gets worse. I'd actually suggest that using the German Userbox Solution would be in your best interests at the moment, that way we don't end up with any more of an argument on our hands. If nothing else, non-project related userboxes really shouldn't be in the Template: namespace anyway, and it wouldn't be hard to put them in userspace and remove problems before they start. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Any chance we can put semi-protection on these pages Fidel Castro, Raul Castro. Fidel has been rushed to hospital and Raul is in temporary charge. These pages are bad enough as it is - now everyone's an expert on Cuba's constitutional position on this and I've only got one pair of hands.--Zleitzen 02:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't generally semiprotect pages to stop people making good faith edits. A better solution would be to encourage regular wikipedians to watch the page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 02:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that these are BLP cases - and it's a strong possibility that one might well be a Biography of a dead person very shortly - it may save a lot of problems on what is already a very controversial page. And with personal attacks flying around on the talk page from ranging IP's I don't feel much like watching the page over this period. But oh well! Someone'll have their work cut out! :D --Zleitzen 03:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll watch both. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't stress enough how important this is though. Castro's demise is perhaps the most awaited news event for millions of people and is surrounded by political tensions. For wikipedia to get something badly wrong around this issue could have serious implications for the publicity of the encyclopedia. Forget about Ken Lay, if enough people go around wrongly thinking Castro is dead - or has even resigned - then it's trouble. Anon users predict his death anyway on a daily basis - so I recommend caution now.--Zleitzen 03:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, we need a freely-licensed image for Raul Castro. I just removed two imagevios from the article. Jkelly 03:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

An administrator - for reasons better known to themselves - has just unsemi-protected the Fidel Castro article. With accusations that Castro has died appearing approximately every couple of minutes this is a big mistake. This is a crucial issue. Please semi-protect again.--Zleitzen 21:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You should put this kind of request at WP:RFPP. On this occasion I think you may be right, semi-protection may be warranted. Phr (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

According to several sources from users on this board, they know that Tojo is WoW. It's a known fact of another of his aliases. I mean look at the similiarities... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.65 (talk • contribs)

Who cares? Both are banned. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 03:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

64.7.136.166 is gathering the IP address of other users who disagree with his edits on Actuarial Outpost and using that information to harass people at work.

Here and here you can see this user bragging about this harassment on his blog.

Based on this diff it appears this user is now trying to hide evidence of this harassment. Just in case this user tries to hide the blog entries admitting to harassment, you can view the Google cache of those posts here.

Is there any way to take action against this user to stop this kind of harassment? Thanks. SkipSmith 06:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You could put the {{welcomeip}} template on the talk pages of the IP's being hassled, mention to them what's going on, and remind them that if they enroll accounts, their IP addresses won't be visible. I defer to wiser minds than mine whether on-wiki sanctions against 64.7.136.166 are occasioned by that person's off-wiki activities. I see the blog post says something about external links to that person's firm. You could check whether the links are consistent with WP:EL and remove them if they're not. If he keeps reverting, use the spam templates progressively, and then ask for a block.

• Whoa It looks like the person doing that hassling is the operator of the web site that the article is about. Looking at the article talk page and the afd that closed with no consensus a couple months ago, I'd consider opening a new afd, describing the harassment. Wikipedia really does not need this type of crap. Phr (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Untrue. Former operator. This is reaching. TheActuary 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that may be the way I have to go here. I pointed out to everyone on the talk page at Actuarial Outpost that 64.7.136.166 was hiding evidence of harassment, and that user came along and deleted that notice too. I'll put it back up. Maybe at the minimum I can get him for 3RR --- does that apply to talk pages of articles? SkipSmith 17:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR applies to talk pages of articles. In addition, deletion of content from a talk page is often considered vandalism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Arthur. I placed a 3RR warning on 64.7.136.166's talk page, and now it appears that a sock puppet has picked up where 64.7.136.166 left off with deleting all references to the harassment. Of course, I'll report this as sock puppetry. However, given all of the harassment and the fact that this user seems to be trying to make this wiki article an advertisement for his business, do you think I should also open a new afd for this article, or would that be too much at this point? SkipSmith 04:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion yes, document everything in the new afd. Phr (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Being that the IP in question no longer is connected with the site, and has not been for around a year now, and the link to his blog was removed weeks ago, I fail to see why an AfD is called for, other than the belief that the site as a whole is not notable. -- Avi 17:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Avi, although you haven't said much about this ongoing harassment on the talk pages at Actuarial outpost, and I know you dislike the edits I have proposed in the past for this article, as an admin I'm sure you'd agree something must be done about this. What course of action do you recommend, if not a new afd? SkipSmith 18:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ed_g2s is continuting to remove images while a discussion is congoing about whether these images should be used in these manners. Looking at his talk page, another user is also fedup with his changes and is putting the vandal templates on his page but it doesn't seem to be doing anything. Repeated attempts to ask him to stop making changes until the discussion has concluded have failed (See Talk:2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team) and he continues to make changes. I wish to have him warned and stopped to make changes regarding this issue until the discussion is complete (See mediation request: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-01 Fair Use Images on Sports Page - College Football Specific), how do I do this? He is also an admin, and I further think this is a poor attitude and example for an admin to set. Is this enough grounds to complain about his admin status, since he isn't really abusing his admin powers? --MECU≈talk 14:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This user frequentley edit wars and is uncivil. He has also broke 3RR three times today (in the span of 24HRs) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Leaving vandalism warnings on my page when I am acting in good faith is uncivil, Matthew. ed g2s • talk 15:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

They where blanking warnings, !you! blanked content, weather it be image tag or not. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not been uncivil to anyone. There is always discussion ongoing about fair use images because people always complain when their images get removed. ed g2s • talk 15:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually i believe it is always ongoing because you contiued to move it (sneakly i may add) and also frequentley engage in edit wars when you could converse. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

User is unwilling to follow wikipedia policy: WP:DISCUSS WP:CIVIL WP:POINT. See his comments here: User_talk:Mecu#Need_to_stop_user_temporarilly Further, this is not a place for discussion. --MECU≈talk 15:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see him being incivil. He is being blunt. How about people stop reverting his removal of images (which definitely errs on the side of not getting Wikipedia sued) until you can see if the mediation is accepted, instead of constantly reverting them and possibly placing Wikipedia at risk.? It takes two to have a revert war, and I'm willing to bet that Ed has policy to back him up. Syrthiss 15:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be civil of him to converse, it would not be civil of him to ignore conversation and just carry on racking up his 3rr vios. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not involved with replacing images he is removing. I agree that replacing images should stop, but so should his removal. He has stated he is unwilling to comply even while discussion is ongoing. Attempts to ask him for previous discussions resulted in one example that wasn't directly applicable and wasn't much of a discussion. I merely want a truce. His unwillingness to even believe that we are acting in good faith as well and discuss the issue is his uncivility. --MECU≈talk 15:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt you are acting in good faith, but until our policy changes, you are acting wrongly. ed g2s • talk 15:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So you are just ignoring the possibility that we are acting in good faith? That goes against WP:FAITH, of which you must (read the policy) assume we are doing. --MECU≈talk 15:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What? I said that I never doubted you were acting in good faith. That means I think you are acting in good faith... ed g2s • talk 16:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I mis-read your statement. --MECU≈talk 16:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ed is misinterpreting the policy and he is persisting in his misguided efforts to force his opinion on the project. He has blatantly violated 3RR on multiple articles by removing images that have been discussed on the article talk pages and found to be usable under fair use. Rather than engage in those discussions, he has chosen to act unilaterally in violation of our policies. He should be discussing this difference of opinion in a civil manner rather than continuing his crusade. Johntex\^talk 15:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking[edit]

Sceptre has blocked Ed g2s for one week. I have asked Sceptre to reconsider, as I do not think that Ed g2s' unfree image cleanup efforts pose a threat to the project and the block seems to be purely punitive and not preventive. I suggest that Jimbo Wales' statement quoted at Wikipedia:Blocking policy also suggests that the wrong party has been blocked here. Jkelly 15:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am concerd that this block may be to short. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I support the block. Ed had numerous chances to discuss this, and he continued to act unilaterally in violation of policy. Johntex\^talk 16:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a discussion area. I consider this matter closed. I would make more comments, but this is not the discussion for it. Please make your comments about Jimbo's remarks elsewhere where we are discussing the topic. --MECU≈talk 16:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the admin's noticeboard, where we regularly discuss blocks and blocking policy. It is in no way obvious to me that raising the question here is inappropriate in some way. Jkelly 16:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My initial intent was to stop discussion here, since the block was because of the 3RR rule, that it should occur there instead. But I would like to remove my closure comment and leave this open for addressing my complaint, since the 1 week was because of 3RR, I would like to be addressed for my complaint. And Jimbo's comments are more for the discussion of whether the images were copyvio or not, which is occuring elsewhere. --MECU≈talk 16:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well let's see, if I saw somebody violate 3RR on 3 separate pages at the same time, I'd probably block for 3 days, and would probably only go longer than that if the user had one or more previous 3RR blocks. That having been said, I haven't actually looked into the specifics of this case, and will do so shortly. —freak(talk) 16:06, Aug. 1, 2006 (UTC)

This user should be blocked for longer as een after he had seen his 3RR report he continued racking up his vios. He is also a role model and thus should be punished. Further he refused to stop and converse. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You have more than made your opinion clear, and there is no call to further kick someone when they are down. Further calls for more punishment are going to weaken your argument, not help it. Jkelly 16:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Someone convicted of a crime for assult that receives a year prison sentence, shouldn't then receive a free pass on theft occured during the same time and the 1 month jail time they would receive for that. Since the revert rule has handed out their punishment, I believe some type of punishment is in order for failing to act civil (as others here have mentioned: He failed to discuss the issue, which is the cornerstone of civility, of which all users here have a right to expect WP:CIVIL). I am not advocating extension of the block, I believe a probation or warning should suffice, but that is not me responsibility to determine the punishment. --MECU≈talk 16:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Bearing in mind the user's extensive contributions to Wikipedia, and the fact that this is the first concurrent block, I support reducing the block to 24 hours. Bastique▼^parler _voir 16:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it appears that 2 of the 3 cases are the repeated removal of obvious copyright violations, while the other appears to be a matter of dispute. If the status of an image is in doubt, it shouldn't be used until clarified. However, ed_g2s would have done better to actually discuss rather than continuing to revert. I'm reducing the block to 24 hours, minus time already served. —freak(talk) 16:21, Aug. 1, 2006 (UTC)

I believe it should be 3 days an average 3rr vio gets 24h, this sint average its 3 3rrs. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion is clear. You can stop repeating it now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking[edit]

In reviewing Ed g2s's actions, it's evident that the removal of the fair use images on those pages were in clear accordance with Wikipedia's policy on fair use images. 3RR doesn't apply when policy is being followed. I suggest someone reverse the block entirely, and remove the images. Bastique▼^parler _voir 16:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

He violated 3RR three times, and one of those times i was fully involved. the image clealy did not violate FU. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

ed_g2s's actions on 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team and 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team were correct. Policy says that logos shouldn't be used in a purely decorative way like this. These are not 3RR violations. --Interiot 16:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Theres annother one, and maybe they wouldnt of been 3RR !IF! he had been willing to converse. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the only exception of 3RR was for blatant vandalism? Otherwise you have multiple people reverting each under way past 3RR, each of them thinking that they're in the right because they interpret policy differently ... 3RR is designed to prevent disruptive edit warring like this. It looks like this was what happened here. I too am personally of the opinion that those logos weren't being used properly, but it shouldn't have been edit-warred over. --Cyde↔Weys 16:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We do make an exception for removing defamation. I do not know how we accomodate image cleanup reverting, given the fact that violations of Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria are often reverted by users who have philosophical disagreements with those policies, but without creating an exception that can be gamed in the cases of unfree content that we are willing to defend (such as the J-P cartoons). Jkelly 17:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a tricky one. The blocking policy does not allow exceptions for image copyright cleanup. Maybe it should, but it would have to be worded in such a way that would prevent gaming the system. Everything I've seen from Jimbo on this subject points to the interpretation that he wants admins to clean up these image problems, and it's a bit worrying that someone gets blocked for this. The job is thankless enough as it is, and there are very few admins who are willing to be involved in such a job, knowing that it does not increase their popularity. AnnH ♫ 22:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I support unblocking Ed. His error was when he reverted again when the images were reinserted after his first removal. At that point, instead of reverting he should have blocked. Editors have no right to insert violations of our unlicensed media use policy, and those who do so after having been put on notice that a given usage is not within the policy are subject to immediate blocks without further warning. Instead of continuing to revert, Ed should have blocked the miscreants for copyright abuse. Hopefully, in future similar situations, he will do the right thing and block instead of revert. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Name calling isn't appropriate. --MECU≈talk 22:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

He broke 3RR three times, he should not be unblocked. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You have made your opinion, and your stridency, abundantly clear. Just what is the source of your excessive vindictiveness in this situation? Kelly Martin (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well..

• He violated policy 3 times. Not once or twice !three! times.
• He is an administrator, he is expected to uphold wiki policys.
• As an adminitsrator he is expected to abide to them him self.
• He obviously is on a crusade.. Okay, acceptable.. what is not is the fact that he violates policy on this crusade.
• He violates policy he holds "sacred".
• He refuses to conevrse, no one forced him into breaking policy. To put it bluntly; ignorance. He could of conversed he did not.
• The fact that he is an administartor and a role model means he should be punished just like a user, not given the easy route off. Furthermore it is my belief that any admin who could commit these offenses is no role model.
• His crusade weakens the integrity of the project as he acts in bad faith refusing to converse.

Just some of the reasons. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking editors who revert unfree image cleanup has proved a very unpopular solution in the past. Jkelly 21:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I support unblocking Ed. First of all, he could have avoided this block simply by blocking whoever reverted him in the first place. We're not allowed to block in order to gain an advantage in a content dispute, but a block in this case would not have been contrary to policy. Secondly, this is clearly not a case of classic edit warring, where one person wants his version, and another wants his. This has absolutely nothing to do with which picture Ed thinks looks nicer, or whether he thinks the article looks better with or without a picture. This is simply a case of an administrator trying to clean up a particular problem which Jimbo is concerned about. Thirdly, I'm worried that other admins may become less willing to help with the already thankless task of trying to enforce copyright policy. AnnH ♫ 22:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A block by Ed in this case most certainly *would* have been against policy. This is a content dispute he is engaged in. The images are not copyvios and restoring them is not vandalism. Vandalism is the only excuse to violate 3RR. Johntex\^talk 22:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a content dispute. A lot of editors know that I'm an admirer of Pope Benedict XVI. Now if someone comes along and changes the image to one that makes him look senile or decrepit or bad tempered or stupid, I will probably try to change it back. Even without such obvious motivation, I would still have a preference, as someone who is involved with his article, if there's a vote as to whether we should use the photo of him in white or the one of him in red. So, in such a case, I would be acting as an editor with an interest in the article or the subject. However, if I went to the article on Johnny Cash and removed the image there because it's an unfree image (I'm not going to, because I haven't fully informed myself about when the use of such images is considered legitimate), it would have nothing to do with a content dispute. I don't like Johnny Cash; I don't dislike him. I couldn't sing the first line of any of his songs. I know nothing about his life. My hypothetical involvement with his article would be solely on the grounds that I was trying to clean up image problems, as requested by Jimbo. I could be mistaken in a particular case, or I might be right but there might be room for disagreement. But in no case would it be a content dispute. Where is the evidence that Ed removed the image because he didn't like it, or because he liked the person that the image was unflattering to, or because he disliked the person that the image showed in a good light? I think we need to be careful about calling things content disputes when admins are just trying to clean up a mess or enforce a policy. AnnH ♫ 08:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you AnnH. The reason this counts as a content dispute is that it is not at all clear-cut that the images used violate any policy. Ed is of the opinion that they were, but substantial numbers of people are of the opinion they are not. The issue was already in discussion on one page prior to Ed's actions and discussion started on several other pages as a result of Ed's first actions. Ed should have participated in those discussions rather than violate 3RR. Exemptions to 3RR are only allowed for blatant vandalism, which did not apply here. Therefore, Ed was in violation of policy and would have been in a far graver violation of policy if he has compounded his violation by issuing illigitimate blocks. Johntex\^talk 17:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Woops, Jkelly has just reminded me that we also make a 3RR exception for potentially harmful information in the biographies of living people. Sorry about my mis-statement. Johntex\^talk 17:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well Ed was unblocked after only 20 hours anyway. Looks like a sysop could get away with murder. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Being blocked for 20 hours hardly qualifies as getting away with anything. And by the way, your use of extreme and absurd rhetoric, like equivocating a revert-war with murder, only serves to discredit you. --Cyde↔Weys 17:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A std. user gets a 24h block. Ed has had less then that he is also a sysop. He has got of very lightly. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with being let off because I am a sysop. The block was overturned completely once I explained to the actioning admins the mistake they made. ed g2s • talk 18:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You made the mistake violating 3RR three times! Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for block to be restored/lengthened[edit]

Three 3RR violations by User:ed_g2s has been reported to WP:3RR and a one-week block was issued by User:Scepter. This block was shortened to one day by User:Freakofnurture. I think this is inapporpriate. Discussion at 3RR violation would seem to favor something in the middle - like 3 days. There are 3 seperate violations of 3RR in evidence, so 3 days seems very appropriate. We need to hold administrators at least as accountable as we hold regular users.
I have contacted Freakofnurture to ask that he reconsider his shortening of the block[52] but he declined.[53] In declining, he labeled as "bullshit" the good faith opinions of mutliple users and admins who think that the violation by Ed is serious. I think that is uncivil, and I have informed freakofnurture that I am requesting for another admin to reinstate a longer block.[54]
I am involved in the discussion, so of course I will not alter the block myself. Johntex\^talk 19:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, should be lengthend to 3 days. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a bureaucracy, and we have no minimum sentencing laws. I see nothing to be gained by a longer block. Friday (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It would give him more time to let him cool off and consider his errors and how he can improove. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

At least in the case of the Colorado Buffaloes article, his removal of the other team logos was entirely correct. Fair use does not allow us to use copyrighted images for decoration, the edit summary the teams are adequately identified by their names is perfectly correct, and the reply logos provide commentery in that they represent the team demonstrates a lack of knowledge of copyright issues, and all the discussion in the world on the article talk page won't change it. I agree with Kelly Martin that not only does 3RR not apply to removing copyvios, but a short block would be appropriate for users who insist on reinserting copyvios. Free the Fair Use One! Thatcher131 (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Such is your view and ed's, which is in the minority. This hard-line view and your intrepretation of Fair Use. This is under discussion in many, many places, but most noteably which I see has decided this is the minority view is the Admenment 2 proposal by ed that has far more opposition than support. Nevertheless, this should be minor in the dispute here: Ed's failure to discuss in a rational manner that is expected upon all editors of Wikipedia. The evidence of which is the 3RR. --MECU≈talk 22:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

His approach was not and thus he was incorrect. He blatently refuses to converse. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is leaving rude and annoying and entering creepy. You've been asked by three different users here to stop repeating your calls for more punishment. Let it drop. Jkelly 22:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131 you are incorrect. The images were not decorative, they were used alongside discussion of the teams represented by those logos. Johntex\^talk 22:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Or in other words, they were used for decoration. --Carnildo 22:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Or in other words they were not decorative - they were used as part of the description of the team in question. Johntex\^talk 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

JKelly this is not an issue that should be dropped. Removing the block on Ed was a grave dis-service to the project. Admins who violate 3RR over a content dispute should not have their blocks shorten. There was no copyright violation here and Ed had no right to violate 3RR. Johntex\^talk 22:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This has turned into an obsession by MatthewFenton and Johntex. A number of admins have come in and most of us agree that Ed g2s's reverts were done in complete adherance to policy, whether or not they violated 3RR. He did not act maliciously. Your recourse is not to shout for an increase in his block but to debate the issue at hand. I fully agree with his removal of the images. They're not being used in a fair use manner. Simply by getting a bunch of your friends to vote that they are does not make it so. Bastique▼^parler _voir 20:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In violation of WP:STALK, User:Hillman has posted the following edits to at least three different user's talk pages. I expect that there are more. He has been warned and advised to stop by several users and a warning regarding this violation has been posted to his user page by a third party. (Note that Hillman edited this user's comments to change the heading "Violations of WP:STALK" to "Possible violations ...") It has been suggested that his behavior may constitute a breaching experiment.

Some of the relevant edits that this user has made are here, here, and here.

