by 70.23.199.239 (talk · contribs) on Talk:Nadine Gordimer (diff). user has been warned and blocked a couple of times before for incivility and personal attacks. Doldrums 08:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

After a new series of diatribes ([1][2], etc., I blocked this account for 1 month. This is the 4th block of the account for personal attacks or incivility. -Will Beback · † · 17:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrative review

Yakuman has questioned my one-month block of 70.23.199.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have offered to immediately remove the block if the user communicates his intent to avoid stop making uncivil remarks and personal attacks. I invite review of this block. -Will Beback · † · 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

See also: WP:COIN:70.23.199.239, a recent, extended discussion of this user. -Will Beback · † · 19:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The block appears reasonable. Guettarda 20:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is part of a long content dispute between both editors, stretching over several months. They frequent racially controversial articles; IP claims there's an ideological dispute, which boiled over into a number of policy violations by a group of people, including the admin. IP specifically alleges WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:AGF and especially WP:STALK against Will Beback, whom he says is looking for a chance to implement a permanent ban. (For specifics, ask him; I've only been following this a few weeks.)

Will Beback claims that "the block needs to be long enough to change the behavior." To IP, this is another attempt at intimidation, to which he answers per WP:IAR. Ergo the so-called diatribe must be read in context. In my view: I don't think the punishment fits the crime -- and a month-long ban is overkill. Will Beback was not the admin to handle this, as he inserted himself into a content dispute. Also, I suggested he cut it back and he refused. IMHO, this is a case of WP:BITE that got way, way out of hand. Yakuman (数え役満) 21:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yakuman, I've never been in any content dispute with this editor. My only dispute with him was over his insertion of dozens of link to his blogs and other self-promotion. -Will Beback · † · 21:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

We discussed this before. You were tagging on-topic print magazine article cites as "blogs" until I showed up. (That's what made me interested in this mess.) When 70 spoke up, you apparently blew him off. Meanwhile, there remains some IP wikistalker (not you), who follows him around, reverting every edit. He showed up today and attacked him. Again, I don't see you doing anything, even though 70 has mentioned it several times. No wonder he's mad. Yakuman (数え役満) 21:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Those were not content disputes. Whether blogs or print articles all the items I removed were links to online articles written by the editor. It was a simple case of WP:COI which was discussed at length on that noticeboard. Editors there agreed that the more immediate problem was 70.23.199.239's incivility and personal attacks. It would have probably ended there but 70.23.199.239 made this fresh set of extremely uncivil postings across a number of pages. The more correct length of a block should be "long enough to change the behavior or prevent further disruption'". I've offered to shorten the block if the user will commit to abiding by Wikipedia policies. -Will Beback · † · 21:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

While hashing this out goes beyond the scope here, I'll just point out one thing: Look through his posts and look past the rhetorical hyperbole. He mentions some specific disputed items and sources that are not COI, even by your standard. Yakuman (数え役満) 22:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Though all of the edits I dealt with were self-promotional I'll grant you that he also made some that didn't include links to his own material. However what brought him here today were his personal attacks. User:Durova did nothing to deserve the despicable description posted by this editor. These attacks are inappropirate for Wikipedia. The user has been warned about incivility by many editors and has been blocked by four different admins, including myself. The community is losing patience with this user who doesn't seem to show any intention of changing his behavior. -Will Beback · † · 22:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I just saw that diff and laughed out loud. I suppose it was intended as an insult but it hits the spot as absurdist humor. Thank you for the defense, Will. Durova^Charge! 06:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That was a serious grievance, humourously stated. Also, I can't believe that the community consists of several people, plus sockpuppets, who follow this guy from page to page. Yakuman (数え役満) 23:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A footnote on the debate at WP:COIN:70.23.199.239: If 70.23 would calm down a little so we could actually talk to him, the editors at the COI noticeboard would have wanted to discuss his repeated addition of links to his own web-published articles. Will Beback supplied 39 examples. Often this editor would reinsert these links after they had been legitimately removed by other editors, sometimes with a scornful edit summary, announcing that he was repairing vandalism! He considers the removal of these links and the ensuing blocks to be part of a conspiracy against him, perhaps triggered off by an editing dispute at the Nadine Gordimer article. He seems unaware that those following up on this are trying to enforce policy and may not even have read the disputed article. EdJohnston 04:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I decided to enter this debate when on-topic print magazine articles were deleted as "blogs." Many of his edits were perfectly good cites and I vouched for then. Even when 70 posted other cites unrelated to Nicholas Stix, who is not verified as this IP, the same group was reverting them. That's not just enforcing policy.