I feel this user needs to be banned. In light of his callous disregard for others, and the fact that he continues to violate WP in the face of criticism from other Wikipedians, his ban should be effective for an extended period (at least one week; permabanned, IMO). DrL 15:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

For reference, this is discussed in detail in this thread that appears to have vanished during an archive attempt. Additional relevant discussion is at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-30 Hillman posting personal information (which contains statements by involved parties) and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig (which contains statements by many uninvolved parties, including administrators). --Christopher Thomas 01:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• The links that you provided refer primarily to another incident of "Hillman's" stalking behavior (creating a "dig" page about me) which he appropriately redacted. This complaint has do do with numerous edits on user talk pages that also need to be redacted or removed. DrL 02:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no violation of WP:STALK. The question of whether User:DrL is "related" to Langan seems open for discussion, and User:Byrgenwulf and User:Christopher Thomas have both been previously involved in Langan-related edits. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I must say that I am really touched that a "relatively famous Wikipedian" has stopped by to weigh in on my complaint. I would argue, however, that whether or not User:DrL is "related" to Langan is not open for discussion any more than, say, whether or not User:Hillman is "related" to Joan Baez. DrL 01:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting that the Raj Bhakta page be put under semi-protection. The neutrality of the article has been comprimsed by people who are personally attacking Bhakta. You will notice on the talk page that a user User:GMcGath and edit summaries from another User:Bruceberry have been mercilessly editing and deleting the page. I added factual news events and substantiated claims with cited works that were just deleted by others. I am currently trying to put my cited work back on the page. They are making it a "I hate Raj" page rather than sticking to facts. These two, among others, are abusing the power to delete and edit. Ryanthedon 15:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

User 68.89.137.103 (contributions) is continually making contributions which are damaging page formatting, and adding many nonexistant interwiki links to "???" (I suspect he is using some sort of tool to assist his edits). He does not appear to know how to use his talk page, or any talk pages for that manner. I do not believe his edits to be malicious, but is there some way of getting a message through to this user? - Rainwarrior 20:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, his recent contributions look fine to me. If it starts up again, I'll warn him. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm, if you look at his first contribution to each page he has edited (or at least for the last 6 pages he has edited, I haven't looked at all of them), you will see the problem I am referring to on every one. I suspect he has done this to nearly every page he has edited. See: 1 2 3 4 5 6. - Rainwarrior 06:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's in this user's best interest to know that he is doing this, because even if he is making a contribution to the page, basically all of his edits are getting reverted summarily because of what he does to the formatting. Not only is he a nuissance, any benefit which he is trying to provide is also getting reverted. - Rainwarrior 06:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A number of sleeper accounts have sprung from the woodwork and demand to include Wikiality in the article about The Colbert Report, with arguments such as "this should be in the article because a bunch of people want it to be," even though there's no reason to think it's more notable than any other segment on that show. More news stories have been written about Colbert's guest last night, as have stories about Colbert's mockery of Mel Gibson, for instance, but his appearance is not included in the article, nor should it be: with four shows a week, allowing a paragraph about every guest, opening monologue, or "WØrd" segment would flood the article, leading to an indiscriminate collection of information. It is on these grounds that, until notability rising above other Colbert segments is shown in the mainstream press (i.e., multiple news articles, not blog postings, especially more than a few days after the incident) can be demonstrated, the content has been kept out of the main article. It is a case of policy vs. vox populi, and I submit it here for admin review. JDoorjam Talk 21:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent plan. --Lord Deskana (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already outlined all my arguments on the Talk page of Colbert Report. I will simply add here a reiteration that Colbert's segment last night had a demonstrable impact on Wikipedia which it diminishes Wikipedia's credibilty for us to pretend didn't happen by excising all mentioning of it from Wikipedia entries. There is a poetic injustice for the wikipedia to not itself acknowledge that Colbert satirically criticized the Wikipedia. Ivymike21 21:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comment is a good argument for protection of the article and exclusion of the content, as you describe how the proposed addition to The Colbert Report is really about Wikipedia, not the show. As has already been explained on the article's talk page this is amateurish navel-gazing. People are worried about the quality of the article. This is not a conspiracy to suppress THE TRUTH^TM. JChap (talk • contribs) 22:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reduced protection from full to semi-protection on The Colbert Report. My argument stands, but ultimately I think it's healthier for the article to be dynamic, even if it means that giggling self-reference amateurishly flits in and out of the article for a while. JDoorjam Talk 23:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see the show in question, but would the material that Ivymike wants to add be a better fit at Criticism of Wikipedia? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It would except the entire spot was a joke on a joke TV show, and it didn't have any more substance than a superficial "Anyone can edit to make it false!" ("!!!!") —Centrx→talk • 02:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Logeon made what I consider to be very serious threats against me. While ambiguous as to whether they are against my physical safety or legal or otherwise, I would appreciate if something could be done. I understand he's already received an indef block, but is there any way to find out who this person is? And if not, could the record be removed from the history entirely? - pm_shef 21:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the items in question from the page's history. Finding out who s/he is will not be an easy task, as CheckUsering won't reveal more than an IP address and I don't believe using a CheckUser in this case is even permitted by the terms of the privacy policy. If I were you I wouldn't worry too much about it. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing it from the history seems unwise, there is now no evidence that can be used in the prosecution of the threatener, and if something happens to PM shef, evidence that might lead police to the threatener has now been deleted. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Admins are able to read deleted pages. So, it can be recovered for these purposes. Should we be contacting the user's ISP to complain? -- JamesTeterenko 21:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well if Admins can read deleted pages, then lets keep it deleted. In terms of contacting the IP, it seems like it's a good idea. Would there be any drawbacks? - pm_shef 22:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The only drawback I can think of, is that it takes effort to do it. I personally don't have any experience with this. I am, however, willing to help navigate through this. The downside, I probably won't have time until the weekend. -- JamesTeterenko 22:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at this and I don't see a threat. Nor do I see libel sufficient for a history purge. If there had been a threat, though, we would most certainly have been allowed to perform a CheckUser; we are permitted to reveal IP information to protect the safety or property of the Foundation, our editors, or the public, and threats against another editor would fall well within the ambit of that clause. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't call it libel, but I am not a lawyer. When you factor in that the vandal knows who pm_shef is, knows who his father is, lives not to far from him, and has spent a great deal of effort to attack him repeatedly for sometime, I don't think that we should take the threat too lightly. I believe that the following is most definitely a threat, "Pm_shef has accused the many opponents of his one-sided edits, in this article alone, as <disruptive>, <attacking>, <accusing>, and <stonewalling>, and that they <relentlessly pushed>, and <intrude, vandalize and prevent work from getting done> . He will soon learn what all of those acts truly mean..." Given the context, it does seem to imply within Wikipedia. However, if the user does not believe he is doing these things and plans to step it up a notch, I believe that we should treat this a potential real threat outside of Wikipedia. If I had not been following the last few weeks actions of this sockpuppeteer, I probably wouldn't think much of this statement. Most of the vandalism is quite childish. But the volume, effort involved in creating the sockpuppets, and the fact that it is concentrated on one specific user is what concerns me. Who are we to say that the wiki-stalking won't turn into stalking? -- JamesTeterenko 05:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if you see the deletion as unwise; however, I view the deletion as something of a non-issue, basically whether the content is accessible to non-admins or not. The content is not gone forever, and should any other admin feel it better that the content be restored, then by all means feel free. User:Pm_shelf stated that he did not want the content readily accessible to others as it was libelous, inflammatory, and quite potentially a rather serious legal issue, and I saw no reason not to comply with his wishes, as personal information, offensive vandalism, and other forms of attacks are deleted from the site regularly. As Kelly Martin stated and though I'm not entirely familiar with the history surrounding this user, I do not see a truly serious threat here (perhaps because I receive about ten such attacks in my inbox every day), but rather commonplace vandalism meant to attack another editor, thus why I did not believe a CheckUser to be necessary nor permitted by the privacy policy, but that decision is not mine to make but rather the Foundation's. Again, if anyone feels my deleting the history was unwise, then please restore it, and I apologize. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

An Admin named Splash has twice now removed a semi protect on Fidel Castro. This is a big mistake. There have been 3 figure edits on this page in the last 24 hours - most containing misinformation or vandalism. This is a very serious political issue that if badly handled has implications for a lot of people. If, thanks to us, enough users believe that Castro is dead then all sorts of things could go off. And given Wikipedia's well publicised poor record with Cuban issues [55] which is repeated in many journals discussing the failings of wikipedia, there can be no margin for error. Could an admin please take this seriously and semi-protect again asap.--Zleitzen 00:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Now is Wikipedia really likely to cause the end of Communism in Cuba? Is Wikipedia, in fact, anti-Communism, and the vandal has been wrong all this time? The article is linked to from the top of the Main Page of the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It hurts a bit when an article you work on gets lots of attention, but then if you didn't want the attention, the article should have been written on paper. There is always a margin for error, and semi-protection does not remove it. He's getting better already, says the BBC (a news site, note) so it'll be over soon. And people shouldn't be using an encyclopedia for their news, nor deciding when to instigate revolutions (which will not be edited). Having our headline articles do what the headline of the site proclaims is important. And furthermore, the origianl protection, by Jaranda specifically said it was "just in case", a use explicitly outside of policy; and it had been protected for more than 12 hours when I first lifted it. At least one other admin has also unprotected on the same grounds. -Splash - tk 00:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Communism in Cuba and everything to do with the media taking a look at our page and carrying the ironic headline "wikipedia announces Castro's death". This has appeared again and again over the last 24 hours - all by unregistered users. Castro's demise isn't a common and garden death and his page isn't your average news headline - it has massive implications. It doesn't hurt me, I can't stand the bloke or the present page.--Zleitzen 00:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've briefly semi-protected it to review the ongoing vandalism - it's now unprotected again (though it's move-protected). Zleitzen, WP:PROTECT is pretty clear on this subject: it has (in big letters at the top of the policy statement) the advice "Articles linked from the main page should NOT be protected (full or semi) except to clean up vandalism. Protection should be kept to 10-15 minutes in these cases." If vandalism continues when it's off the main page, a longer period of semi-protection may be appropriate, but not until then. Yes, the vandalism is annoying, but it's being reverted within seconds or a few minutes at the most. It's nothing we've not seen before on other controversial articles. -- ChrisO 00:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I've just got a bad feeling about this - knowing the history of Cuba, wikipedia and the media.--Zleitzen 00:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am keeping my eye on this article and it is going to be crazy for a while. Just look, watch and revert if needed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the main longer term vandals and abusive users is is Demfourlife (talk · contribs · logs). Who has been banned for 24 hours but gets around any bans by utilising these IP addresses to continue disruptive behaviour.--Zleitzen 05:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't Nobody Step To Me (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is evading a one week ban by using his sisters account (Chrisbrownwifey06 (talk · contribs)) to ask a question about his ban. I have warned him not to use another editors account, told him when his ban ends (in response to his question) and asked if he can contact the blocking administrator in future. I leave it up to the dealing adfmin to decide what the appropriate action is in this case. Viridae^Talk 00:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Reset the block timer to the most recent edit from the alternate account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hit bull, win steak (talk • contribs)

Yeah. And gently warn the sis not to let her account be sockpuppeted (if it is indeed his sister and not simply a sock). JDoorjam Talk 07:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is his sister. Completely different style of editing. I have had dealings with both of them at times. Viridae^Talk 08:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I really need somebody to look at whether I am being a bully or not as I have yet again been accused of for the umptieth time.[56] I have filed an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.* and documented recent behaviour at the RfC's talk page. I have yet to find anybody who has supported this editor in their dealings with her. She has abused plenty of others and is active in a number of areas. Is the approach outlined at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.*#Statement of AYArktos' intended ongoing reponse to this editor reasonable? Note this editor's behaviour has been previously raised here and discussions are archived at Archive120#203.54.186.125 and Archive120#Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Admin Stalking - at the latter, in reponse to my previous request for review of my actions relating to this user, User Bishonen stated It would certainly be a shame if AYArktos should feel under any kind of pressure from this bizarrerie. The admin actions are fine, they're excellent.[57] --A Y Arktos\^talk 01:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dancing Light is a band whose article was deleted in an AfD some weeks ago. The deletion log is

• 17:36, 14 July 2006 KimvdLinde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Dancing Light" (recreation)
• 06:36, 14 July 2006 Jaranda (Talk | contribs) deleted "Dancing Light" (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing Light).

It's one of those "almost famous" band cases; they have some local notability, and one self-published CD, but failed WP:BAND and the AfD. (Everyone but the article creator voted for deletion.)

Today, the band article was re-created as a redirect to Kiki Carter, who's in the band and has some local notability as an environmentalist. What seems to have happened is that the creator of the original article lobbied a previously uninvolved admin to override the AfD. See User_talk:Crzrussian#Dancing Light and Elephants. Effectively, they found a back door way to get a non-notable band into Wikipedia.

Ordinarily, that would be cause for a speedy delete, but the article was re-created by an administrator, made a redirect, and then protected. See User_talk:Crzrussian#Redirect at Dancing Light and User_talk:Nagle#Dancing Light for the subsequent discussion. So now, neither a speedy delete, a revert, or a second AfD is possible.

What's the consensus on this? --John Nagle 01:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The question is why there is a need for a redirect. Anything having to do with the environmentalist would be a separate matter and can't be covered by the previous AfD. If all that exists is a redirect, then there really isn't a failed band article on Wikipedia. While the old content exists in history, only an admin can see it, as it's in the deleted history, so no Google Page Rank Boosting scheme will work this way. I.e. there isn't an article on the band and there is no advertising benefit to the band, so I'm not sure what the problem is. I agree that DRV should have been involved. Other than that, though, the band got deleted and is still not here. Geogre 02:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, especially since the Kiki Carter article doesn't stress the band involvement. --John Nagle 02:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see my note on the talk page. The vandalism is in the 3rd para. It appears in the article but not in the "edit this page." Just thought I'd let someone know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.86.202 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism was previously reverted; discussion taken to Talk:Cat. ~ PseudoSudo 01:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

WIN has been the scourge of Talk:Indo-Aryan migration for months now. He has never shown interest in editing the article, but instead tries to prove the theory wrong on the Talk page, calling us all racists and declaring on his Talk page that he will not stop until the article disappears. Check out this diff (where he challenges all to a debate on the facts of the theory itself, not the article) for a typical example of what he's doing.

Warnings from fellow editors and from admins that Talk pages are not general discussion forums, but are concerned with trying to better the article's reflection of scholarly opinion ("See WP:NOR") have had no effect. He was blocked before, after the block ended he has continued the exact same thing as before. Unfortunately, the admin who blocked him before is taking some time off, so I beg and plead another admin to help. We on Talk:Indo-Aryan migration don't mind at all editors who edit the article to reflect all viewpoints, and source their additions, but WIN doesn't do this and constantly having to deal with him is demotivating for us who would be productive.

support, this account has been all trouble and no useful contributions, should have been blocked long ago. dab (ᛏ) 14:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

WIN contributes to both Talk:Indo-Aryan migration and Talk:Aryan invasion theory. He very very rarely makes edits to either article but fills the talk pages with lengthy diatribes. He shows no willingness to engage in construtive debate. When User:John Kenney archived the AIT talk page WIN reinserted his material on the active page, on the grounds that archiving was censorship. [58] This has been going on for way too long. Paul B 15:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked PVeankman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as a sleeper sockpuppet account of EddieSegoura, a.k.a. the exicornt vandal. I'm quite convinced, but review is always appropriate, especially for accounts like this that haven't -- quite -- risen to the level of vandalism. (Not that they've had any edits you'd call useful, either.) See User talk:PVeankman for the full evidence. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Unblock me and investigate Jayjg‘s actions. See User talk:Bergerons. Thanks. --Bergerons2 05:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Bergerons' request for unblock has already been declined. However, this looks like a straightforward case for blocking Bergerons2 (talk • contribs • block log)... Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If you'd be so kind as to repeat the message the next time you make another account while blocked, we'd appreciate it. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 06:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Forget_it. (talk · contribs · count)

Possible sockpuppet of User:Username entered already in use., who in turn is a possible sockpuppet of User:Irgendwer. Since Irgendwer got a 24-hour NPA block (arising from disputes at Talk:Libertarianism and User talk:Irgendwer), several new accounts have cropped up, and all of them have picked up the slack where Irgendwer left off. User:Username entered already in use. seems to have gotten an unrelated username block, after which point User:Forget it. showed up. I gave User:Forget it. the full series of {{npa}} warnings ("troll" is the favorite word of all of these users), after which point he posted this [59] to my talk page (npa4). As far as I can tell, I've been nothing but civil; if nothing else, shouldn't the lower templates have preceded npa4? Comments? Input? Intervention? Anything is welcome. Thanks in advance for your time. Luna Santin 07:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Note "irgendwer" is German for "anybody"; sounds like same sock name pattern. Phr (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Aren't these all fairly obvious username blocks anyway? Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 08:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser case is open on all of these. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My guess is the RFCU will be rejected because the socking is too obvious; but whatever. You might mention the German name translation, which adds to the obviousness. I don't know if any RFCU's are even being answered these days though. Phr (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is being checked. I will go ahead and block the main account and the socks. I am not going to block bbsnv as that one is iffy. --Woohookitty^(meow) 17:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Several users (sockpuppets?) have added in what I feel is a blatantly sarcastic comment to the page Randy Couture intended to mock him. After my first revert the editor that originally made the addition claimed on my talk page that the edit was serious and is not vandalism, and after that an anon re-added the info, which I reverted again and made a note on the talk page about discussing the addition. It was promptly re-added and I don't want to break the 3 revert rule even though I feel this is blatant vandalism, they contest that it is legitimate so if anyone could take a look at it and take the appropriate action I would be grateful. See Talk:Randy Couture. VegaDark 08:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted to your vesion until this user can source his claim. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 08:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV has a bit of a backlog. Viridae^Talk 09:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure whether this is the appropriate place for this request, but would some admin please take a look at the move request currently at Talk:Current events in Hong Kong and Macao#Requested move as soon as possible? The RM has been open for seven days and there is a pretty strong consensus there in favour of the move from Current events in Hong Kong and Macao to Current events in Hong Kong. Closing this RM one way or the other is rather urgent because it also affects how this current event page is to be archived and some of the editors there tend to take action without first getting consensus (see for instance move log). --Pkchan 10:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone is trawling my contribs and reverting my edits, calling them vandalism: [60] & [61]. I'm catching them pretty quickly (cause I have a lot of articles on my watchlist), but it's becoming a waste of time. Any way of stopping them? The JPS^{talk to me} 12:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This might help: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=88.111.194.158 since that IP made the "what a total twat" vandalism a bit earlier, and then repeated it when they were following you around. Write the ISP, or just nuke the stalker accounts on sight. Syrthiss 12:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I really have to warn you that stalkers make lousy pets. They have a terrible time with separation anxiety and can get very destructive if you don't pay them enough attention. Geogre 18:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, but someone had to say it.)

I need to report a user that is asking for other editor's account passwords, saying that he is "Jimmy Wales." The user is: User:Banner Making Competiton and he left a message on my user discussion page asking for my password. Cla68 13:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked by FireFox (Liberatore, 2006). 14:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I recently came across the case of User:ElevatedStork and his sockpuppets, User:Rater and User:Rarte. The m.o. of this user seems to be adding inappropriate names for places in various countries in the Balkans. For example, adding the names in Greek to Macedonians (ethnic group) and to Bulgars. From a glance at the contributions, it looks like a troll account — although there are some useful contributions. I'm just leaving a note here to make sure I'm not over-doing it. I'll block User:Rarte anyway, but would be interested to hear what people thing should be done with the master account. - FrancisTyers · 14:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously a troll. His "contributions" are mainly related to Balkan issues and he seems to lack a clear POV like nationalist editors — he adds Greek and Turkish names where they have nothing to do, makes Macedonian POV edits on Macedonian/Bulgarian revlutionaries articles, reverts and provides zero or insufficient sourcing. Not to mention the two sockpuppets, which are evident.

The sockpuppet accounts should be indef blocked in my opinion, and although the main account does have some minor contributions that are not trollish, I'm leaning towards it being indef blocked too. He's unlikely to get away with a short block for these socks, and it's even more unlikely that he'll return and use that same account, so it's not much of a difference anyway. Todor→Bozhinov 14:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Support Todor. He cannot continue with his current modus operandi.   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Outcome: User blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user Bonaparte. - FrancisTyers · 15:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am quite sure that all of the following are all sockpuppets of banned user M.deSousa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 82.48.233.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.52.183.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.54.226.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.54.227.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.58.216.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.58.216.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

With edits to the following pages:

• Duke of Braganza
• Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganza
• Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza
• Hilda Toledano (protected as of this posting)
• Prince of Beira

Manuel de Sousa is infamous in the world of royalty for being a troll for the false pretenders to the Portuguese royal house. He continues to vandalise the pages listed above. Charles 16:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Mais oui! removed a CFM nomination which I made, to upmerge the subcategories of Category:British female MPs, and replaced it with a CFD for removal of Category:British female MPs.

This is the CFM discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006_August_2#Category:British_female_MPs_2

Here is the CFM before Mais oui's intervention ... and this is it afterwards.

I would usually have no problem with User:Mais oui! making a CFD for any category, but replacing an existing discussion is destructive.

I mark this as vandalism, because this has happend before. --BrownHairedGirl 16:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Previous occurrence: IncidentArchive122#Removing etc Mais Oui objecting to removal of Mais Oui's attempt to add extraneous categories to a CFM.

In his case, the nomination for deletion of Category:British female MPs does not appear to beb in good faith, because User:mais oui! not only created the subcats of that category, but also populated them. This appears to be some sort of revenge nomination.

User:Mais oui! has been the subject of numerous other complaints here. --BrownHairedGirl 17:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Argh, this is getting painfully confusing now. We now have two very similar but subtly different CFD's, both to do with one set of subcategories of categories of UK House of Commons articles which are halfway through a general reorganisation on a different page.

Can we just stop these CFD's now, sort it all out (in one go, in one place) on the Category_talk:British_MPs page, and then CFD all the various extraneous subcats in one go afterwards? I think this will give us the most consistent structure. Aquilina 17:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Aquilina, I'm not surprised it's confusing: I think that as the intention. That would be ideal, but Mais oui does not want to paricipate in discussions there :( However, Syrthiss has suggested merging the CFD and the CFM, and I have agreed to that to try to bring an end to this(see my talk page). --BrownHairedGirl 21:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

currently being vandalised by and IP: User:81.156.60.67.--Isotope23 18:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Disregard... an admin has already addressed this issue.--Isotope23 18:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This anon IP has been doing nothing but adding an external link to his own website in the article body of Kiev. Even though he has been warned with spam tags, as well as had his additions reverted for several months now, he continues. CRCulver 20:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Relatively harmless to this point; this editor was never warned before today and has stopped (for now) since the final warning. In the future, please feel free to take these to WP:AIV. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, holy shit!!! This user noted that previous links were left up, and I checked for pbase.com (a picture host) using linksearch and found 739 of them! This will take a while and some help would be appreciated :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I'd wager that a lot of those have been added to articles by people other than the author/photographer. PBase is a photo community site with many many thousands of users, and many millions of photos hosted for those members. I generally don't go for gallery links on articles, but a large number of editors do think they're useful... So I don't think a cull of all pbase galleries is an anyway useful, especially based on one bad apple just spamming a link to their sub-site! (I'm http://www.pbase.com/wangi - but have never added any links :)) Thanks/wangi 21:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not based on that apple, but on WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided and primarily #s 1 (prose), 4 (self-promotion) and 9 (networking sites). I was under the impression that WP:NOT a picturebook and that image hosts were essentially networking sites. Is that wrong? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you stop with the removals while I put together a reply - there's no rush here after all! ;) /wangi 21:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Already stopped—need to run out a while anyway. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved discussion to User talk:RadioKirk#PBase galleries. Thanks/wangi 21:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Jgwlaw for 3 days for continuing to act in an uncivil way and making personal attacks. (She was blocked once in April and twice in June.) In this case she gratuitously used and bolded as indicated:

"despite your previous use of Jamming a Pair of Scissors Repeatedly Into Your Crotch"

in the Jim Shapiro DRV. It was not necessary to even mention this, as it is not the name of the relevant web site, just a section within it.

Her attacks usually come in the form of sarcasm, facetiousness and targeted innuendo and derogatory remarks, mostly under the guise of outraged innocence. They have been fairly relentless since the Jim Shapiro AfD started. Recently there was an obvious personal attack on Yanksox (and Samir in passing), immediately after she said, "I'm not attacking Yanksox", although he was in her sights.[62] This might seem relatively mild, but the cumulative relentlessness of it becomes very destructive and undermining. Here is another earlier example.[63]

I had already given her a second warning [64] after a derogatory comment posted about me by her on the AfD. Immediately after apologising and saying "I won't make any other comment", she then immediately, provocatively and needlessly reposted it on her own page under the pretence of making sure that it was the comment I was referring to. [65]

There are some manipulative counter-productive mind games going on here. However, what intensifies them is that they are often carried out in liaison with Gfwesq. They have stated that they are married. They follow each other in quick succession and alternate on Yanksox' talk page [66] and on my talk page [67][68], as well as on discussions on RfA, AN and elsewhere.

She had already been cautioned about acting in concert with her husband for joint "edit warring" by Weregerbil.[69] This refers to a conversation to be found on User talk:KihOshk, which makes unpleasant reading and starts with Jgwlaw stating, "with Gfwesq and I, it would be a consensus over the other author". This conduct is completely unacceptable, and whether they are sockpuppets or not (which they deny), their conduct is no different — actually worse, because no normal sockpuppets could get away with acting so blatantly.

However, although good faith has been assumed, it has patently been abused. In the light of this, until it is proved otherwise and until this collaborative behaviour to the detriment of the project changes, I suggest we treat these two users as sockpuppets.

I'm bringing this up here in the interests of transparency, as I've been a particular recipient recently of their uncivil treatment, not in an editing situation, but via a rumpus from CSD, through AFD to DRV. I have only commented in the latter two and have not marked for support or oppose.

PS Sorry if this is a bit long.
Tyrenius 17:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

They're certainly exhausting my patience, but I doubt one is a sockpuppet of the other. It's just two spouses editing with similar POVs and levels of erudition and verbosity. Powers 20:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This has been appealed to unblock-en-l.

I am extremely concerned at the apparent attitude that a husband and wife cannot both be moderately controversial WP editors interested in the same subject without being accused of some sort of misdeed. The threshold for identifying Meatpuppets is far higher than this.

Tyrenius, please either justify a claim of meatpuppetry, with detailed specifics showing that they act only in concert and show no independent actions regarding these issues, or retract those specific allegations.

It is often stretching proper behavior awhen an admin blocks someone they are engaged in a content dispute with, as opposed to reporting to AN/I and asking for a review and community action by uninvolved third party admins. There are blatant cases where it's clearly called for, but the specific instance here absent the prior pattern is not clearly so to me (your mileage may vary)

I urge an independent review of the remaining user behavior claims to review whether the incivility and personal attack claims warrant a 3-day block, in the interest of having an independent review of the situation. Georgewilliamherbert 02:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

George, I think you should refer to official policy, rather than an article. In addition, "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." Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A cursory examination of the user contributions for both accounts shows different access patterns, edit patterns, and some non-overlapping interests, though there are some apparently professional related similarities. "Uncertainty" does not equal "any claim of". Again: reinterpreting the meat puppet policy to cover related or real life connected people who have had WP accounts for some time, and who happen to have convergent interests and participation in a particular discussion, is a stretch of WP policy, and a horrible precedent at that.

As someone whose spouse (anon) edits WP from time to time, this issue is neither theoretical nor trivial.

If these two are functionally meatpuppeting this DRV discussion then that case has to be made with detailed edit comparisons and the like, looking at what they said, and when they were saying it. Failing to make that case but maintaining the claim is not defensible as compatible with consensus policy nor with WP's best long term interests.

I have no problem with admins taking proper action either in response to "traditional" meatpuppetry (new accounts created, not longstanding WP users), and in response to clear personal attacks and the like. I don't mind meatpuppetry claims if groups of real-life users gang up in WP on topics, if you can provide sufficient evidence. That's lacking here. Georgewilliamherbert 05:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

George, you're worrying unnecessarily. This couple were acting incredibly immaturely, being facetious and sarcastic, and showing no respect for others. It's the behaviour that's the problem, not the fact that they were a couple. Read through the diffs and you'll see for yourself, and Samir's below. Tyrenius 05:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made it quite clear I am not engaged in a content dispute. We are not editing any articles together. I am not even involved in a "voting" dispute, as I have stated I am talking a neutral position in the current DRV and did so also in the preceding AFD. The above notice has been on this page immediately after the block was placed, i.e. over 10 hours, so I'm sure a number of admins have checked it out. Furthermore, the block was also specifically reviewed and upheld by NoSeptember, so your request of third party intervention has already been met. Otherwise, the case is as stated. Tyrenius 03:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As I have been mentioned above, I'm not independent, but I give the following additional diffs that occurred after the block, in support of a continued block: Repeating the scissors in crotch line regarding Tyrenius [70], removal of block notices [71], incivility in the form of sarcasm [72], comments from uninvolved Weregerbil who tried to descalate previously [73], more sarcasm that I thought was inappropriate [74], [75], disparaging Tyrenius [76], inappropriate allegations of vandalism [77], a silly yet invivil characterization of Tyrenius as Tyranisaurus [78], and trolling [79] (and indeed I consider pretty much all of User talk:Jgwlaw as trolling). -- Samir धर्म 05:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how behavior after the block justifies the block, but ok. Obviously jgw responded poorly. I'm not defending that response, but I'm just not seeing any meatpuppetry here at all, and that's supposedly what the block was for. I'm also concerned that Tyrenius may have confused unfamiliarity with Wikipedia processes (as evidenced by both jgw and gfw's legalistic interpretations of policies and guidelines) for provocation ("provocatively and needlessly reposted it on her own page under the pretence of making sure that it was the comment I was referring to" -- you'll notice that jgw has reposted a LOT of stuff on Talk:jgwlaw that was said on other talk pages, and vice versa. That's not maliciousness or provocation, it's just a misunderstanding of how Wiki works.) Powers 11:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You've misunderstood the points:

• Samir is not saying that the behaviour after the block is retrospective justification. He is saying that it merits extending the block (presumably until such time as good behaviour is evidenced and it is safe to let this person edit again).
• The initial block was not for meatpuppetry. It was for uncivil behaviour and personal attacks.
• The provocation is not because of misunderstanding or lack of familiary with Wikipedia processes. It is provocation pure and simple. Sarcasm, belittlement and facetious lack of respect for anyone in disagreement, or even anyone attempting a NPOV and not agreeing with her/them.
• I am not referring to reposting a valid comment. I am referring to deliberately reposting a personal attack. This was the attack, initially posted on an AfD: "Unfortunately Tyrenius has removed your tag, calling it inflammatory. Sigh. Only the admin here seems to insist on muckraking." On her talk page, I drew Jgwlaw's attention to this and she apologised: "Sorry about the 'muckraking' comment about you." Having done that, she then immediately and needlessly reposted the initial insult from AfD on her talk page with the words "This is what you refer to." I can only see that this action was provocation.[80]
• I have never made any criticism of reposting legitimate material on different pages.
• They quite blatantly act in concert together, and when they are talking to a third person, they make scornful or sarcastic comments to each other about that other person. It is not a coincidence that a "husband and wife" turn up on the same pages all the time. I consider this to be meatpuppetry. It prevents fair dialogue. Check the diffs please in my initial statement. Look at the comment above starting "Unfortunately Tyrenius has removed your tag". It is glaringly obvious.

Tyrenius 20:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree with all of your points except the provocation. It's clear to me that jgwlaw was attempting to provide context for the apology for the benefit of readers who had not seen it. That's obviously inappropriate to us, but given the fact that we know jgw and gfw are not super-familiar with Wikipedia norms, it's an understandable mistake. Powers 22:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I assumed that too, but I've just checked Jgwlaw's edit history. 4 months and 5607 edits with a suprising degree of accomplishment even to begin with, so I don't think there's any newbie excuses available. Tyrenius 01:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how long they've been here, they have both demonstrated a distinct lack of understanding of Wikipedia norms. I can't and won't speculate on how someone could edit that long and that thoroughly and not pick up on it, but there it is. Besides, longevity and quality of previous edits are all the more reason to AGF. Powers 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the job the couple did on User talk:KihOshk is not to be tolerated. They are engaging in a revert war in concert, giving 3RR warnings and calling their joint preferred version of an article "consensus". Is "ganging up" the term I'm looking for (I'm not a native English speaker...)? This is probably due to inexperience rather than malice. I would hope to see the couple to be a little bit more receptive to advice on how not to do things so that the inexperience will be replaced by understanding harmonious editing. I remain unconvinced that it is in Wikipedia's interest to allow families to edit in concert in revert wars. My cursory examination hasn't revealed any 3RR violations but would it be helpful for two people editing in the same apartment to consult each other to get around 3RR? The couple in this case appear to have contact outside Wikipedia, such as when I write on one participant's talk page, the other responds. This falls under the letter, and I feel under the spirit, of attracting users with known bias (even if it as simple as "honey, look at what this Weregerbil dude is saying"). This case does indeed test the limits of what <not-supposed-to-say-this-word>puppetry is. Weregerbil 19:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

By request, expanding on my "...the other responds" comment above: me talking with Jgwlaw[81], Gfwesq responds (I had zero prior contact with him) with a gentle civility warning and speculation on my marital status (I'm not telling, sorry ladies! :-) Weregerbil 22:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had some productive interactions with User:Jgwlaw (who signs herself "jawesq") on Wikiquote over Jim Shapiro and its accompanying q:Jim Shapiro. I haven't delved into all the relevant policies, nor anaylzed every edit, but I've been reading the discourse on the WP article since it was nominated for deletion. My informal take on her activities is this:

• She has oodles of time to post thorough replies, easily overwhelming any general editor. She also frequently posts consecutive comments to many users' talk pages to push her positions, not waiting for replies. From my own admin experience on WQ, this is enough to cause serious problems for admins trying to mediate disputes. I can understand why this would be considered trolling, even if it were completely civil. She has shown no awareness of the problems this causes.
• She has made many posts that are clearly uncivil, which I believe are in ignorance not only of official policy pages but of the general wiki attitude of harmonious editing. I believe she is allowing her heartfelt concerns over lawyer-bashing to override good judgment on this issue, aided by her perception that the WP community is unfairly supporting the other side of this issue (whose proponents have not trolled).
• Much of Jgwlaw's rapid-fire editing has been in direct response to similar rapid-fire editing from the Shapiro article supporters, who have also shown little patience for Wikipedia processes. (They've already created a new version of the article, James J. Shapiro, before the deletion review on the old one has run its course. They also are not immune to attacking the editor, not the issue; e.g., complaining about Jgwlaw "switch[ing] your arguments to notability" when this is always a legitimate question, regardless of who asks it or when.) It's hard to justify too much action against one combatant when the others are equally active, even if they are savvy enough to stay under the troll radar.
• The combined efforts of her and her husband to expound on this issue are overwhelming, yes, but I'm reluctant to consider them meatpuppetry.

In retrospect, I think the apeedy deletion of the original Shapiro article was probably a bad idea, given the vociferousness of the opposing parties in this debate, when an article-blanking and full AfD may have better served. On the other hand, I understand why this action was taken, and I don't think it would have prevented the Jim Shapiro deletion review, or reduced the likelihood that this argument will continue so long as a Shapiro article exists. The consequence of all this is we have two highly motivated parties, one of which is blocked from editing even her own talk page, the other allowed to recreate a speedy-deleted article (which, IMHO, fails the criteria of WP:BLP even in its current form — see Talk:James J. Shapiro). Any actions on this user should take into consideration this unstable situation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Factual correcton: Jgwlaw was only blocked from editing her own page for a 5 hour period to allow some cooling off. This ended 5 a.m. on 1 August. At all other times her talk page has been available to her.

Unblocking: NoSeptember first reviewed the block and kept it in place. Pilotguy and Samir have both been involved and I have invited them to remove the block if they feel that is the right course. They both declined to do so. Samir has previously suggested the block should be extended because of ongoing bad behaviour by Jsglaw on her talk page since the block was placed. If this behaviour does continue, it is my intention to extend the block, until such time as civility is demonstrated. Tyrenius 06:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The bad behavior on the talk page appears pretty minor. Voluminous rather than truly uncivil.

You can't block active people and expect them not to complain about it alot. That's just an unreasonable expectation.

Given that blocks are supposed to be preventive rather than punitive, what is the rationale for extending just over the minor stuff on the talk page? She isn't launching personal attacks on admins there, and I don't see any stated claim that she is likely to abuse other articles if the block expires naturally. Georgewilliamherbert 06:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please study the preceding posts. Samir explicitly states that attacks on admins have continued on her talk page. Samir's post in full is:

As I have been mentioned above, I'm not independent, but I give the following additional diffs that occurred after the block, in support of a continued block: Repeating the scissors in crotch line regarding Tyrenius [82], removal of block notices [83], incivility in the form of sarcasm [84], comments from uninvolved Weregerbil who tried to descalate previously [85], more sarcasm that I thought was inappropriate [86], [87], disparaging Tyrenius [88], inappropriate allegations of vandalism [89], a silly yet invivil characterization of Tyrenius as Tyranisaurus [90], and trolling [91] (and indeed I consider pretty much all of User talk:Jgwlaw as trolling). -- Samir धर्म 05:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is just a small sample. I suggest you examine also all the posts that Jgwlaw has put on her talk page since the block was in place and work through the edit history. Most of them have subsequently been deleted by her. Volume is a particular concern. Opinions that she and her husband disagree with are met with a completely disproportionate response, which appears as a tactic of simply bulldozing opposition out of the way. This too is a lack of civility and shows no respect either to other editors or the discussion process. As Jeffq put it above:

She has oodles of time to post thorough replies, easily overwhelming any general editor. She also frequently posts consecutive comments to many users' talk pages to push her positions, not waiting for replies. From my own admin experience on WQ, this is enough to cause serious problems for admins trying to mediate disputes. I can understand why this would be considered trolling, even if it were completely civil. She has shown no awareness of the problems this causes.

Until Jgwlaw does show such awareness, she will continue to be a disruptive and disharmonious participant in any debate. Tyrenius 07:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest letting the current block expire when it does. She is still hostile and thinks there is a single admin after her [92]. My guess is that when the block expires she'll continue her attacks (zero sign of it abating so far). And she will get quickly blocked, hopefully by another admin. Perhaps in time she will realize that this isn't a personal vendetta, and that her understanding of what constitutes incivility and personal attacks truly does not match Wikipedia's standards. Weregerbil 10:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The latest dialogue is here with the title Response and continues in other sections. I hoped by explaining myself that there could be a reasoned interaction, but instead it has resulted in a direct attack on me. I invite others to judge for themselves. I placed the block, NoSeptember confirmed it, Pilotguy and Samir declined my invitation to remove it if they wished. That's 4 admins in total. Accusing me of a vendetta is just emotional blackmail to stop me doing my job properly, and I'm not being bullied by it.Tyrenius 10:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Extended block[edit]

I was hoping that there might be a mellowing by now, and even that I might be able to lift the block. Unfortunately there is no sign of that. Following the latest bout of incivility and personal attacks, and bearing in mind Samir's previous suggestion to do so, I have increased the block to a total of 7 days (including the 2 days already blocked), as I do not feel Jgwlaw will be able to participate in harmonious interaction with other editors over decisions which she disputes. Some of the latest comments include: "You are obsessed with trashing me in public", "Tyrenius did not really want a 3 day ban for incivility. He wanted us gone. And when we were banned, then he could win", "HE wants us gone", "His lobby to ban me permanently would certainly be a win for him", "Even if Tyrenius did not violate the technicality of the rule (and he accuses me of being legalistic?) he has indeed violated the spirit of the process. He has violated the spirit of decency."

I invite any admin quite freely to amend or remove this block if they think it is incorrect, in which case I will refrain from involvement as an admin with Jgwlaw over any disputes relating to the Jim Shapiro article.

Tyrenius 11:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Threat of legal action by Jgwlaw[edit]

Re. the above problems with Jgwlaw, I regret she has now threatened legal action:

Any further disparagement on the AN/I or here will be strictly construed as pure harassment, and/or defamation. If necessary we will take appropriate legal action to stop it.jawesq 16:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Because of my existing involvement and the accusations Jgwlaw has made against me, I do not think it is appropriate for me to respond to this, so I am posting it for another admin to deal with. The "we" presumably refers to Gfwesq, who she has stated is her husband. They not infrequently speak on each other's behalf. Tyrenius 17:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just coming here to report it. I was afraid it might get lost in the veritable fountain of edits (and subsequent deletions) jgw has been making to User talk:Jgwlaw. Here's a diff: [93]. It's no wonder we're having trouble communicating with jgw; jgw edits the talk page so often it's impossible for anyone to keep up! =) Powers 18:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

She's also asked for material on her user page to be deleted.Tyrenius 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted Jgwlaw's userpage, and asked for confirmation that they are using their Right to vanish. Syrthiss 19:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation received, so I have deleted the talkpage. They said they wish to have nothing further to do with Wikipedia. Syrthiss 19:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A tendency to over-excitement I fear. 62.6.139.11 14:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am being bugged by User:Reinyday.