As far as calming down and such, that's probably covered under NPA, I guess. You shouldn't be blocked for it, but neither should 70. He sees himself backed into a corner, with some justification. Let's lift that block. Yakuman (数え役満) 05:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read through 70.23.*'s comments on his own talk page and the Nadine Gordimer talk page, extensively, and in general I have not seen other people (including myself) engaging in personal attacks or uncivil behavior. I'm sure there are occasional comments that someone could point to from other folks that could be construed as uncivil, but as generously as possible, at least 90% of the personal attacks and uncivil behavior in any engagement that I've seen 70.23.* involved in have come from 70.23.*. Moreover, 70.23.* claims he is being wikistalked, but from my read, the only thing that comes close is the ongoing edit war between 130.* and 70.23.*, which is mutual on both sides and spans multiple pages. I haven't seen "some justification" or any justification for 70.23.*'s behavior, and it makes the editing experience extremely unpleasant for people that 70.23.* disagrees with. People can assess for themselves: I've been assembling relevant links at User talk:Lquilter/NG7023history preparatory for future engagements with 70.23.* and mediation on the NG page.--lquilter 14:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been following this since it was posted on the COI noticeboard in mid-March. The richly deserved one month block (after previous and equally deserved 31 hour, 24 hour and 48 hour blocks) is not an indefinite block. — Athænara ✉ 22:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how exactly to categorise this, but it seems to be a disruptive edit pattern that amounts to vandalism. Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is voting "Strong Keep" to every single article in WP:AFD - see history - for silly reasons such as "because I would like to learn more about this", "because I recall seeing Cracked frequently in stores growing up", "because cool idea for an article", "to keep things interesting!", "because Robot Chicken is an active show and always ends with that Stupid Monkey thing!" etc. Tearlach 16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I would call this disruptive. It appears the editor is opining in good faith. Granted, if I were closing these I don't see most of his arguments having much merit to support the opinions he's rendering, but I also don't see evidence he's doing anything other than puting his two cents in. I'll hit his talkpage and suggest he review some policies, etc and try and frame his reasonings along those lines.--Isotope23 16:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As you say, there are limits on what goes into Wikipedia (e.g. WP:ISNOT, failure to provide WP:RS) and also ones on what constitutes acceptable evidence for inclusion (such as WP:NOR). If this user's edits are not based within the framework of such policies and guidelines, it's disruptive to the purpose of creating Wikipedia. Besides, it's a little hard to believe in the good faith of the more facetious reasons. Tearlach 17:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • He's trying to illustrate a point that he thinks "hard work shouldn't be deleted." He's made about 45 "Strong Keep" !votes in about an hour; there's no way to read an article and all of the arguments for or against it at that rate. I do think it's disruptive. Leebo ^T/C 17:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Personally, I'm not going to make a big deal out of it; realistically no closer is going to be swayed to keep based on the reasoning there. Another admin may see it differently though.--Isotope23 17:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• I think that there are much more heinous examples than this of "disruptive editing" that we should be focusing our attention on. People are allowed to make meritless arguments. - Crockspot 17:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• I've marked all of the AFD discussion contributions by that editor. Several of them were clearly made just for the sake of saying "strong keep" rather than out of any regard for writing an encyclopaedia, such as opining to keep clear hoaxes or unsourced rumours, and some other edits such as this indicate that disruption is the intent here. But this is something that we've dealt with at AFD before. The usual approach is to simply note the editor's actions so that the closing administrator can give xyr rationales an appropriate weight. Closing administrators are not vote-counting robots, and can be relied upon to treat such discussion contributions appropriately, once the pattern is pointed out. Uncle G 17:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Hello! I thought my reasons were good, but I guess we all have different opinions, and I'm learning more and more about Wikipedia and how it's users think every day. Anyway, I just wanted to help out others who spend time making articles that might be able to be improved rather than having their work wasted. Have an excellent evening! --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds like disruption to me...and anyway, his username is an obvious violation of WP:U. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 21:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • How? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I believe he's referring to the fact that it's generally discouraged to use "Wikipedia" in one's username. However, I do see some sort of disruption here. I will leave W,H,F? a message on his talk page summarizing these concerns.