She keeps going on about my dop. accounts when all I ask her is a question regarding my User pages. I forgot my password and I started a new account and she then starts pulling up all sorts of stuff having to do with my accounts.

The Help account was for until I could find my password.

The Qho account is for me to use.

This account is for until I can find my real password.

And my other accounts are for my brother to use.

See here[94] I did not change her comments I simply added my opinion.

Here are all of the accounts:

User:70.233.181.36 My Ip please keep private

User:Qho My True account

User:QH0 My Dop.

Now the four she did not get till later

User:HELP Inactive, personally i would like to have obliterated

User:Missingno Active

User:Misingno Dop.

User:Kittyispretty Dop.

Missingno will be turned over to my brother if he behaves.

If you can't act nicely to eachother, please just avoid contacting eachother at all for the time being. Also, if you're wanting to keep your IP private, you shouldn't have posted from it, sorry. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My post regarding Qho is above and this post is in response. I always make a great effort to be nice and neither you nor Qho have provided any examples to the contrary. Now Qho/Missingno has removed someone else's post from my talk page and is being incivil enough to write, "All you are is dust in the wind..." He has deleted previous posts here from this page, even after they were reverted. There have been 26 posts to my talk page today by Missingno. Please help me. — Reinyday, 22:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Kylu, I find your reply a bit dismissive. I have made about 9,000 edits and this is the first time someone has harassed me. I don't like it and I am asking for help. According to Wikipedia:Harassment, "Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person..." Examples include:

• saying "All you are is dust in the wind..."
• removing someone else's post from my talk page
• vandalizing my userpage
• saying: He [my brother] told me to ask you this though, " Are you relly female or a male acting like a female? "
• making 26 talk posts as Missingno, 6 as Qho, and 2 as 70.233.181.36 on my talk page

Please let me know if you would like further examples. — Reinyday, 23:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

None of the various accounts listed above seem to have made any edits to articles, and there seems to have been an immense amount of what I can only describe as arsing around on people's talk pages. The "secret" IP address has a notice on the user page to say it's an AOL address, presumably so nobody blocks it for a long period, when in fact it's not AOL at all. I've blocked it for 24 hours, because this needs looking into further and the encyclopaedia is not going to be harmed in the slightest if nobody from that address is able to edit it for a day. --ajn (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Reinyday is a male so able to act like a female that he can give birth to a child. ;-) I support the block that ajn gave. The vandalism and harassment of Reinyday is clear in the links she provided and the history of her talk page. If he continues, I suggest blocking all of his accounts indefinitely, since he does not appear to be making any productive edits. -- Kjkolb 01:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for responding. — Reinyday, 03:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, I'll be reporting what I've done on User talk:Missingno. --ajn (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary: all the above accounts permanently blocked apart from the IP and Missingno (both partway through a 24 hour block) and Qho. Once Qho/Missingno tells me which account they want to use, I'll permanently block the other one. Neither has made any edits to article space, other than extremely rare comments on discussion pages. --ajn (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Kjkolb 10:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that my original request, to which this is a response, is above at #request for help with user with multiple accounts. — Reinyday, 04:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:AOL was protected by User:Pilotguy despite being involved in the dispute[95], [96], [97]. As a participant in the dispute, Pilotguy should not have protected the article. If the view is so obvious and self evident Pilotguy should have been able to find another admin quite easily to protect the article. --Trödel 03:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this really necessary? IMO, this is much of a do about nothing ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no question that Pilotguy should not have protected it. He is using admin powers in a dispute he is intimately invovled in. We have this page, the other page and [[WP:RFPP] where 1000+ other admins can do it for you. You know the rules and this particular one makes good sense. -Splash - tk 03:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it should be unprotected? —Centrx→talk • 04:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure - the fight is pretty silly - that is why I haven't been involved - but I was offended by the protection. --Trödel 05:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note: Most AOL users change IP addresses with each page they load. Warnings or messages left on this page will not be received by the intended user. Because of the way the AOL cache assigns IPs based on the pagename requested, warnings will never appear on the correct page.

It contradicts itself and makes it sound like we shouldn't even bother warning AOL ips. What a load of bull. --mboverload@ 00:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the right place to report this, but please correct me & tell me where else if it's not. The problem is basically this:

User:Rjensen is basically trying to control everything that's in the article Confederate States of America and has some very strong points of view about it. The biggest dispute involves a section called "International diplomacy" about a consul from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha named Ernst Raven. It is a well known bit of Civil War trivia that Raven was the only European diplomat who was officially appointed to the Confederacy. This has appeared in major Civil War magazines like North and South and is in many books of civil war trivia.

This appointment is also well documented - Official records at the Library of Congress show that Raven's appointment papers were recorded by the Confederate government in Richmond. [98] It names "Ernst Raven, esq., who was appointed consul for the State of Texas by his highness the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and who applied to this government for an exequator on the 30th of July 1861." Most of the "International Diplomacy" section in the article is about the South's unofficial diplomatic relations with other countries. Since Raven was the only diplomat with official appointment status this is the appropriate place to put it.

The Ernst Raven bit has been in the Confederacy article for a long time. It was there the first time I looked it up months ago and the talk page then showed that it had been discussed several times and agreed to by many editors. Unfortunately every couple of weeks Rjensen comes through and deletes it without any discussion. I've restored it a couple times and so have others, but Rjensen keeps deleting it. He especially keeps deleting the Library of Congress link even though it is a clearly reputable source, and he usually replaces it with vague generic claims saying that unnamed "historians" have "proved" Raven's appointment was a myth. Then last week after I restored the link again he got into a huge revert war with some other editors and broke the 3 revert rule majorly:

• [99] - Revert #1 at 06:27, 17 July 2006
• [100] Revert #2 at 06:43, 17 July 2006
• [101] Revert #3 at 06:53, 17 July 2006
• [102] Revert #4 at 06:59, 17 July 2006
• [103] Revert #5 at 07:21, 17 July 2006 Rjensen
• [104] Revert #6 at 07:46, 17 July 2006

The guy he was revert warring with here also broke 3-revert rule but did it after Rjensen did, and he also seems to have tried unsuccessfully to have gotten Rjensen to discuss it. Then a third editor restored the compromise text and link about Raven, but Rjensen came back 2 days later and reverted again at [105].

I hate to have to ask for outside help on this but I don't have time to check this article enough to stop this guy, and he also seems to be a very hostile and uncooperative person. He refuses all compromises on Raven and will only settle for deleting him completely - which he does regardless of what all the other editors think. He also uses belligerent language in his descriptions of the changes and on the talk page. Several times he's accused all the editors who want to keep Raven in there of a "hoax" and he calls us "neoconfederates" as an attack.

Could somebody who is a moderator please come to this article and get this guy to stop his abusive behavior? It's ruining the historical quality of the article and making it a very hostile place for every contributor who isn't Rjensen, since he just reverts without establishing any consensus. Thanks for your help. - MightyMo

Comment, I'd like to note that Rjensen (talk · contribs) was also involved yesterday (July 31) in a (3++rr edit war) in the article Richard Nixon. --Ragib 05:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Rjensen to leave a response here. Tyrenius 23:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment:Please note that -- not knowing about this incident report -- I brought a 3RR complaint against Rjensen for edit warring in Henry Ford.[106]--Mantanmoreland 23:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen replies. It's a question of repeated efforts to insert original research that makes an argument that no scholar accepts. Not a single reference book on the Civil War or the Confederacy accepts this strange claim and the major book on Confederate consuls explictly says the claim is false.[107] I refer to The British Foreign Service and the American Civil War

By Eugene H Berwanger (University Press of Kentucky 1994) p 111. So I keep rejecting this nonsense. MightMo has been unable to find a single reliable source for his novel interpretation--no books, no articles, no websites, zip. All he has is an original document that says nothing whatever about recognition. As for the edit war, I was the one who issue a RFC call to help solve the mess. And yes, one of my missions is to keep historical hoaxes out of Wiki by insisting on reliable sources. Rjensen 00:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, in Henry Ford you resisted adding article source citations, and did so only when prodded three times by User:Jayjg. You also posted inflammatory comments such as this one:[108]--Mantanmoreland 04:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not involved in any of the above conflicts, I have had to report user for 3RR violation myself (for repeated removal of POV tags during an edit war user was conducting with another user), and any causal glance at the current and archive American Civil War talk pages will show numerous incidents of this nature. User consistently finds faults with each other user, and I can remember the day he conceded a point (one incident). He always knows best, repeatedly wields real-world credentials as sole authority, and often casually uses perjoratives like "hoax" and "vandalism" in order to short circuit discussion on issues of consequence. He finds no other users for building consensus; he merely reverts up to the daily maximum for each user he wars against. Finally, he taunts and disparages other users, then when this is pointed out, warns other users to expect more, and be more tolerant of his abuse. A clear pattern of behavior can be seen from his user talk archives. While I respect his basic scholarship, I often find myself at odds with his frequent rude and unkind behaviors. As a matter of fact, he's engaged in a potential 3RR violation on the ACW main page at this exact moment (see ACW History and talk for details). BusterD 01:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As with BusterD, I have not been a part of the revert wars, as I tend to focus my attention on adding new biographies of generals and certain battles, and rarely edit the larger context articles. However, I will comment that this difference in opinions on the CSA article has long ceased to be civil, and frankly, does not reflect well on Wikipedia. Some sort of cooling off period is needed, and perhaps an impartial group should look into both sides of the controversy and report through the MilitaryHistory Project team their recommendations. Honest disagreements will always occur - it's the resulting attitude wars that are not acceptable. Scott Mingus 03:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Were to even begin with this fella. Well let's start with the most recent AfD for Anime Warriors!, an article about a fanfic that Myalysk (talk · contribs) was working on. Myalysk forged several signatures on the AfD[109] and had been warned by InShaneee (talk · contribs)[110]. Myalysk also removed the AfD notice from the top of Anime Warriors![111] and was warned by Fan-1967 (talk · contribs)[112]. In protest Myalysk has now C&Ped the AfD notice from Anime Warriors! to Gilmore Girls[113] and once again forged another message to the Anime Warriors! AfD page.[114]

This, however, is just part of a pattern of removing AfD notices from articles up for AfD. Myalysk was given three warnings from removing the AfD notice from Zatch Bell! Saga Event List [115][116][117], another article that he created, and one warning from removing the AfD notice Hyde and Eido [118]. All of these warnings have been issued within the last month. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• He's been warned enough. I've blocked him for a week; perhaps he'll get the message. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • We may have a possible ban evasion. This recent comment to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anime Warriors! by a brand new account has a signature style very similar to what Myalysk used before. Though it's probably too early to tell for sure. --TheFarix (Talk) 01:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I spotted this on recent changes, decided it was mostly advertising and placed a Proposed Deletion template on it, citing "Advertising" as the reson. The creator removed the template, along with a lot of material and as the result was a stub that was mostly advertising, I placed a Speedy Deletion template on it, which was removed. I request an administrator take a look at it; I don't want to get into an edit war over the template. --Jumbo 23:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I deleted this article. Two separate editors, SuperJumbo (talk • contribs) and Carlossuarez46 (talk • contribs), marked this for deletion. I agree, and I deleted the article accordingly. Thanks. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jumbo 00:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Primary elections are being held next Tuesday (Aug 8). The Joe Lieberman article is getting repeatedly slammed by anon vandalism. Two editors are having problems, but have entered mediation, so that's not as big of a problem, but the anon vandalism is hard to keep up with. Could use some admin help on dealing with repeat anon vandals between now and the election on Tuesday. Sandy 00:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Try asking for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Phr (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Sandy 00:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Fire*ball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have been created for the sole purpose of vandalism. I've reverted all pages modified so far by the this user and requested deletion of the vandal image uploaded. A warning was placed on the Talk Page per Wikipedia's vandalism guideline. Monitoring and/or blocking suggested. See User talk:Fire*ball CPAScott 01:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into it, but this is more of an WP:AIV thing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I may have only hit the tip of this beast. In late June I posted an AfD on a series of articles that looked like either hoaxes, geneological research, or a vanity of latter. I was invited to comment on an RfC on Hipocrite's overaggressive counter-activity to content and editors related to the Eyre material. It looks at first glance like the biting of a newbie. But no, there's some crud going down. An RFCU was opened, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/History21, which came back as positive on History21 (talk · contribs), Joan53 (talk · contribs), and Lilyana (talk · contribs). The socks were used to attempt to votestack my AfD proposal. Joan53 tried to run for adminship. I'd like to open some discussion to administrators out of this.

First[edit]

First, could someone please block the socks used for AfD stacking and the otherwise bad usage of alternate accounts?

Second[edit]

Second, this goes.... deep?! Through the last year or so, there's been a string of articles created with what seems to have made some rather fantastic claims reguarding this family. Evidence for them is rather limited, yet articles continue to be made with claims that likely lead to hoax beliefs by many. Here's a short list:

• Leader of the Eyre/Heller Dynasty in the United States (AfD)
• George Eyre, Jehu Eyre, Jehu Eyre, Jr., Anne Eyre Heller, Franklin Pierce Heller, Leroy Heller (AfD
• Knowlton_Estate (AfD

The woodwork in the recent AfDs led me to

• Eyre Empire (VfD, where RickK described the creator as a vandal)
• Truelove Eyre (VfD), rewritten
• Image:Hellerwestwing.jpeg (uploaded by Lilyana, looks interesting by name)

• AN/I on A_multitude_of_hoaxes
  • Category:Eyre family

Grange Estate in an older state, added by an anon. Since cleaned up. I get the feeling I'm missing several articles, as this stuff goes back to early 2005. Why is there such a push to put such elaborate claims (ex. people "comming to power" in the dynasty, which isn't a dynasty).

Can there be a little sock searching through the history of some of the deleted articles to root out any other socks, esspecially the Eyre Empire one. Please note, I'm not claiming full hoaxiness of the possiblity of a shipwrite in early-US history nor a European family that may have held this name, but this material has been far too outlandish for what it should be.

And a third[edit]

As for what to make of History21, I'm at a loss. I had the feeling in the AfDs I saw, something is amiss, and its over a year old. The Joan53 sock, in late March 2005, knew how VfD worked. History21 talks to the socks. If this is, say, the same household editing, their interests and editing patterns are awfully similar to be feigning full disassociation with eachother. Given that they're socks, this diff] is rather interesting. History21 would then be admitting hoaxes (that his/her sock has created). Something is definatly wrong, its been around for awhile, and I feel I haven't seen the bottom of it yet.

---

The above huge chunk of stuff, signed by me, Kevin_b_er 02:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Lilyana and JoanB indefinitely. If History21 wants to edit, "he" needs to edit gingerly. All good faith has been squandered. Especially since he has been proven to be the sockpuppet who has been posting abusive messages on my Talk page. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hipocrite, where he says "I AM NOT A SOCK", he doesn't use the family argument, rather that a single IP address is shared by 5 schools and several libraries. Either that's a proxy setup like I've never heard of before or he really has no idea how IP addresses work. Thatcher131 (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Pristine Clarity (talk · contribs · count) is quite clearly a sockpuppet of ArbCom banned user Zen-master (talk · contribs · count), who had recently used the sockpuppet Hollow are the Ori (talk · contribs · count) to avoid the ban. Foremost evidence includes a lack of denial of being a sockpuppet here and raising the same criticisms as Zen master/Hollow are the Ori regarding misleading "language", but also note that "pristine clarity" is synonymous with "Zen". Also request that ban on Zen master be reset. --Rikurzhen 02:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

update - further disruption diff

• I agree with these statements.--Nectar 03:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it's certainly Zen-master. I have indefinitely blocked the account. This is the second time he has violated his one-year ban. Should his year be restarted? Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that according to WP:BAN, any ban (no matter by who) should be reset as soon as evasion is detected. Editor88 03:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BAN#Penalty_for_evasion --Rikurzhen 04:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have re-started his one-year ban. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe Lieberman was granted semi-protection, but the vandalism is back under a newly-registered account. Sandy 02:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So sorry - false alarm. It was removal of vandalism that got left behind in the pre-protection spree. Sandy 02:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Things are getting a bit hot at Wikipedia talk:Schools, and JJay (talk • contribs) is, in my opinion, well over the line with regards to civility. But since I'm involved, I'd like a second opinion. I did apply WP:RPA to two of his comments, but his response is to remove personal attack when I say "tiger?" If I weren't involved he'd already be pushing up on a short block for disruption, but I may be smoking crack again, so can I get someone calm to look it over? - brenneman ^{L} 02:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to see how this qualifies as a personal attack, despite being deleted as one it, it seems more like censorship of a rational argument. As for this, it seems a bit of a stretch too, but at least it's actually "personal", if only in the grammatical sense. Pete.Hurd 03:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Tiger" could be seen as reference to (WP:TIGER). I concur with Pete about the censorship-like edit. Phr (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like JJay is mistaking Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks with Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. As for the 2nd diff mentioned by Pete.Hurd, see my comment bellow. El_C 09:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think Aaron Brenneman (talk • contribs) is smoking crack again. However, why does he believe it's ok to slam participants in a policy discussion by linking to their "monolithic" edits and mocking their "fervor" [119], while at the same time censoring a response that includes a link to one of his edits as a "personal attack". I made no personal attacks and while his eagerness for handing out blocks is obvious, his approach to the discussion is not exactly winning accolades. --JJay 03:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be character assassinating everybody over there, with a few exceptions. I'm sorry I revived that mess. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Friends, Romans, lend me your ...eyeballs? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Bah, there's a deep-seated problem here, and the editors involved are difficult to seperate from the isssues involved. I shall however attempt to go forth and sin no more. But when there is talk of "consensus to keep schools" is it really that so far wrong to claim there isn't one? - brenneman ^{L} 05:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait, so Brenneman writes: We've seen analysis of previous AfDs that clearly showed that a very small core of editors drove the long string of "no consensus" closes to AfDs. We've seen analysis that showed that many of those editors were monolithic in their contributions, and that the perceived "enemies" of schools tended to not only have wider patterns of opinions in AfDs, but also to contribute to a wider variety of articles. It's been demonstrated that a large number of editors never contributed to maintaining or improving school articles beyond AfD participation. And then it gets removed as "WP:RPA"? That looks bad. JJay, I think I speak on behalf of most other admins when I say that such removals are prohibited. El_C 09:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it blocked? is there a reason? Why target just this IP? Why repeatedly remove an unblock template? Why leave this one indef block sitting all alone? some reason? any reason?--152.163.100.65 03:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, only reason it's even a big deal is because that's the IP AOL gives to AOL editors who try and use this page, it's forced me to jump from the 205 to 152 range a number of times in order to bring important matters to this page--152.163.100.65 03:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There was several-day-old indefinite block on a single AOL IP -- I lifted it. As far as I know, we're not supposed to do that. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/Kaisuan - some type of block is warranted - moving the same page twice and then to a page that matches the username - and that is the users second edit - he/she knows what he/she is doing --Trödel 03:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Anshuman.bais (talk · contribs) him? abakharev 07:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it is. The style is very different (and there have been no personal attacks on my talk page) -- Samir धर्म 09:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If the user is certainly not him, maybe I will remove this section? abakharev 11:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A new user (Try433 has vandalized my talk page with large and some disgusting images, to the point that I cannot revert it back; he has also vandalized Calton's user page [120]. I seek an immediate block and administrator help in rolling back to the last edit. Thank you. Captainktainer * Talk 07:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Andrew Norman, that was very quickly resolved. I'm appreciative :-) Captainktainer * Talk 07:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've rolled back whatever it was. I can't get the version of the page with whatever it was to load. so I'm assuming it was indeed a very large image. The "vandalism" on Calton's user page seems to have been a misunderstanding and Calton's OK with it (see User talk:Try433). --ajn (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit deleted. El_C 09:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Got into an argument with this user on Talk:Paul Keetch regarding some not-properly-sourced insinuations about Paul Keetch. Then I pronounced the name of the user in my head. Morwen - Talk 09:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

British user too by the looks of it, so this is unlikely to be coincidence. I'll ask him to change his username. --ajn (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Zé Roberto is presently under attack by what appear to be dynamic IPs or the like; requesting semi-protection. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 10:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Could an admin please delete the article and then restore it; someone has posted a phone number into it (of a business). Thanks, --TheM62Manchester 12:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to delete it - the phone number of the local catholic secondary school is very far from "personal information". I've reverted the article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thousandsons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) received an indef. block plus talkpage protection, so he is unable to request an unblock. The block seem highly dubious, especially without the intervention of ArbCom and/or Jimbo Wales. From his contributions, he simply committed petty vandalism. A block such as this shouldn't be enforce by one individual admin without consensus. P.S. My userpage and his userpage is a little bit similar, but I am NOT his sockpuppet. A groundless, privacy-invading checkuser was previously filed and proved my innocence. Thanks--Bonafide.hustla 08:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I will look into it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User posted personal details of other people, threatened to "fuck up all ya pages and shyt," vandalized user pages, and personally threatened admins who intervened to prevent vandalism. He's staying blocked, and the page is staying protected. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought talkpage and userpage do not follow wikipedia regulations.--Bonafide.hustla 10:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear this user should not be unblocked, he has made threats acted inappropriatley and childishly. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 10:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No that's incorrect - "# Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere. # In some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as well as edits from banned users."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page

Do you really think userpages should be a safe haven for comments such as

"Oh just fuck you! when I get unblocked your ganna see some shyt, cuz I'm commin' foe you, and don't lye this is cuz I'm black, I'd get the police involved if I wasn't a nigger, you better unblock me now If you whant me ta stop being so black, I'm ganna give ya a day ta think about weather or not ya wanna deal wit me, and believe you me homie I know all bout harassment and I ain't ganna stop on this mutha fuckin syte, if i'm not unblocked at 3:00 I'm ganna hack your shyt, harras you and basicly just fuck you around, so think about it ok NiggeR?"

--Charlesknight 10:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Making threats charles is just going to get you blocked. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 10:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well then I urge you to take a look at User:Jiang's userpage and talkpage. It seems to be a personal attack (albeit against a group).--Bonafide.hustla 12:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What, precisely, are you hoping to accomplish here? The guy has vandalized, the guy has made threats, the guy is NOT here to do the encyclopedia any good whatsoever: NOBODY is going to unblock him, it's clear, but more to the point, why would you think it's a good idea to do so? No phony comparatives with other cases or users, please: what is it about THIS guy -- User:Thousandsons -- that exempts him from the ordinary expected standards of behavior? --Calton | Talk 12:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks as if the whole point of this report is to be one more devious round in the endless attempt to get User:Jiang to remove an image from his user page, as featured on AN/I and elsewhere, ad infinitum. Frankly, this looks like borderline WP:POINT to me, and User:Bonafide.hustla is still edit-warring all over the place with User:RevolverOcelotX over Taiwain China Taiwan China Taiwan, instead of going through the dispute resolution process as advised. Time to community-ban both of them? --ajn (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither does Bonafide.hustla have clean hands regarding "groundless, privacy-invading checkuser" requests. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My response on my talkpage--Bonafide.hustla 05:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. The "response" on the talk page was to copy and paste -- twice -- the above section. So it looks like the answer to the question, "What, precisely, are you hoping to accomplish here?" is "nothing whatsoever". --Calton | Talk 06:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry there was an editing conflict when I tried to add my point. I'll summarize it on my talkpage now.--Bonafide.hustla 07:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Explanations posted.--Bonafide.hustla 06:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This user (Jeff Merkey) is running for the election, but was indefinitely blocked in the past (I believe for legal threats). Would it be reasonable to unblock? User says, "I'll let the community decide if it should be lifted" — I don't see a problem in this — I don't think the user is anymore a threat. Opinions? - FrancisTyers · 16:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Has the legal action he's threatened been concluded one way or the other? If not, he should stay blocked. --Carnildo 18:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

His comments from meta are copied below:

He's running for board election, I sincerely doubt that he is proposing legal action against Wikipedia. - FrancisTyers · 19:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me there are people at the Foundation who can unblock him if they want to. Thatcher131 (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would they need to? If he isn't a threat, why is he still blocked? - FrancisTyers · 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

According to User:BradPatrick, the answer is "No" to the question "Does Jeff Merkey has any outstanding legal actions against the foundation?" - FrancisTyers · 19:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How about against other users? --Carnildo 20:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoting selectively from his lengthy reply,

"...I do not hold Wikipedia, Mr. Wales, or anyone on Wikipedia responsible for what happened..."

- FrancisTyers · 20:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Were there concerns other than the legal issues leading to the block? If not, I think we can probably lift it, as it seems to me that he has no intentions of any legal action against anyone in the project (if he ever did). Kirill Lokshin 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The block was made as follows:

18:09, 15 October 2005, Fvw (Talk) blocked Gadugi (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Unblock) (Jeff Merkey (Personal attacks, legal threats, harassment, disruption, ...))

He's apologised for all of these and made it clear that there are no legal issues outstanding. - FrancisTyers · 21:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering that User:Sint Holo, one of his more recent incarnations, was blocked by Jimbo Wales himself, and this user has a long history of sockpuppetry and abusive behaviour (which included him posting forged IRC logs on his now-removed web site, merkeylaw.com, purportedly showing me trying to solicit indecent photographs from his underaged daughter - ironic considering my sexuality) I would strongly oppose any unblocking of this user, and suggest his candidacy for the Board is removed by one of the officials. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Upon hearing the remainder of the evidence I would tend to agree. I'll ask him to negotiate direct with Jimbo. - FrancisTyers · 00:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In my completely useless opinion, indefinitely blocked or banned users have zero right to run in this election, especially one as abusive and disruptive as Merkey. Hollow assurances aside, can anyone say for sure this is not some play at Wikimedia-wide disruption? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are 3 election officials, and the rules say that accepted candidates will have confirmed placed next to their name, which no one had last time I checked. The Foundation appointed the election officials and I'd say its there call whether to accept Mr. Merkey's candidacy or not. Not a task I envy them of. Thatcher131 (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

<election official>Banned users are not eligible to stand as candidates, that is an absolute.</election official> <normal user>Whether Mr. Merkey is a banned user is a question for the Foundation, not the election officials.</normal user> Essjay (Talk) 04:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at this: [121] It seems that Beckjord (talk · contribs) has declared a "Wiki-War," and given his past disregard of Wikipedia rules, including dozens of evasions of his current 1-year Arbcom ban, I think a permanent ban is in order here. (Remember how Jimbo banned Wik?) Editor88 18:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I don't like the idea of on-wiki consequences for off-wiki actions, or vice versa. I'm content to let him rant against any of us on his own websites, it's much preferable to him bringing his ranting here. Friday (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As that site is off wiki i dont think he can be banned for it, and also some text on that page cant be denied. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If he wants to whine, let him. He's not actually inciting any action against the site at the moment. --InShaneee 20:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe sometimes off-wiki actions can and should have on-wiki consequences... but I don't think Beckjord's Wikifools page there crosses the line. It's not particularly harassing (at least I don't feel harassed by it) and we already saw, during the course of the events that led up to his ArbCom sanctions, that Beckjord doesn't actually seem to have the power to call up legions of minions and bend Wikipedia to his will. BUNCH OF GRAPES 20:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why we're all worrying, he's apparently attacking "Wicipedia", not us. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Beckjord tried previously to send his legions to Wikipedia...but it lasted a day, maybe two...I wouldn't worry about it.--MONGO 22:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

He's into cryptozoology, right? Maybe they're here, and you just can't see them because they're shy and reclusive. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Everybody knows that Bigfoot can't type! Geogre 21:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes he can...but only telepathically while traveling through wormholes.--MONGO 21:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot, is that you? If so, what was meeting Steve Austin like? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Once he arrives on Earth after travelling millions of lightyears via wormholes, bigfoot likes to take a walk through the forestand leave lots of footprints everywhere.--MONGO 21:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice 'come hither' look there. Didn't expect this kind of vanity from a fur-covered bipedal extraterrestrial mammal. Prepare to be banned. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that our policy for Colbert Masturbators be that registered users be blocked indefinitely, and that anonymous IPs be blocked for a minimum of a week, and that this be done for a first offense. I know this is harsh, but consider the circumstances. DS 04:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Or, we could handle it like we handle all other vandalism. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it gets a bit more nuanced: some editors think that, for instance, the elephant article is a good place to say, "Stephen Colbert once told people to say that the elephant population has tripled over the last three months." I think such editors need to be told to use the talk page, and roll the edits back as disruptive but not malicious. Repeated entries by the same user refusing to use the talk page should end up with one more warning and then a block. If, on the other hand, they're simply run-of-the-mill Colberrorists using vandalism-only sleeper accounts, they should be blocked on sight. But ultimately, MiB is right: the biggest mistake we could make is to overreact to this. There's a PR element to this, and so far we're doing pretty well. This is probably the most direct, focused barrage of vandalism Wikipedia's dealt with, and so far, judging by word of blog, we're actually getting high marks. JDoorjam Talk 04:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Amen, consider it done -- Tawker 04:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism-only accounts should be blocked indefinitely, established users with mostly good edits should not be blocked for the first offense for more than 48h, IMHO. And since Tawker is here, can we make a bot that would monitor tripling of the elephant population in a usual tawkerbot fashion? abakharev 05:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot suggestion is probably a bad idea, the Bots are getting a bit wonkey as it is, but adding it to Lupin's bad word list isn't a bad idea--152.163.100.65 05:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In the War on Colberrorism, we cannot cut and run. We must fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here. --Cyde Weys 04:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I take this to mean you agree with my plan of mailing a series of doctored (GFDL) photos of bears chasing/eating Colbert, signed "Jimbo Wales," to the "Eagle's Nest." Or perhaps you mean the true victory is ignoring his neologism, and making "Colberrorism" the only one people remember from this ordeal. JDoorjam Talk 05:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'm thinking is "What should we do with Colbert if he confirms he owns Stephencolbert (talk · contribs)?". I think we should keep him block, since he's been more-or-less asking (millions of) viewers to vandalise Wikipedia, causing possible server problems. Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, just as a point of fact, here, Stephen Colbert the comedian is not. Stephen Colbert the parody of Bill O'Reilly is. It's actually quite clever, in that he (the comedian) is recognizing the manipulation that people like him (the parody) have been attempting. Still, of course, the block is appropriate. Geogre 02:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"more-or-less asking (millions of) viewers to vandalise Wikipedia" <-- Have you watched the show? Also, please read A Modest Proposal. What some Wikipedia administrators would have said if they had lived in 1729: "Defcon 1! Jonathan Swift is telling people to eat babies!" --JWSchmidt 02:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

am I the only person who realized his true purpose was to make g. washington look bad, because he is really a commie 71.253.142.109 02:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Nicodemus75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a month due to chronic WP:CIVIL and WP:NOT a battlefield violations, due to his repeatedly demonstrated lack of desire to contribute anything to Wikipedia but acrimony, argument, and incivility. In particular, this diff (which is typical of his us vs. them mentality) is a highlight of his garrulous, incendiary style, and he hasn't stopped the conduct that resulted in his RFC. This is not the first time he has been blocked for incivility, and he seems to refuse to change.

This is posted here in the interest of transparency. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

His response to this block was to log onto IRC and msg me privately, threatening to have me desysopped. I don't see any indication that he is at all repetant about - or even willing to address - his lack of civility. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ook. That diff in particular isn't so bad, but the collective input from this user does nothing but raise the temperature of every discussion I've ever seen him enter. That being said, I always like to see a warning on the user's talk page first? With that in mind, I'd support an unblock with a "you've now got zero margin for nastyness" warning. - brenneman ^{L} 05:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have little hope that this will accomplish anything, given that his last edit states that he doesn't see that he's ever been uncivil. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Nico refused brenneman's suggestion, and additionally went on the attack against both myself and, inexplicably, brenneman (who was offering to unblock him). I don't think he's willing to admit incivility, or moderate his tone. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Warnings are good ideas in general, but become useless enabling when mandated for even the most unrepentant violator who clearly knows our civility and AGF policies, and has been blocked under them before. Nicodemus has been blocked for incivility before, and I don't personally see any reason why he shouldn't be under a kind of "zero margin" as it is, and why this block isn't a logical outgrowth of that lack of margin. It is clear to me that Nicodemus is an odious presence here who contributes little constructively, and, frankly, should never have been unblocked in the first place so many months ago. We don't need more people trying to draw the community into partisan camps for the sake of the confrontation itself, and we certainly don't need any more inserting venom into deletion discussions. Dmcdevit·t 07:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The only disagreement I'd have with that is that he hadn't (to my knowledge) been told he'd used up every bit of "margin." I know I'm straining at gnats here, but given that 1) He's come off a long break, 2) Feels (with some justification) that his "record" is ancient history, and 3) reckons he hasn't been that uncivil... Well, I'd probably be pretty cranky if I were him right now. I'd still like to see the block lifted, with the caveat that is becomes an indefinite if he doesn't cool it. - brenneman ^{L} 07:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Brenneman. El_C 09:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Noting that I don't particularly care if he does have reason to be cranky, since incivility is never the proper reaction to any stimulus, Aaron's proposal is fine with me as long as Nicodemus agrees to abide by it. (At the moment, his last talk page communication was still attacks.) With that in mind, I'll remove his {{unblock}} and wait to see how Nicodemus' response to Aaron's last message pans out. Favorably, and unblocking is fine by me. Dmcdevit·t 09:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. El_C 09:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aaron too, but I don't have much confidence that Nicodemus will change his ways. As to the block itself, it is very hard to make a project like Wikipedia work when some people resolutely refuse to countenance any way of working other than their own, so to characterise Nicodemus as serially disruptive is, I think, entirely fair. And yes, that is following him down the path of personalising the issue. Sorry. In the end we have a set of inclusion guidelines on content of many kinds which have widespread consensus, albeit with a few dissenters and some debate around the margins, and then we have schools, where any attempt to formulate a similar set of consensus guidelines has been stymied by such absurdities as the assertion that all schools are inherently notable. What AMIB was trying to do was to intrroduce a guideline that would allow pretty much any school article which has significant verifiable information beyond the mere fact of its existence. Only in the bizarre world of the schools debate could this be seen as anything other than a good-faith attempt to extend a consistent approach across all content areas. Just zis Guy you know? 10:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As someone recently under attack from him, all I can say is that I remain convinced that personal attacks are not a blocking criterion, but, on the other hand, I agree with MiB and others that it's the "Wikipedia is not a battleground" thing that is blockable. The guy is sure that he's fighting a war against the forces of darkness, who happen to be administrators and long time users ... or just people who don't agree with him. Whatever it is, he's puffing and swinging constantly. I felt a bit like Foghorn Leghorn facing Henery Hawk, myself. It may be one of those things where his best bet would be to stay away from the embattled areas of the site, except that those are the ones he seems to like. <shrug> After a warning, I agree with blocking if he does more attacking. If he can't figure out when he's ever been uncivil, I suppose we can help him figure it out. Geogre 21:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a new vandal/troll from New Zealand. He uses various IPs registered to Telecom New Zealand (kinda like New Zealand AOL?) and/or University of Auckland. I've reported him on Wikipedia:Abuse reports, don't know how else to deal with him. He's easy to identify because he seems to want to be caught, and edits his own blocked accounts and pages for admins who have blocked him, like this: [122] He claims his aim is to "bring Wikipedia down" because it's "stupid": [123]. Contributes idiotic vandalism and likes to blank pages. --woggly 10:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the info about the IPs he's been using:

• Loserdick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - read his talk page

Registered to University of Auckland:

• 130.216.191.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked 6 times since May, unblocked due to collateral damage
• 130.216.191.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked 3 times since June, unblocked due to collateral damage

and possibly:

• 130.216.191.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked 4 times, most recently in March. Similar page blankings and stupid vandalism [124], interspersed with possibly valid edits.

Registered to Telecom New-Zealand:

• 222.153.112.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) first block yesterday
• 222.153.113.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) begging to be blocked [125]
• 222.153.34.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) first block yesterday
• 222.153.148.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) the latest, freshly blocked. I sorta fed him on this talkpage, couldn't resist. --woggly 10:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want, I will offer to contact the New Zealand university in question, feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you wish to discuss this. --TheM62Manchester 11:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Should be blocked for an inappropriate username. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As indeed he was, several days ago.--woggly 05:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I was blocked for the fourth time by admins who push POV at the Lance Armstrong article. Just because he is from the same country as most editors of the English wikipedia does not mean his article needs to be a fanzine. The admin who reported me even implicitly admitted I had not broken the 3 revert rule. However, I got blocked for 72 hours. Another editor who had deleted a POV tag without discussion three times, which is explicitly described as WP:Vandalism, was not punished at all. JzG who had abusively blocked me three times before even though he was in a content dispute again took advantage of the block to delete the history of two articles about journalists who wrote a book about alleged drug abuse by Armstrong. Even though his suggestion to merge the articles failed and a thir opinion had helded to get a consensus on the talk page, JzG just went and made the articles into redirects: Pierre Ballester and David Walsh (sports reporter). Thus I cannot present the links any longer to show that there he had violated the same rules about biographies of living people that he had claimed to have blocked me for. There are many editors concerned about POV at the Armstrong article. [126][127][128][129] Please help to resolve the conflict. Socafan 11:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much grasping for straws there, starting with your new fact-free rationalization and ending with your reaching WAY back for editors allegedly supporting -- including padding the examples by counting the last, a single-edit anon, twice.

Guy, you've been blocked the last 3 times owing purely to your own behavior. The fact that no one has reversed those blocks despite your vociferous argumentation should be a clue. Take the time to reflect on their real meaning -- which is neither "everyone's out to get me" nor "if I make just the right legal argument I'll win". --Calton | Talk 11:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for mixing up two links. Here are the right ones, three different users plus an anon complaining about POV at the Lance Armstrong article: [130] [131] [132][133] Thank you for kind way to apologize for your vandalism. [134][135][136] Socafan 11:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize a goddamn thing and have nothing to apologize for, you reading-impaired Perry Mason-wannabe. Holy crap, you've drunk your own Kool-Aid, haven't you? --Calton | Talk 12:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I showed you that the rules are very clear that no editor is allowed to remove a POV more than once in 24 hrs. You did it three times without discussion, thus vandalizing the page. Your incivility says more about you and your level of argumentation than about anyone else. Socafan 14:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

From WP:3RR: "The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. The fact that users may be blocked for excessive reverting does not necessarily mean that they will be blocked. Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context." See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive53#User:Socafan and other conversations.

Socafan is waging a crusade to spin the doping allegations against Lance Armstrong in the most damaging way possible. His first 3RR block was after reverting three separate admins. I see no sign that he is in the least repentant, and every indication that he will continue Wikilawyering. His view appears to be that hios content should go in unless and until we can all persuade him otherwise - this is a reversal of the unambiguously stated rule at WP:BLP. As Jimbo says: "responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim." Just zis Guy you know? 11:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not waging a crusade against Armstrong, I do not even know him. I dislike people who act as if this was the Stanford Prison Experiment and abuse their powers in order to present things the way they would like them to be. As I showed above, others are concerned about the POV at the article, too. Fans are presumably more likely to have an article about an athlete on their watchlist. However, a neutral article would do everyone a better service than a ridiculous misrepresentation of facts. Socafan 11:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

am not waging a crusade against Armstrong, I do not even know him. Dude, do you even bother to read what you write before hitting "save"? Of course! How could you POSSIBLY be waging a crusade unless you knew him personally? Your logic is air-tight! --Calton | Talk 11:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe you wage crusades against people you do not even know. Reasonable people have other hobbies. Socafan 11:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, now you've gone from tedious wikilawyering straight to complete incoherence. --Calton | Talk 12:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Socafan, what I see here is the continued assertion against all the available evidence that you are (a) right and (b) a blameless victim. Is that your assertion? If so, then I propose we move to a community ban, as previously suggested by Tony, because if you won't even acknowledge the problem with your behaviour there is no realistic chance of your fixing it. Just zis Guy you know? 11:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Having attempted to mediate a few days ago, I do not support User:Socafan's approach to editing the Lance Armstrong article. I think his behaviour is very frustrating and his edits do not reflect concensus. To accuse editors of contributing to a fanzine is not approprate. Most editors are editing in good faith to produce a meaningful article on a notable sportsman. Socofan's beahviour is unconstructive--A Y Arktos\^talk 12:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• See also this egregious trolling. Just zis Guy you know? 12:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeing User:Socafan's responses here has pretty much sealed my mind against him. I'm not sure if I should chalk it up to ignorance or simply grasping at the final straws of his side of the argument. Naw, it can't be ignorance, I think everyone by the 6th? grade learned about The Crusades, during which they were KILLING people that they knew nothing about. --mboverload@ 12:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to take a look at the issue rather than be a know-it-all on crusades? I live in the 21st century, times were people you do not know anything about get an axe on their head are over for me. Socafan 14:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

After two blocks for 3RR he is straight back in there edit warring over a tag whose inclusion seems to be unsupported by any other historied editor. Socafan's approach appears to be that anything he does need not be justified but may not be undone without first persuading him. Since he has never acknowledged that there is any problem with his edits, despite everybody else agreeing there is, I am not holding my breath here. Just zis Guy you know? 13:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the tag has been provided for several days now. There is no discussion showing that it needs to be removed. Thus, removing it is vandalism and it needs to be restored immediately. As do the articles you made into redirects. Socafan 13:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh indeed, the reason for the tag is absolutely plain: you refuse to accept the fact that your edits have failed to gain consensus. Oh, and you refuse to accept that Armstrong is clean. Do feel free to come back when he's been successfully prosecuted. As to the idea that merging two articles with substantially identical content into one which covers the subject of that content, when the articles themselves cover nothing else, that is a very novel interpretation of vandalism. One might almost accuse you of failing to assume good faith, but I see from your postings on Talk pages that accusations of failure to assume good faith only apply when it is your edits which are questioned. Funny, that. Just zis Guy you know? 14:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I had not edited that section at all. It was added by another editor and it is biased. You had failed to gain consensus about the articles you replaced by redirects, and their history showed you had violated the rules about biographies of living people. Your repeated condescending attitude and twisting of facts does nothing to support your POV. Socafan 14:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Community ban[edit]

After having seen nothing from Socafan but attempts to violate WP:BLP and trolling everywhere he can think of whenever someone calls him on it, but managing to remain uninvolved so far, I've blocked him indefinitely per "exhausted community patience" in the purest sense of that term: that I will be very surprised if anyone finds a reason to unblock him. Please review etc. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Sam. Just zis Guy you know? 14:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sam, you beat me to it. Here is the post I wrote for AN/I.