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't see a problem with his username. After extensive discussion, WP:U no longer says not to use "Wikipedia" as a part of your username. The initial concern was that names that used Wikimedia-related terms violated the Foundation's copyright. In any sense, I doubt the rule was intended to ban names that refer to one's participation in/feelings about Wikipedia. If you feel his username is inappropriate, feel free to list him at WP:RFC/NAME. szyslak (t, c) 22:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Having been thoughtfully invited here from the Stoopid Monkey AfD by Uncle G, allow me to comment: I believe this user is acting in good faith in order to keep articles that he feels are valuable. A single instance of 45 similar edits in an hour is hardly indicitative of disruption unless it were clear vandalism; stating an opinion, even what might be a misguided one, in a discussion page doesn't even approach vandalism. And I'm sure if I looked in the AfD archives I could find plenty of examples of editors who have gone around to at least as many AfD pages, in at least as short an amount of time, inserting opinions of "Delete, listcruft" or "Delete, fancruft", and they are not similarly chastised. If the arguments are meritless, the closing admin will see that and take it into consideration. On the other hand, it could certainly be argued that following a user around and commenting on all his AfD opinions in an attempt to discount them based on the user's edit history (rather than addressing the merits or lack thereof of the individual arguments) is disruptive, being possibly an example of both stalking and biting a newbie, and perhaps even a personal attack. DHowell 21:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not the speed alone, nor is it the opinion. It's the speed combined with the facts that the opinion is the same everywhere, even in the cases of clear hoaxes, and the several edits that pretty much state outright that disruption is the intent. This is nothing new at AFD. It's not as if this is the first person ever to have gone on such a spree. The way that we deal with it, and have dealt with it for several years, now, as described in the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, is to simply place a note against the discussion contributions for the benefit of the closing administrators. The only assumption of bad faith here is yours, in assuming that noting the pattern is a personal attack (which it of course isn't) and assuming that tracking a pattern of disruption is stalking (which that isn't, either, per the very page that you linked to above). Uncle G 09:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• While I wish this user would spend more time analyzing these articles and providing clearer rationales for retention, I see nothing disruptive in his actions. The rationales provided are far more informative than many of the usual "Delete - nn" variety, often rattled off at rates far, far higher than the 45 per hour evidenced by the accused. If lack of rationale and time between votes are going to be treated seriously as an issue, and appropriate standards are established to eliminate the problem, there will be far many more delete voters eliminated than speedy keepers. Alansohn 04:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That isn't the issue, and you should not be turning this into a proxy for a debate about inclusionism and deletionism, which it actually has nothing at all to do with. See the diffs hyperlinked to above and the contributions history, for what the issue actually is. (That you haven't got the opinion given in this case correct strongly indicates that you haven't reviewed the diffs provided or the contributions history. Please look at the actual edits in this case.) Moreover: Discussion contributions such as "NN, D" are also things that should be noted, with editors politely encouraged to provide good rationales in their stead, as a matter of fact; and there was once a case of an editor going on a similar spree to this one with that very rationale. Please read User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving rationales at AFD and Wikipedia:AfD Patrol. Uncle G 09:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I have no idea what this individual's motivations are. What I do see in having reviewed every single diff before weighing in with my opinion, is that the overwhelming majority of this individual's votes clearly address the articles in question and give specific reasons for retention, even if they do not use thw Wikibuzzwords and cryptic references to policy we'd all prefer to see. While I would also appreciate greater insight into Wikipedia policy, I see that this person is doing a far better job of justifying his votes than the overwhelming majority of AfD participants, pro or con. You have simply not established that this editor is being disruptive. Alansohn 14:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Basically, he can go do that all he likes, and if he's not making a clear, policy- and source-based argument, whoever closes the AfD can and should ignore it. If he really wants the articles kept, he would certainly do himself a service to make such arguments, but if he wants to spam WP:ILIKEIT across every AfD we got it won't make a bit of difference anyway. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• I think I smell a sock. Will follow up with details soon. Durova^Charge! 05:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is one of the site's long term vandals (and an excellent example of why it was a baaad idea to deactivate WP:RFI). The Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? account is a bad hand sockpuppet of User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles whom I blocked for six weeks on November 8, 2006 for attempted vote fixing at WP:AFD and gross violations of WP:POINT.[3] And of course, the new account started its life while that lengthy block was in place.[4] This editor knew he couldn't get away with massive AFD disruption on the old account anymore (I had warned him he was close to an indef) so he returned with his usual florid courtesy on that account and kept the other one to play around as the new persona who supported absolutely every wretched article regardless of site policies. The prose style is inimitable and piqued my curiosity immediately. Two representative examples:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congratufuckulations (6 November 2006): Keep! Classic name for an article; actually made me laugh! :) Anywho, Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers,[5]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimelo! Records (10 April 2007): *Strong Keep, because companies are signigficant and it's useful to learn more about them for consumers.[6]