IMO, Socafan is a purely a disruptive editor here to challenge Wikipedia policy and administrators. Socafan's early edits show a familarity with Wikipedia policy leading me to think the user is a sockpuppet. Why are we continuing to tolerate this users continued disruptive behavior? Socafan is adding nothing of value to the project. I think a community ban or RFAr is needed ASAP. --FloNight ^talk 14:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. Exhausted my patience 2 months ago. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh! Not sure I ever had any patience with this one. Just zis Guy you know? 14:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not an admin, I've seen very few (if any) edits from Socafan that couldn't be considered trolling, disruptive or POV pushing. Aren't I Obscure? 14:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you (no, I'm not an admin, just a busybody). Yeah, I'm sorry I lost my temper with this bozo -- resulting in a one-hour block for me. I was miffed -- okay, mad -- that his continual calling of my edits "vandalism" went by scot-free for him, at least in the short-term, but now that that's a moot point I guess I have nothing to complain about. --Calton | Talk 15:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I support the block. He's not here to do anything but advance his views, and he interferes with people who actually want to work. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I support the block - I felt I tried to be reasonable and has been pointed out to me, I failed miserably. I was disappointed to see the silly reversions at Lance Armstrong and the disussion which was uncivil (from more than one editor) and failed to focus on the content. Mediation is obviously not my strong point! I wasted my time and would rather contribute as per Tom harrison.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Support indefinite ban for exhausting the community's patience. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC).

Support the block, user has repeatedly been unable to grasp the fact that their behavior, not some imaginary massive conspiracy to persecute them, is the cause of the trouble here. The unblock request on their talkpage further illustrates this lack of understanding. -M^ask 22:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

=== Socafan evading his ban; blocked ===

I have just blocked 84.56.29.199 (talk · contribs · block log) on the basis that it is Socafan evading the ban and continuing to edit the Lance Armstrong talk page.--A Y Arktos\^talk 22:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The editor from 84.56.29.199 claims not to be banned user [137] though at least one other editor thought the same way I did in response to the IP's edits, their timing and their subject matter: So Socafan gets community banned and an IP user comes to defend him? Hi there Socafan. You're not fooling anything.[138]--A Y Arktos\^talk 23:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you've been had, although only a checkuser would know for sure. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• I am assuming good faith. I am not heavily into textual analysis but the editing style doesn't seem quite the same. If somebody else wants to call for checkuser, that is fine by me. If it is the banned user returning, I suspect his behaviour will repeat, leopards and their spots ... - it will become obvious. The new user's observation though that the Lance Armstrong talk page is poisonous is fair comment.--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, per AGF and all that, if Socafan is gone and the talk page is really "poisonous," it might be a good time to archive it and start fresh. Good luck to all. Thatcher131 (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Leclerq is not, by comon ocnsent now, Socafan, but a German Wikipedian with a properly constructive approach. I have archived out the trollfest from the Armstrong Talk page. Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible... Just zis Guy you know? 15:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems like there are some sneaky vandalism by two users here, who wanna claim fake things to Norway with no sources for it. I'm pretty new here and don't know how things work yet and how to deal with this kind of vandalism here on wikipedia. In the article "Normans". The two Norwegian users, Inge and Barend keep putting Norway or Norwegians in the article from no where. I have asked them like 5 times in the discussion, what the sources are. Of course they refuse to answer, since there are is no source for it. Here the fake claiming started. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Normans&diff=27008966&oldid=26282705 Thanks --Comanche cph 15:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comanche cph (talk • contribs)

This entry is at best slander. If an administrator would like to to involve in this issue I would be delighted. The user Comanche has been a test of many a merited users patience. As he has been spreading his slanderous comments about me across ceveral talk pages now I would urge any administrator to involve themselves seriously in this conflict. I am aware that many administrators are very busy, but simply leaving a warning on this users talk page has proven not to be enough. Other editors in addition to myself have tried to guide this user towards what is normal behaviour on wikipedia, but with little result. An in depth look at this users history is very much in order. If a merited administrator would involve him/her self a thorough look at the problems this user is causing the community should be weighed against his few positive edits and a long term solution should be reached. I am for one fed up with bearing the brunt of this users attacks. Inge 01:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to be nice and self-report this. I am Brian, and this is my sockpuppet, and he should be blocked before I tell Kelly Martin/Scott Groehning to go stick a cucumber in its cloaca. Much wikilove, Brian. Harry Bagatestes 16:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as a potentially offensive username. --kingboyk 16:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please check Barbamama (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki); he appears to be yet another sock of WordBomb, continuing to target User:Mantanmoreland, among other things. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Or a meatpuppet. WordBomb told me by email that s/he arranged for other people to get accounts and carry on the dispute. WordBomb stated on Wikipedia Review.com that other users were in place to challenge Mantanmoreland and the Wikipedia users that were protecting him. This could be a cover for WorbBomb or it could be meatpuppets. To muddy the waters more, several other longterm users that are involved in RFAr cases posted to AN/I and other user talk pages making claims against Mantanmoreland and SlimVirgin. They did this with IP addresses and new sock accounts. FloNight ^talk 19:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Barbamama is not me, though we appear to have the same goals, for which I encourage him/her to carry on undaunted.--Whisky Tango 00:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

For some reason Barbamama was stalking User:Zeq, and as part of that campaign he commenced an AfD on an article Zeq had just created. Frankly I can't quarrel too much with the AfD per se, as it is a dubious article, but isn't there an issue here? Is it OK for a banned user to evade the ban in this fashion? Something about this doesn't seem right.--Mantanmoreland 13:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a user and noticed a large influx of vandalism on the Pornography page. So, I semi-protected it. Since I am not an administrator, that action had no net effect except from adding a banner to the top of the page. I logged out and tested the page, and my edits were allowed. So, could an admin please put semiprotection on the page. Thank you. --Wscc05 18:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Because you are not an admin so canot protect an article. You can request protection at WP:RFPP. I sprotected the article for now, but on review may unprotect it, the vandal count does not look that high. Just zis Guy you know? 18:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember that putting the {{sprotected}} template on a page doesn't semi-protect it - it just sticks up the banner. Actual semiprotection/protection/unprotection can only be carried out by an administrator, using a tab on the top of the page similar to the Move tab you've probably got. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am reporting anonymously as an observer. A user AaronS is making vicious personal attacks on the Talk page of another user, such as "In the end, however, you're just an inauthentic sophist, a false intellectual, and a phony, because you're incapable of autocritique, incapable of seeing your own insanity -- in a word: a charlatan. I always think that it's sad when people who have the potential to practice real philosophy settle for the lowest common denominator. You're nothing more than a partisan pundit. Anybody can be a mouthpiece. Anybody can latch on to any ideology and expound it throughout the world. Your overcompensated sense of of self-surety is what exposes you for what you are: a child, frightened, weak, and isolated." [139] The user TheIndividualist is getting a slightly abrasive back but not to the level of personal attacks. He/she is showing remarkable considering the attacks . Also another user User:FrancisTyers, who is supposedly an administrator, is reverting back and putting the personal attacks back in after TheIndividualist deletes them [140], which is totally unethical for an administrator. ConcernedUser 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You are a sock puppet who was created solely to attempt to create trouble. Your first edit ever was to report me to personal attack intervention, your second edit was to "warn" me on my user page, and your third edit was this. RJII/TheIndividualist/IndividualistAnarchist/You are a banned user who has been disrupting Wikipedia and exhausting the community's patience for well over a year. While I readily admit that there was no real point to my comments, and that they were unnecessary, I made them without thinking, and you certainly deserve them, considering that you are void of good faith. I have no problem with them being erased, since you have already read them (and they seem to have had an impact), and since they do not have any merit beyond that.

The only thing that I apologize for is the disruption that this has apparently caused. There was a discussion on RJII/TheIndividualist/IndividualistAnarchist/ConcernedUser's talk page regarding his motivation for disrupting Wikipedia, and I let him know my thoughts on the matter, and my opinion of his motivations (he's searching for the secret to immortality). I didn't think that he would disrupt Wikipedia further by bothering all of you with it. So, for whatever waste of time this might be, I apologize. It was never meant to go beyond that. Now I understand why there is a policy in place against kicking people when they are down, despite how much they might deserve it. --AaronS 19:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course I am a sockpuppet. I didn't want to use my normal username in order to avoid retribution from you and rogue administrators. I know how the system works. You have to cover your tracks. There is no rule against creating sockpuppets for something like this. I saw your attacks against TheIndividualist which were very undeserved. Though a little haughty he was being civil and you were not. Your attacks were very vile. ConcernedUser 19:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I wield a mighty sword. Fear me, for my wrath is great. I just might pop out of your modem and hit you. Yes, you know how the system works. That's why you're so good at gaming it. You sound like a mix between User:RJII and User:Lingeron. But, please, nobody here is as stupid as you might think. --AaronS

Oh please. --mboverload@ 19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No one deserves the kind of abuse you dish out. I've seen it against other users as well. By the way TheIndividualist is not a "banned user" but temporarily blocked from editing for a year. That doesn't give you free rain to abuse him/her. ConcernedUser 19:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I'm pretty sure that I save all of my abuse for RJII. Your authentic and compassionate concern is duly noted. On a serious note, like I said, I apologize for the fact that my actions have led you to create a sock puppet so that you can evade your ban and come on here to dramatize the situation. I just hope that people appreciate the theatrics for what they are and aren't annoyed. --AaronS 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed my mind and blanked the talk page, AaronS shouldn't have been goading the banned user. - FrancisTyers · 19:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

See WP:BAN regarding baiting, and WP:BAN regarding reverting the edits of banned users. - FrancisTyers · 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That was the right decision, and, again, I take responsibility for this situation. --AaronS 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You weren't reverting the edits of the "banned user" but reverting back in the abusive comments from Aaron. ConcernedUser 19:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

AaronS was definitely goading TheIndividualist and using language that would have undoubtedly caused more concern if his target had been an editor in good standing. Allowing your opponent to provoke you into rash statements or actions is a classic mistake from politics to sports to war. Take this as an opportunity to learn and grow a little. Apology accepted (from me anyway). Thatcher131 (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that Aaron has acknowledged his role, will someone please block the troll? Thatcher131 (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 20:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Alvin easter (talk · contribs) has been adding a number of edits to many biographical articles asserting that the person had appeared nude, nearly nude, or had "beefcake" appeal, without citing sources. I am unsure whether they are all hoaxes, or simply unsupported. Anybody want to look into this as well? --Nlu (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This guy keeps creating biographical articles. I've marked a bunch as Candidates for Speedy Deletion, but I'm not sure how to alert him to stop. Can an adminstrator assist, please? CPAScott 20:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of his contributions appear to be copyvios. I've left a note on his talk page and deleted most of the copy vios. joshbuddy, talk 20:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, there's about an hour's worth of a backlog over at AIV. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you looking at the same WP:AIV I am? I only see three entries on there. joshbuddy, talk 21:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And now there's none. But there were around six or seven, the earliest from an hour ago. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

74.136.34.182 has been vandalizing the Mel Gibson DUI Incident page. This user was also blocked Aug 1 and should know by now not to be doing this

Pilotguy has blocked it. JoshuaZ 21:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been having a bit of a problem with User:Elliott Larkfield. We are having an edit war over Jack Canfora and other articles where he is adding unsourced information, and when I have attempted to discuss the situation with him he has done nothing but insult me on my talk page and his talk page, as well as the edit summaries in the Jack Canfora page history. Any thoughts? Academic Challenger 22:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've warned him to avoid personnal attacks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I decided to block him for a week. Between the obvious vandalism and two violations of WP:CIVIL. here and here, he deserves as much. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat my call for someone to check on the behaviour of this admin. He's been blocking several users for sockpuppetry indef with tenuous if at all existent connections. I asked about this a couple days ago and it was ignored. Another admin questions him [141] and is rewarded with a rather hostile reply for what I see as a very valid question. The sockpuppetry is not obvious if its at all existent to the depths he's claiming. I also question the need he has to blank the talk page of everyone he labels a sockpuppet then revert the talk pages when someone questions that [142] without even so much as an explanation when it was questioned by the same admin. There is an evidence link on spotteddog here [143] and I do not see the connection between for example the behaviour there and that exhibited by Kramden4700 (talk · contribs) who's evidence is solely "contributions".--Crossmr 22:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned with the "attitude" in the first edit, but I don't know the context. I don't see anything in the other two edits you provides. Please further explain your position with diffs. --mboverload@ 23:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'm showing you is the extent of it. He's blocked several users in the past little while with claims that they are sockpuppets Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Spotteddogsdotorg. All the evidence seems to be of the nature "contributions" or "obvious". After reading through the evidence link that I gave above on spotteddogs behaviour (which mind is from a year ago), I'm not seeing this obvious connections, and he's not providing anymore justification other than "contributions". He also repeatedly blanks individuals talk pages. The second diff I showed you was him reverting another admin for unblanking the talk page. I'm not saying these individuals are or aren't all sockpuppets, I'm just saying the way he's going about it leaves much to be desired.--Crossmr 23:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This has already been reviewed. [144] -- SCZenz 23:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No it hasn't. That was one specific block. It didn't review the entirety of his behaviour.--Crossmr 23:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Also note that happycamper didn't weigh in on whether or not that individual was a sockpuppet, just that he supported the block. Two very different things.--Crossmr 23:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The key risk with diving in here is that i)Sockpuppeteers have a classic technique of trying to find an admin who doesn't know the details and pleading with them about User:Abusive admin and ii)User:Crossmr has a line on his userpage proclaiming the lovelytude of the banned User:Ste4k. The reason for blanking the talk pages is that the puppetmaster has taken to holding conversations with himself and 1 or 2 opposing users to give the impression to the opposing users that the numerics are in his favour. Crossmr didn't mention that I had already explained this fact on my talk page, [145]. Really, going back over all 35 accounts and writing an essay on each of them would be an enormous waste of my time, but there are some diffs where I explain a number of them such as the particularly detailed [146] and the immense amount of 'archaeological' history in Crossmr 3rd diff. It is important not to waste greater time than is absolutely required on this; Spotteddogsdotorg (possibly the puppetmaster, or possibly a puppet) is just a sockpuppeteer who has tried increasingly creative approaches and didn't succeed yet. No feeding, hmm? (PS. Crossmr didn't mention this thread to me.) -Splash - tk 23:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Proclaiming the lovelytude? I was dealing with a longterm vandal which no adminstrator wanted to address and had a mountain of pages to clean up. There were another 15 pages or so beyond what was listed on my user page for cleanup. I tagged them and am slowly working my way back through them. That user and User:Wolf_ODonnell both cleaned up that page without my asking. But I notice you didn't mention him. Maybe you should start explaining the sockpuppetry allegations because it is questioned and not as obvious as you claim it to be.--Crossmr 23:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have actually explained it in some detail for a smallish subset of the users in that diff up there; the others have their reasons in their blocklogs. To a puppet, they have been used to do a combination of i)mislead the community on AfD ii)mislead the community on policy/guideline discussion pages iii)mislead individuals as to the level of support in talk page discussions iv)appear as multiple users in Arbitration proceedings against the opponent v)complain to multiple people who don't know the detail that one of their number got blocked and iv)to do as their 20th edit or so. Really, honestly, providing a bunch of diffs for all 36 puppets is a waste of time. You can examine their contributions, your own link to Mothpersons' page, their block logs and the detailed forensics in the diff I already posted. -Splash - tk 23:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The old puppets are well documented, its the new puppets that I'm questioning. Even SCZenz points out that he doesn't think its quite obvious from the contribs[147]. While some of them may have been disruptive or otherwise so, I'm not seeing the actual connection to spotteddog with all of them. This is whats being questioned here. No one is asking you to document all 36, how about a couple recent ones like Kramden7400 who actually had quite a few edits under his belt? --Crossmr 23:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz also says he is willing to believe me. But you're not. I am not going to waste time on a serial sockpuppeteer, who has previously expressed his delight at just such time wasting [148] (and you really shouldn't be asking me to). There is good information available at User_talk:Mothperson/Litterbox which is really very compelling and feeds very strongly into the following forensics for Kramden4700 (talk · contribs):

1. He matches the tendency to edit sharply around Philadelphia and related areas [149] [150], [151], [152] etc.
2. He matched the tendency, more specifically, to focus on TV (and sometimes other) personalities in the Philadelphia and related areas [153], [154], [155].
3. He participates in all the same AfDs as a number of the other socks (not necessarily always on the same side, in an early display of the usual sockpuppeteers hallmarks): [156], [157], [158] and, going back much further he has even nominated one of them for adminship [159].
4. He appeared very shortly after my first sock-block round: created on June 12, I blocked a bunch on June 11 e.g. [160].
5. He has participated vocally in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration CoolKatt number 99999 [161] as have at least several of the others.
6. In an attempt to acquire credibility, he makes a few sub-minor edits e.g. wikification, linkification etc to a few articles. Earlier, these would be Philadelphia related; more recently, the sophistication has risen but, like all sockpuppeteers, it wouldn't be worth his while if he avoided the areas of interest: [162], [163] etc. Note also the Philadelphia theme.

There is no need for checkuser in such obvious cases as this, and such requests have previously been made and declined. Would you have me repeat the above exercise for the remaining 35 sockpuppets, or do you now believe that I have the evidence available? -Splash - tk 00:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So a user who may be from philadelphia and thus interested in it and happens to like TV is a sock puppet of spotteddog? Philadelphia is a big city. A lot of users have been involved with CK over the months, he's a long term problem user who attacks anyone who shows the slightest disagreement with him. CK also happens to be highly interested in TV so its no wonder that he would have butted heads with Kramden or any other TV interested editor. CFIF, the one who's been feeding you several puppets it seems was the most vocal on the RfAr and without checking, I would guess involved in a lot of those AfDs. The nomination for adminship as you noticed I caught when I first encountered Kramden and checked his contribs. It seemed off to me, I'm curious why no one has removed it. One thing I didn't see from thos diffs is any big disruption. The comment you linked to on the AfD about creating two sub-pages seemed like a genuine suggestion and not something intended. While you've established this user is likely from Philadelphia and is interested in TV, there seemed to be much more to Spotteddog, which I'm not seeing here.--Crossmr 00:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that obviously wasn't what I said, was it? Your sentence has two clauses, and my post has 6 at a minimum. CFIF has edited my page twice: both times today, and I blocked one username he pointed out and rejected the other. -Splash - tk 00:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And several of your points revolve around the same thing, that the user likes philadelphia, and participated in some pages with other suspected sock puppets. My point is that beyond that, I'm not seeing the disruption thats allegedly occuring here.--Crossmr 00:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't just about users interested in Philly and Philly TV, this is about users who sign up, and on their first few edits, put Philly TV and other television personality articles up for deletion, either regular or speedy. --CFIF (talk to me) 00:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about Kramden, not Jose. Jose did that if I recall. Did Kramden also do that? I would also put forth that the one AfD I did look at that Jose did, the individual did seem to fail Bio.--Crossmr 00:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To cap the concerns here once and for all, I'll volunteer to look at the entire list of sockpuppets. I would like to understand this set of sockpuppets. However, what is being asked for would be very time consuming, and at this point, I am inclined to think that not much will be written about them. Since there is a limited number of resources to address everyone's concerns here, the best I can do from my perspective is to say that there is certain level of trust that is involved here, and that is something that hopefully the community can still rely on. If it turns out that these accounts have been treated without proper jurisprudence, then naturally, some action needs to be taken to rectify the situation.

Now, I would like to say that I am not particularly fond of invoking this trust "trump card" - it carries a number of loaded connotations, and when it does not work amicably, it can be disasterous for both the account holder and the community. However, as a long time Wikipedian, I have little else to offer in this situation, and I suspect, this is why an overwhelming number of users on Wikipedia care very much about how they are treated, and how they are perceived.

Even if one account is done per day, it will take more than a month to go through everything. I have the Wikipedian Me, and the Real Me to take care of, and I am not sure what learning curve is invovled here. With that said, anyone is welcome to check up with me to see how things are going. I hope this is sufficient to end the concerns here, but if not, then another Wikipedian will need to take the initiative and try other alternatives. --HappyCamper 00:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, don't bother. I can do the above kind of forensics for all of them, and am 100% certain of each and every one of them. Don't fall into the trap. -Splash - tk 00:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we can skip all the ones covered in the evidence link from last year. Those appear to be well established. He's also provided some evidence for a couple of new accounts (in terms of suspicious behaviour, but no actual connection to spottedddog). I still don't think the blanking of talk pages is appropriate, regardless of whetehr or not he believes this person likes to hold conversations with himself. Some of the talk pages do have content from other editors on it. My chief concern here is the attitude shown to another admin when it was questioned and then when the question is finally acknowledged, the mud-slinging by saying I said something nice about a banned user (well I said it long before he was banned and he did something nice, so sue me), and his continually saying it would be a waste of time to check on these. If you think explaining your actions are a waste of time, maybe you shouldn't do them. It just seemed like there were a lot of these bans very rapidly, and with little to actual connection made regardless of whate else they might have done to warrant a ban. If they needed to be banned that is one thing, slapping them in with some old vandal is another if its not true.--Crossmr 00:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No, he is not a vandal, and it's important to tell the difference. He is a sockpuppeteer who makes superficially good edits with a view to misleading genuinue users and process (all the way to adminship and Arbitration, in this case). It would be a waste of time for me to repeat my evidenciary basis (now posted both here and in the diff I have to DRV (check it, it's overwhelmingy)) for all these account, and indeed, every time the socks persuade someone to feel sympathetic towards them. The series of bans come in bunches: that's how socks are naturally deployed (they're no good, otherwise, after all), and they are related to Spotteddogsdotorg, by simple backtracking in e.g. Kramden4700's case from the other users he is associated with, their contribs, their hallmarks and the hallmarks of the others back over a long period. -Splash - tk 00:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So where is the evidence of this supposed misleading thats occuring? I saw none of that in any of the diffs provided.--Crossmr 00:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

For goodness' sake, go and read them properly. -Splash - tk 00:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I read them. I see a lot of copyediting of the city/state name, and a couple comments on some AfDs. I see no evidence of any kind of "misleading" going on.--Crossmr 00:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll reiterate my sentiment from User talk:Splash: if this puppet master is so prolific that Splash can't even take the time to document it all to puzzled observers (like myself), then a page at WP:LTA may be in order. Then, there will be a centralized repository of information which others who get sucked in (like myself) can view and get up to speed on the situation quickly. We won't have to waste time at User talk:Splash or here or wherever. We'll all know the behavior and can join in fending off the vandal rather than fighting about him. Instead, an innocent bystander, JianLi (talk • contribs), has been accused of being a puppet even though s/he made over 1,000 edits before being singled out for using the term "cruft". What a terrible insult and what a spectacular waste of time for a half-dozen people or more just today. This vandal must be laughing his ass off. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea. I don't think the process that is occuring here is benefiting wikipedia and it is not very transparant--Crossmr 00:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, key point there! I rejected the suggestion that Jian Li should be blocked, twice. I'm not some sort of automaton, and I do not apply blocks when some random user I've never met before asks me to. I study things first, and then I do it, if I think it's right to do so. You don't have to fight with me, and I don't think we have fought; you just jumped into unblanking talk page of a user who uses them abusively, but you didn't know that. I'll repeat that abuse pages are a bad idea. They lend credibility, they provide a target, they make for competition and they give corporeality to something that should not be. And again, he is not a vandal. -Splash - tk 00:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to trust Splash's judgement at this point. If we spend more time dealing with trolls than they spend trolling, then we are feeding them. All admin actions are subject to review, but nowhere does it say that all admin actions require extensive documentation. -- SCZenz 00:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but a reasonable person should be able reach the same conclusion they did. And with the diffs provided, I Don't see it. I see some diffs on copyediting a city name, and a couple comments on an AfD that do not look out of place.--Crossmr 00:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And a reasonable person would be able to by a little investigative journalism from the 10-odd diffs I just posted, particularly by not overlooking the fact that I explicitly said that Kramden4700 edited the same debates as a good number of other socks of the same user, also now indef blocked. But allow us to be clear, Crossmr: you want the sockpuppets unblocked. If you don't, what is the purpose of continuing this discussion, other than to put food in the foodbowl? -Splash - tk 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Although they don't mean much individually, taken together the six points he gave look persuasive to me. -- SCZenz 00:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I want to be sure that the blocks were all appropriate, and that the allegation of being puppets of spotteddog are actually correct. the 10 diffs you provided and the evidence they supposedly support, certainly doesn't do that for me. --Crossmr 00:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And I want to ensure this doesn't happen again. A quick point of clarification, I didn't imply that Splash accused JianLi of being a sock - but someone else did. That could have been prevented if the accuser had known something about the puppet master s/he was accusing JianLi of being. IMHO, it would be more helpful to the community if all this research and evidence of sockpuppetry were shared somewhere - rather than snippy comments like the first that Crossmr pointed out. I wouldn't have to waste my time doing the research if you simply posted yours somewhere. Otherwise, you get vigilantes like JianLi's accuser and you get very confused people like several people here, including myself. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This user has been warned already several times about disruption related to the Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States article:

• Three times as 71.74.209.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Twice as 198.97.67.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Twice as 198.97.67.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Other possible IPs used:

• 198.97.67.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and
• 198.97.67.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite being asked several times to get a username, anon user refuses, on the basis that there is no obligation to register to edit WP, which is correct. On the other hand, user has been warned seven times for disruption, advocay, and blanking. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As an outside observer here who is not the same anon as the IPs above, Jossi's attitude on that article has been one of WP:OWN, rudeness toward anyone who is not there to push a pro-immigration POV but enthusiastically welcoming toward anyone who is, misuse of the "test" script in a patronizing manner, has told several people that they need to calm down and take a break when Jossi seems to be the only person there pushing a POV and using Wikipedia as a battleground, and frequently tries to order anon editors to get accounts. Is this Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone (anon IPs included) can edit, or is it not? I for one do not believe that anyone who thinks anon IPs should have to register to edit has any business continuing to be an admin. This also goes for admins who treat edits from anon IPs differently (as in more likely to revert) than they would do with edits from registered users. If somebody doesn't believe anonymous IPs should be editing Wikipedia, that person is unfit to be an admin on Wikipedia. Jossi should either step down as an admin or change his/her attitude toward anon IPs. 70.108.96.254 23:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally welcome many anon editors that contribute to the project. But I also warn newcomers when their edits are disruptive. My first interaction in this article was while in duty at RC patrol. In many instances I provide anons with information on how to make useful contributions . In this specific case, one user editing under multiple IP addresses has been warned repeatedly by other admins as well for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Part of the trouble with anon editors is that we never know who we're talking to. The anon above is an example. He seems to have strong opinions, yet there is no edit history to know whether or not it's the same guy. It complicates tracking 3RR, mkaes it impossible to know if the user has been warned for previous behavior, etc. While anon editors are welcome, if someomne is going to make contentious edits, engage in talk page discussions, and hang around here then it would be very helpful if they created some kind of consistent identity. This editor seems to be going out of his way to use changing IPs, and his editing is so aggressive that it adds up to disruptive behavior. The polite requests by other users to register or otherwise identify himself have been rebuffed. That isn't helpful when the method of Wikipedia is to work to consensus. -Will Beback 02:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd add to the list:

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

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

-Will Beback 03:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

70.108.100.130 was me and is completely unrelated to the 71.74.*.* and 198.97.*.* IPs, who are also probably two different persons. Look, if somebody has either DSL or dialup the IPs are going to change with each connection to the Internet. Your portrayal of this as some kind of deliberately deceptive practive, "This editor seems to be going out of his way to use changing IPs", shows a lack of knowledge of how Internet connections work. 70.108.96.254 09:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be a hard case to assume good faith here, anon .130. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's hard assuming good faith about you either, ever since you left that patronizing "test" script and reverted in response to removal of catholic pro-illegal immigrant advocacy linkspam from the article. Then you were also dubious and standoffish toward Morlesg when he/she showed up, until that person made it clear that they think the article isn't slanted enough in favor of illegal aliens at which point you suddenly became very enthusiastic: Aye, Aye, Morlesg! be bold and improve the article. the key to NPOV is to describe significant viewpoints without asserting them. See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. Happy editing. I have a hard time concluding that you are a neutral party with regard to that article or immigration in general. 70.108.96.254 21:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If you'd get a username it'd be easier to keep track of who is who. Otherwise we have to go by editing patterns, which seem to connect these IPs. "Hey you" gets old very quickly, exspecially if we don't know if the "you" of today is the same of the "you" of yesterday. -Will Beback 17:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And what if I already have a username, but just don't feel like signing in when editing immigration related articles knowing that it will earn my otherwise noncontroversial username emnity from certain admins who think they WP:OWN all the immigration related articles? 70.108.96.254 21:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a problem with the user AllTalking regarding the tagging of an image he uploaded. At the begining, he seemed to be acting in good faith, and just a little bit lost about image tagging in Wikipedia. But after he mentionned his willinnes to keep playing with the copyright tags "forever", I stepped out the case to ask for help here. The case is as follows:

The image was originaly marked as a {{Magazinecover}} (although it do not looks like a magazine cover) with no source information. Then I questioned the lack of source (with {{no source}}) and user AllTalking added the information that the image was "Scanned from a Butterick catalog from 1930" and used the deprecated {{fairuse}} tag, and then the {{fair use in}} tag (poiting to 1930, as it is the article where the image is used).

All the fair use image tags require "all available copyright information" and "a detailed fair use rationale", what was not present. So I marked the image with {{no license}}. Please, note that I had explained the issue in the Edit Summary". AllTalking then changed his mind and said the image was in public domain because it was published without a copyright notice "as required by law". He then used the also deprecated {{PD}} tag. After that, he combined this information in the more appropriated {{PD-because}} tag.

As the user's reasoning was not true, I reverted his editions and explained his mistake in the "Edit Summary", even including a link to the paragraph on the Copyright article explaing why the reasoning was mistaken.

The user AllTalking then added some info on that the copyright may or may not belong to someone called "Butterick" and (correcly, I would say) marked it as {{Unknown}}. But then again he changed his mind and asserted the image was a {{Newspapercover}} (but it really doesn't look like one to me).

At this point, I noticed that maybe it was completely beyond AllTalking's capabilities to determine the image's real copyright status. Then I reverted his changes again back to the original "no source" notice and begged him, in the Edit Summary, to "avoid playng with the copyright tags" if "unsure of image origins and copyright status".

AllTalking's only reply was to replace the No Source notice with the deprecated {{PD}} tag, and replace this one for the {{PD-ineligible}} tag.

I reverted back to the "No Source" tag, explaing him in the Edit Summary that that tag are only meant for images that "consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship", which was not the case.

AllTalking insisted on the {{PD-ineligible}} tag, and again on the {{Newspapercover}} tag.

I explained in the edit summary that (1) the image do not seems like a newspaper cover, (2) even if it was a newspaper cover, it couldn't be used the way it was being used (in the 1930s article), and (3) that the image was being called both a Newspaper cover and a fashion catalog.

At this point, for the first time used the Edit summary, and decided to use that to make jokes. In his next three edits he made jokes about his willing to "dance the whole night thru" a "NAUGHTY WALTZ". In these editions, he managed to mark the image as {{PD-ineligible}}, {{PD-Art}} and even {{PD-self}} (what's an willing untruth).

At this point I gave up. Would someone have the williness to explain this user that such an beautifull image (yes, that's my opinion) may be removed from Wikipedia if he keeps avoiding to correctly tag it? --Abu Badali 23:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have blocked him for 24h for disruption. Abu, maybe you will help the user to write a proper copyright rationale for the picture assuming it was scanned from a 1930 catalog. abakharev 00:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• You might get better results if you talked to each other on Talk pages instead of in edit summaries. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User: Stephen M. Colbert is violating username policy. Has also vandalized George Washington. --Natalie 01:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Stephen M. Colbert" is already blocked. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

21:06, 3 August 2006 DakotaKahn (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Stephen M. Colbert (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username) ~Kylu (u|t) 02:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Jbpo (aka 24.13.84.218 (talk · contribs), admitted here) has, over the course of several months on more than one talk page, conducted him/herself uncivilly in our interactions. Jbpo was not overly caustic for the most part, though perhaps uncivil at times.

Today, however, Jbpo posted these comments to Talk:Estate tax (United States). In the comments, Jbpo is uncivil toward three other editors (myself included), then attacks me, (1) he/she implies that the other editors are all being illogical, or at least not using "adult logic skills", (2) Jbpo "congratulates" the editors who rephrased his/her additions to the article for making it "convoluted" and stating "If convolution is the key to harmony on Wikipedia, then I applaud the convultion", (3) Jbpo accuses me of a "disinformation campaign to make Wikipedia into his personal set of definitions", and (4) Jbpo says the following about me, "I think he has reached a point where his entries are disurptive and disinformative to the nature and goodwill of the editors of this and many other entries". Essentially all of these comments appear to violate WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL.

I understand that I'm supposed to warn Jbpo about this behavior, which I did today. In retaliation, Jbpo posted the same warning template on my talk page.

For other examples of incivility on the part of Jbpo, see Talk:Barack Obama, such as this comment.

Jbpo and I do not see eye to eye on politics, it's fair for me to assume. However, I would never report someone here merely because I disagreed with a point they were attempting to argue in a logical, rational discussion on a talk page. Jbpo, through his/her persistent incvility and, now, personal attacks, has crossed the line from rational debate into unconstructive mudslinging. Because I am one of the only users, apparently, who have interacted regularly with Jbpo, I am posting this here instead of as a user conduct Rfc. Perhaps an administrator could asses the situation. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 01:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the incivility in the diff you provide from the Talk:Barack Obama page, but the Estate Tax diff is incivil. I'm not sure that I'd characterise them as personal attacks (which is the template you used on his talk page) but I can see why others might characterise it as such. If the real problem with this editor is that the sources they provide to avoid OR do not actually support the assertions made, then go ahead and gather the evidence carefully, and use it for an RFC or some such. my 2c. Pete.Hurd 02:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying you do not see any incivility in this comment? May I ask, then, what you believe Jbpo to be communicating in the comment? It says "If you insist on claiming POV on any post not written in the style of a PR flak, go ahead", which I was not doing. Jbpo is mischaracterizing my position to make me sound like an extremist. I'd say that is incivil, wouldn't you?

Regarding attacks, may I ask how you interpret "I think he has reached a point where his entries are disurptive and disinformative to the nature and goodwill of the editors of this and many other entries" and accusing me of conducting a "disinformation campaign"? Even if these aren't personal attacks, and I believe they are, they are quite incivil at the very least. Jbpo is saying that I am disrupting the Wikipedia community and that I am on a "disinformation campaign." This is a comment on me, not content or my arguments. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 03:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that all criticism qualifies as a personal attack in the sense of WP:NPA. Note that "Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel." is an example of a petty WP:CIVIL violation, not a serious WP:CIVIL violation, and not a WP:NPA violation. You & Jbpo are having an disagreement, and it could, and should, be conducted with more civility, but I don't see anything that clearly has crossed the lime of WP:NPA. FWIW, I consider the accusation made against Jbpo that he misrepresents his sources to be a serious accusation. If I were you, and I could back it up, that's what I would go with. Best regards, Pete.Hurd 06:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps I should have filed a user conduct Rfc to begin with as I initially thought. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz

This AfD was closed earlier, by a non admin, and appears to be closed improperly. There seems to be a question of sock's by others in the discussion (note:I am not in the discussion). Its my understanding that this should have been left up to an admin to decide, so I'm bringing it here for investigation. SynergeticMaggot 02:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. The user was an admin (checked their log), and its now changed. The admin said they were 'a contributor and editor' so I took that for granted. SynergeticMaggot 02:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It was an old AFD, from last September. New nominator didn't know how to renominate. I fixed the current nom. (If renom is as bad a sockfest as the last one, God help us.) Fan-1967 02:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Just an FYI: non-admins are entitle and encouraged by WP:ADMIN to participate in all aspects of Wikipedia, including closing AfD debates. Paul Cyr 02:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Only if the result is Keep or no consensus. If it's a delete, only an admin can do the deletion, so only an admin should close a delete result. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Only if the result is unambiguously keep, actually, according to the now thankfully reverted deletion process. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Current nom is actually the third, see Talk:Barbara Schwarz for links to the previous two. The article does have some attack characteristics and needs cleanup at minimum per BLP. Schwarz in my opinion is ill and articles like this aren't helping things. And I wouldn't say she's that "talked about" any more, outside of a few Usenet groups where she posts a lot. Phr (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:MonsterOfTheLake continues to blank his talk page (see User talk:MonsterOfTheLake) even after I showed him a Wikipedia message explicitly stating not to blank talk pages.

The dispute exists out of a personal argument over the article Turkification. He blocked me on AIM - I listed him here for vote stuffing and listed the chat conversation (with his username), but removed it after I was told it was in bad form to post it. Later I learned that people aren't supposed to revert their userpages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhisperToMe (talk • contribs)

You are obviously prohibited from making public personal chat logs on Wikipedia without the expressed permission of all parties involved. And you seem too involved to act as an administrator here. Please assemble a comprehensible account so another admin can step in. El_C 03:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I will not post the chat again. This is what happened: MOTL IM'ed me and asked me for help - he wanted me to vote "yes" to delete "Turkification" - He first asked me to vote in the article - I voted to keep the article - then he specifically told me to vote "yes" after I said "YES" on the chat - He and I debated. Then he asked me I voted yes when he told me not to, I said that I did, but I can reconsider. He blocked me from AIM.

I then contacted him on his talk page, (see edit history [164] ) - I first posted just to explain what we (the community) were going to do with the article [165] - He removed my message and responded "Don't add messages. You're not invited to post in this talk page."

While talking on Wikipedia's IRC channel I was told that "vote stacking" is to be frowned upon, so I posted [166] - A threat to put him on RFC, but I offered not to if I was unblocked. He responded: "Don't add messages to my talk page. Note to WhisperToMe: Who are you? I don't know you, nor did I ask you for in anything (who ARE you??). Piss off please." [167] I responded that I was who I was [168] He responded "--DO NOT ADD MESSAGES HERE-- I don't know who you are. Stop BSing my talk page please.)"

I found that I couldn't list him on RFC, so I opted to put him on the noticeboard [169] - There I posted the full chat log. I notified him of what I did. He replied that the chat log was fake and asked how I got hold of his username. User:RJN reverted his blanking, and he reverted back. I removed the chat log after I learned on IRC that it was in bad form. The Notice was archived. I talked on IRC and learned that blanking user talk pages is bad, so I responded that he wasn't supposed to blank userpages. He kept reverting my edits and edits of other Wikipedians (i.e. reverting of blanks) - I know why now: he thinks that userpages and user talk pages fall under the same rules. WhisperToMe 04:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering the chat-log incident, I'd say he is entitled to blank his talk page. There's no rule against blanking, except for admin notices. If the user continues to exhibit problematic conduct, let me know or place another notice on this board. El_C 05:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This user is repeatedly removing a {{nsd}} tag from Image:IMG_3006_crop.jpg despite my very clear explanation of what needs to be specified on the image. Another pair of eyes could be handy on this. Thanks. (→Netscott) 03:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that User:Banzai! reuploaded this image after it's prior deletion by Zanimum (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). (→Netscott) 03:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Zanimum appears to have speedily deleted this image because of User:Netscott’s insistence that it lacks a source and cannot be considered public domain, which is something of a stretch given the description on the image page as originally uploaded. I have no idea of the motives behind Netscott's vendetta against this image, and honestly I wouldn't much care, except that (judging from this page) he's now trying to besmirch my reputation where he thinks I won't see it. Which is just fantastic.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 03:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted Banzai! (talk · contribs) removal of the {{nsd}} tag per avoidant vandalism. (→Netscott) 03:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Only the person who took the photo can upload it, unless they've sold the rights. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Or, of course, if the photo is in the public domain, as is Image:IMG_3006 crop.jpg. See Wikipedia:Public domain.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 03:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll note that at least one other user has also removed the {{no-source}} tag (“I don't understand - source information is provided on the image page. I'm removing the no source template.” from Image_talk:IMG_3006_crop.jpg). The image page does include ample source information, as noted, so User:Netscott's insistence on keeping this tag remains a mystery.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 03:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And who put this image in the public domain? Where has this been announced? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

My roommate took the photo earlier this year and, as of yesterday, has released it into the public domain at my request. Full details are announced on the image page itself; I suppose we could furnish additional proof (a signed and notarized letter of release, for instance) but as a practical matter, I don't think we'd want to bother. And even supposing we did, what’s to stop User:Netscott from saying he can’t be sure we didn’t just fabricate such a letter of release? He’d have a point, too.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 03:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Just ask your roommate to open an account and upload the image herself. Alternatively I think there's a way for her to confirm by email that it's a PD image. Phr (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

At this point all that matters is that users of Wikipedia will be able to properly establish the public domain status of the image. Citing some friend named "Claire K." does not allow for this. (→Netscott) 03:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Only the person who took the photo can upload it, unless they've sold the rights.

Why must there be a sale? Copyright mentions that rights can be assigned by a copyright holder to others. Could not Clare K. just assign the rights to Banzai!, who as the freshly minted copyright holder could then proceed to release the image into the public domain? Lupin|talk|popups 04:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

When I asked over on the Village Pump a couple of months ago if my sister could take some photos for me to upload, I was told no, unless she sold me the rights. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Netscott and Image:IMG_3006 crop.jpg[edit]

Hello. User:Netscott has repeatedly inserted a {{no-source}} tag at the top of Image:IMG_3006 crop.jpg and removed the image from the source of the relevant page, despite the inclusion of proper source, date, location, and permission (with text statement) to release this image in the public domain. Netscott's behavior, while inexplicable to me, is extremely annoying, and has already resulted in the same image being deleted yesterday by an administrator who probably didn't notice that the no-source claim was then, as now, entirely spurious.

Can somebody remove the {{no-source}} tag from the top of Image:IMG_3006 crop.jpg and lock the page against further edits by User:Netscott? Thanks.

 —Banzai! (talk) @ 03:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but some friend of yours named "Claire K." does not a source make. (→Netscott) 03:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

All right, Netscott, I see I'm not the first person (last three sections) whose perfectly free-use Mel Gibson photo you've tagged for deletion. I give up, since you appear to be determined (for whatever bizarre reason) to make sure Mel Gibson, and only Mel Gibson, has no headshot in his article. All I wanted to do was provide a public domain image for Wikipedia's use. Even if you don't appreciate Clare's generosity, I certainly do, and in fact I plan to go take advantage of that same "generosity" right now. Toodles!  —Banzai! (talk) @ 04:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, is it "Clare K." or "Claire K."? The Mel Gibson article is rather high profile right now and as such it's normal that such attention is paid to it. (→Netscott) 04:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Her name is Clare, as I've previously indicated to you on my talk page. The only person who persists in calling her "Claire," I think, is you. Anyway—like I said—I'm not going to bother with this anymore. (I've restored the image one final time. Have at it, NetScott, if you insist.)  —Banzai! (talk) @ 06:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I see, I suppose it was where you said, "Come to think of it, even if these requirements were standard policy, they would be entirely useless. What's to stop someone from just making up these details? What's to stop me from making them up for Claire right here, right now? (Other than my impeccable sense of moral duty, of course.) :-P" that got me wondering about "Clare" vs. "Claire". Nothing has changed. Some friend of yours named "Clare K." is not a verifiable source. (→Netscott) 06:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it looks like I misspelled her name there. (sheepish grin)

However, WP:V doesn't apply here. She's not a source in the WP:Verifiable source sense. She's the source of the photo, i.e. the photographer. You're misusing the word "source"—or did you think only the New York Times is allowed to upload images?

 —Banzai! (talk) @ 06:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Some friend of yours named "Clare K." cannot be verified as a source for this image, therefore the "public domain" status of this image cannot be verified. (→Netscott) 06:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Um. How is the status of any other public domain image verified? You don't seriously think they're all uploaded by large publishing outfits?  —Banzai! (talk) @ 06:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave this final word and then leave WP:ANI to its business (this isn't a place for discussion). You uploaded the image originally citing the source as "My friend" then when pressed it became "my friend Clare", and when further pressed it became "My friend Clare K." ... with such a pattern of edits the true status (public domain or not) of this image is highly questionable. With no such details, no one can possibly independently verify the status of the original image you cropped as being in the public domain. Therefore the {{nsd}} tag on the image is entirely appropriate. (→Netscott) 06:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I find this to be incredibly foolish. KWH 08:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Colbert's lmapoon of Wikipedia not only unleashed a wave of attacks on the Elephant article, but has spilled over on to the Lutheranism article. Would someone do us the favor of s-protecting it for awhile? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 03:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection is now on. --JWSchmidt 03:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Might it be good to try to deflect vandals by mentioning that their entries would be more welcome at the Colbert wiki, wikiality.com? A sort of "(don't) fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" kind of thing? JDoorjam Talk 03:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Raven Symone (talk · contribs) is claiming to be the real actress. I'm assuming good faith, but we may want some verification. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We need to ensure that no impersonation is taking place here. El_C 03:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I dropped the user a note with a request; no AGFffff breached, I hope! El_C 03:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I believe you'll find that the first version of the user's page probably told more truth than fiction. It wasn't until 3 August 2006 (3 months after the account was created) that they chose to act as if they were Raven Symone. Not to say they aren't, but food for thought. ju66l3r 03:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked for username. And WP:RFCU on User:Cute 1 4 u -- Samir धर्म 03:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I seem to be missing the RFCU... Essjay (Talk) 04:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Decided against it. I suspect that user made User:Raven Symone and was messaging various talk pages purporting to be the actress. The issue is somewhat moot now that User:Raven Symone is blocked. -- Samir धर्म 05:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so we're not checking into whether Cute 1 4 u is Raven Symone? Essjay (Talk) 05:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Looked into it some more. Looks like a prank pulled by Cute 1 4 u on Lindsay1980, but I still think it's egregious. I posted on WP:RFCU. Thanks. -- Samir धर्म 06:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[170] [171] shows she is not Raven but an impostor of Raven. Again, I urge someone to file a checkuser on User:Cute 1 4 u.--Bonafide.hustla 04:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, I'm not one to assume bad faith, but note the similarities. It's a possibility that it's one user with several sockpuppets... talking with itself to defend itself, or they could be separate users who simply liked the templates the other was using. A checkuser might have some use in determining if one user is trying to pretend they are someone they are not, but it's a strange issue. Cowman109^Talk 05:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. User:Gemini531 also seems to be part of this group. see userpage and this peculiar comment [172]. Note that many of the friends listed on Cute 1 4 U are possible sockpuppets.--Bonafide.hustla 06:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Direct proof of connection between Lindsay and Cute 1 4 U. Proved Cowman's point. User alledgedly changed the signature. [173]--Bonafide.hustla 06:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• As indicated on RfCU, Cute 1 4 u = Raven Symone = Gemini531. Lindsay1980 appears to be a distinct editor. Essjay (Talk) 06:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There might be more sleeper socks. All of the friends listed on Cute 1 4 U's userpage should be under strong suspicion. I also urge admins to block Cute 1 4 u, Gemini 531 accordingly. (Raven Symone is already blocked indef.) Thanks--Bonafide.hustla 06:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If there were sleeper socks, they should have shown up on checkuser. I could find no other accounts besides these; any specific suspects should be added to the RFCU. Essjay (Talk) 07:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

WritersCramp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely on the 14th of july. Now it appears that a new user Black Mamba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has appeared with the exact same style of edits (single word user page, like all of the many many writerscramp sockpuppets) and he is editing the same pages - dog fighting, nazi pages, monkey-baiting/other baiting. Although they haven't caused any problems as yet - it seems pretty obvious to me that this is the same user, and by the the request for check user policy we should be able to block without doing a formal checkuser. Some admins might wanna see if they agree that this is the user evading his block, and do the needful thing. - Trysha ^(talk) 03:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely an exact same pattern of editing. Given Black Mamba (talk · contribs)'s relatively short editing history it would not be unreasonable to indefinitely block this sockpuppet too. (→Netscott) 05:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Investigated, concur. I have blocked Black Mamba. Just zis Guy you know? 11:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We have a copyvio issue on Mummy, see [174][175] and surounding difs. I need to go now and so don't have time to deal with it, so if someone would delete the section or rewrite accordingly it would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 05:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio found: It was introduced 13:22, 27 June 2006 by User:202.160.34.63. I've removed the copyrighted material, as the Chinese source clearly retains copyright. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, anyone up for checking the contributions of Cyber Lopez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Acefireburst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I'm in over my head in following what they're doing. --Calton | Talk 07:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Cyber lopez is blocked. Moving userpages isn't so bad in itself, but moving them into article space definitely is. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Moving userpages that don't belong to you anywhere *is* a big deal; I can't think of a reason that a legitimate contributor would be moving around userpages that don't belong to them. Essjay (Talk) 07:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I was thinking about the Redwolf24 incident. Not legitimate, but definitely not a big deal. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Geez, that was a long time ago, took me a minute to remember. I could see making an exception for a longstanding contributor who was having a bit of fun (though I seem to remember giving him a 17 second symbolic block a la Jimbo to remind him to avoid such things), but I don't think this really falls under the standard of giving an exception. To resort to cliche, such things should be exceptions, not the rule. (By the way, why are we using bullets?) Essjay (Talk) 07:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • There's been some edit warring in Hillman's user pages lately, but that's an unusual situation. Phr (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Polish stalker is back after me, persecuting me and revert warring on dozens articles using scores of IPs. Today's examples: [176], [177], [178], [179], [180]. Editing in such circumstances is unsupportable and the admins indifference is appaling. The issue has been raised here more than once but no action was taken against the malicious sockpuppet. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I might as well be a Vietnamese expat. I invite any admin to look at my contributions and judge them fairly, such as alphabetical orders, language tweaks, etc. Today's harvest: 83.5.221.19 07:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. I am setting up an account to knock the sockpuppet argument out, having attained veteran IP status. I would ask that a neutral admin (Mikka ;))judge this "persecution". P.S.S. You might want to tone down the sterotyping and racial inflammatory remarks. Regards.

Your talk is cheap. Even if you set another account like User:Reichenbach, it wouldn't change your ways of scanning my contributions and reverting arbitrarily every other one. That's what is called disruption and stalking here. Although all the IPs that you abuse are based in Warsaw, I don't rush to conclude that the Poles continue their crusade aimed at ousting me from editing Wikipedia, although that's what it looks like. If you think that the Poles are a different race from Russians and that my complaint at your stalking and inexplicable revert warring is "racial inflammatory", I congratulate you with it. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey I thought I was user:Molobo! Now Im user:Reichenbach! Unfortunately I set up an account to stem your slanderous accusations from now on and collect evidence of my contributions. And I suggest you put on a tin foil hat or the Poles are going to get you! And as to your racist remarks like at the French Wikipedia, where you profile blacks and Arabs, please explain how is stalking the Polish-way diferent from the Russian-way? Exactly my point. Truthseeker 85.5 08:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Eeep. Ghirla, that kind of thing really doesn't help. Why do you do this? (It says something like "I'd like to come to France sometime, but I hear the French prefer Arabs and Blacks, so it's better that I stay where I am!"). Phr (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Spahbod (talk, contribs) previously known as User:Darkred (talk, contribs) is actively reverting edits for no other reason than because they are by me (Last 24 hours: [181][182][183][184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191]).

In addition, Spahbod appears to have switched to the present account to bypass an indefinite block on Darkred [192]. Spahbod's admission that he was Darkred is here

Also, as is evident from a) his edit comments ^[1,2] b) from his comments on my talk page c) his comments to others (on my talk page and elsewhere),

• Spahbod repeatedly fails to be civil
• Harasses other users when they refuse to give in to his bullying.
• Stalks their contributions just to revert them
• foments discord [193][194]
• repeatedly accuses other users of "vandalism" [195][196][197][198][199][200], and fails to cite WP:VANDAL when prompted to do so by users or admins.
• is malicious towards users/admins who intervene on behalf of others [201]
• threatens users when these warn him for incivility. Spahbod's tactic in dealing with warnings appears to be to turn those around to appear as if he is the one being unfairly treated. As such, its to be expected that he'll do that here as well. [202][203] (in the first link he also makes it appear as if his position is supported by an admin).

I personally don't care if he calls me any names he likes, but the blind reverting is totally out of line. Spahbod's bypass of his block is (for me, here, now) secondary. -- Fullstop 08:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

For me, the avoidance of his block is primary. He's been indefblocked, relying on the block set by User:InShaneee for its justification. Please bring this matter to the attention of ArbCom. ~Kylu (u|t) 10:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but at the top of WP:AE it says: Reporting of other types of incidents (e.g. blocked users evading blocks, etc) that do not involve the Arbitration Committee is done on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:AN/I). -- Fullstop 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard and the Arbitration Committee. Kylu isn't suggesting taking it to WP:AN/AE, she's suggesting taking it to WP:RFAR. Essjay (Talk) 12:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly aren't we just indef blocking for block evasion? --InShaneee 18:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I did, based on your block in fact. The reason I asked for ArbCom to be notified is because the user I blocked is currently involved in an RFAr case. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, alright, I misunderstood you. Much appreciated. --InShaneee 22:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I blocked User:Damburger for continued incivility and disruption at September 11, 2001 attacks and its related talk page. The user does not believe the term "terrorist" should be used to describe the 19 hijackers who carried out the attacks that day, and though he very clearly does not have consensus to make the edit he wishes to, insists that he does have consensus and makes the edits in question anyway. His final edit on the 9/11 talk page, before I blocked him, demonstrated an unfortunately typical disregard for our civility policies. (Incidentally, the "threats" he refers to seem to be in reference to this message from Golbez warning him to seek consensus and to stop pretending he has it. I submit this block for further administrator review. JDoorjam Talk 09:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not unreasonable, although I would have just gone for 12 or 24 hours, as blocking is for prevention, not punishment. However, it's extremely important not to use rollback on his edits, as they are not vandalism. Against consensus, unreasonable, and even partisan, but not vandalism. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

List_Expert (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has written a rant accusing those who seek to delete articles such as list of sexual slurs as "policy enforcing zealots", and spammed it onto dozens of article Talk pages. I have reverted the majority of these as unnecessarily aggressive. What the hell is wrong with enforcing policy anyway? Other than the fact that, per policy, some content this editor likes is clearly problematic? This appears to be a ssingle-purpose account. I have warned for incivility. Just zis Guy you know? 11:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There is some reason to believe that this user is a reincarnation of perma-banned user:Primetime/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime. Primetime was an active editor and zealous defender of List of ethnic slurs and List of sexual slurs. -Will Beback 17:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on looking through Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr and the creation of:

• Russian military ranks history.
• Air Force ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation.
• Military ranks of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
• Military ranks of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
• Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation.
• Naval ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation.
• Air Force ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation.

I have blocked User:Tors and User:Rostiki as being sockpuppets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs)

Good call. Ties in with Wikibofh's indef-block of spektorsy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Just zis Guy you know? 15:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Acadamenorth (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) was indef-blocked by Friday (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as having indicated a determination not to respect policy (see also this threat and the usual talk page whitewashing). Actually what the user says is "I have thoroughly read the wikipedia policies and I have decided I have not broken any of those". So that's alright then... Anyway, he's now unblocked (again by Friday) due to collateral damage caused by autoblocks. I think the block should stand; not only was his first action after the unblock to come and start harassing me again, he's a serial reposter of deleted content, Acadame north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acadame north) was indeed a repost of Acadame North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and I think it also appeared under other variants of spacing and capitalisation. Just zis Guy you know? 15:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd been hoping he wouldn't notice he'd been unblocked. I've no objection to anyone reblocking. Friday (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at his edits this morning since the unblock. Not exactly vandalism, but still pretty much worthless. Look at his idea of an acceptable article to create, which has since been basically wiped out by editors with knowledge of the subject at hand (Tito). Fan-1967 18:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism is not allowed. Admin refuses to even allow the NPOV tag despite multiple users complaining about the glorification of The Guardian. Admin will no doubt deny everything and post ridiculous rationale/excuse for his/her actions. Same old nonsense. Almost gets boring. Almost. Tchadienne 17:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. No administrative action has been taken, and none seems to be needed. If you are interested in getting more editors involved in the article, please see WP:RFC. Jkelly 18:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If I didnt want administrative action to be taken, then why would I mention this? I'm asking for the page to be protected, at the bare minimum. If possible I'd like an administrator's intervention/opinion on the matter on the page in question. Tchadienne 18:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Except for protecting pages during heated edit wars, administrators have no special authority to intervene in content disputes. As stated above, this is a content dispute which users must work out between themselves. If some of those users are also admins, they are not acting in their administrative capacity—to do so would be against policy. -- SCZenz 18:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Tchadienne's version has been opposed by everyone who has shown up so far. But it's not that everyone tries to cover up any criticism the way he wants it to seem. The points others made on the talk page should make it clear that they act in good faith. To end the war, one probably only has to block him because his adding back the dispute-tag can be seen as a revert, which is his fourth today. And he's promised to go on. Sciurinæ 18:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think there's a 3RR violation, report it on WP:AN/3RR, please. -- SCZenz 18:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I, for my part, won't. Reporting always wastes an incredible amount of precious time and I've got to go. Sciurinæ 18:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

WTH? How is adding the NPOV tag a rv? Explain that. Tchadienne 20:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion page for Matrixism has been protected and can only be accessed by administrators. I can understand why someone might want to protect the Matrixism entry itself but to protect the discussion page seems to be very much against the spirit of Wikipedia. D166ER 18:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the article has been deleted, discussion should be taken to Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Talk pages of deleted pages can be legitimately deleted per the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion page, and then protected if the content is recreated repeatedly. -- SCZenz 18:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The user has gone on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel Defense Forces using human shields and accused users voting delete of the following: Most of the ridiculous delete arguments are made by Israelis and in line with a massive propaganda operation [| Operation Megaphone] being orchestrated by the Israeli Gov't. [204] Not only is does this break with WP:Civility but it also breaks with WP:NPA which specifically states that "Accusatory comments", such as thing one that accuse users of being "Israeli spies", are personal attacks. --Jersey Devil 18:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The accusations made by User:Sarastro777 really is in line with everthing else he has written. His entire reason for editing wikipedia seems to center around the addition of anything negative about Israel, often violating civility and good faith and indeed reason and common sense in process. Sarastro is a problematic user to the extreme.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but he justifies his personal attacks, and claims that pointing them out is actually an attack on him! [205] Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Is an administrator going to respond to this?--Jersey Devil 23:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

His user page says, "A lot of these "activists" are "Administrators" on Wikipedia and if following the orders of the Israeli Gov't will collude to ban and intimidate you, despite how it affects Wikipedia." I think I'm supposed to suggest that someone on good terms with him ask nicely that he rephrase that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, let's review one of your edit messages: "...you have shown nothing but contempt for good faith, civility, and indeed reason and common sense, I implore you to begin reading wikipedia policy before you make even one more contribution as you have become a literal nightmare to deal with.- User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)"

A violation of basically every rule you just accused me of breaking. Basically most of the people upset over the controversy are extremist Israelis upset to see me having adding human rights violations to a Human Rights article. On here are a lot of people bent out of shape about a controversial operation by the Israeli gov't and my opinion on its implications for Wikipedia. Rather than coming to terms with their own inner conflicts on the matter, I am labeled anti-Israeli and a bunch of other horrible things. Meanwhile this group is planning on how to best censor the information. Were any people singled out for personal name calling and ridicule? Of course not :-) There are no personal attacks, but some must go on a fishing expedition for guidelines in order to justify the deletion of information that they wish didn't exist. Sarastro777 04:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Bobbyp69 seems to be an account created solely to circumvent the anonymous editing ban on the article Penis. Other than that he has vandalized Penncrest High School. [Those are all his contributions so far]. As we are dealing with an obvious troll here, I did not want to give the matter more attention than it was worth and simply wanted to bring it to the attention of any Admin so he can quickly deal with the matter. — Mütze 20:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Already dealt with, in fact. [206] -- SCZenz 20:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're quick.

Should this account be blocked as an improper (famous person) name? -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The account is already blocked because of his vandalous edits. Ryūlóng 23:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)