I soon confirmed that, among other things, both accounts have edited Parma, Ohio and [7] and List of light gun games.[8] Slightly more complicated is obvious unregistered editing at 164.107.223.217, which resolves to Ohio State University.[9][10] I've indef blocked both registered accounts and put a 12 hour block on the IP - it's kind of hard to do longer if it could have a general effect on one of the largest universities in existence - but this person seems to know that unregistered users seldom carry weight at AFD.

Now for the rant: tracking this type of abuse is exactly the sort of thing that RFI excelled at when it had enough mops to operate. No other board has the focus and followup to replace its function and these problems do not go away; they go underground. These days my own user talk page gets about 60 new threads a week, a substantial percentage of which are personal appeals for assistance from people who know I do investigations, and I also get requests via e-mail. When the community deactivated WP:RFI it was shooting itself in the foot. WP:AN and WP:ANI do not and cannot replace it because they see too much other traffic. The ill effects of neglect in this area just aren't as obvious as an overstuffed WP:CSD backlog, but the consequences are more pernicious. Durova^Charge! 06:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, now I agree. I knew I'd seen that before (I was involved in the discussion with Le Grand Roi and basically going through CAT:PROD and removing everything), and it would have been useful to have something like that. I've gotten some similar requests too, and it would be nice to have a central place to track them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice work there Durova!--Isotope23 13:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree with this, even if there is sockpuppetry involved. I don't think that any of this user's actions, either now, or then, amounted to "disruption" (which is an element of the "bad hand" sockpuppetry accusation). The November 2006 actions looked like a new user stating a similar opinion (probably misguided, maybe even totally wrong) on several AfD pages, several users biting him (but some giving him constructive criticism), and then he was temporarily blocked for "vote fixing" (I thought AfD wasn't a vote!) because apparently an IP address that was possibly his participated in an AfD that he was in. I also see a number of positive and constructive edits by this user. He is obviously an extreme inclusionist, and I can understand his frustration with the deletion process on Wikipedia, which in some cases does indeed go overboard on the side of deleting articles (it definitely goes overboard on the side of deleting images, but that's whole other discussion). Nevertheless this user was always extremely WP:CIVIL in his comments, and seemed willing to learn the process, though apparently it was taking longer than some people's patience would allow.

That being said, if this user wants to return he can appeal his block. He probably won't, however, and I believe that is Wikipedia's loss. DHowell 20:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The summary at this thread by no means covers all of the deception and inappropriate behavior on the part of this editor, such as his extensive sockpuppet attempts to thwart last fall's investigation or the disruption he's caused to articles that weren't up for AFD. This is a vandal, pure and simple, and one who's been clever enough to dodge scrutiny for several months. If there's a serious movement to unblock him I can post a more comprehensive report. Complex investigations are my specialty. Durova^Charge! 20:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look at my first comment, I was more than ready to extend WP:AGF, but I trust Durova's judgement here. There are socks and disruptive editors that I could spot a mile away if they showed up again, just because I've dealt with them extensively in the past and I'm sure Durova can too.--Isotope23 20:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Durova's judgement here, but I have to mention that Wikipedian's edits on Parma, Ohio have been constructive, and I've been working with him/her on the article. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's tough when an editor who's been helpful in one area turns out to have been up to unacceptable behavior elsewhere. That happens sometimes and this individual had carried on this way for months. Durova^Charge! 20:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Several of the links in Dime go to some random website. Like Fasces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.157.2 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 10 April 2007

Unrelated....hagermanbot not working? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 22:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the FA article? Which links? - Denny ^(talk) 01:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Dime (United States coin) isn't "unrelated" to Fasces. On the dimes issued from 1916 to 1945, with Liberty's head on the obverse (the "heads" side), look at the reverse ("the "tails" side) and you will see the symbolic fasces. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked User:Hotshots2006 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) for a vandalism spree (blanking user pages, name calling, etc.) He's uploaded a bunch of images ([11]) and tagged them all as "public domain"; I strongly suspect they're copyvios. What does anyone think? Blowtorch them all right away? They're currently listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 10 thanks to the diligence of a couple other editors. Antandrus (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hotshots2006 hardly sounds like a scrupulous editor; I'd delete the whole lot. -- Hoary 03:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just returned as Lucycl0ver (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), which I just blocked (without checkuser, I'm going on the usually reliable duck test for this one). Antandrus (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Aw, and here I thought I could get in on the ground floor of this exciting opportunity...--Isotope23 13:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone delete these images as db-vandalism? I'm fairly sure it applies; there's no need to allow our servers to get clogged up with almost certainly non-free pornographic images uploaded by a troll in order to disrupt. WP:SNOW, guys. 64.178.96.168 13:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I got rid of them. I left some images he uploaded last year of places in Goa; those photos didn't look particularly suspicious. Antandrus (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm about 99% sure this is just a joke, but for completeness, and because it's funny, I figured I'd add it here. This quote below came to us on the Unblock-en mailing list.

Dear sirs, I am a deposed prince from the West African nation of Niger. I use my wikipedia account to help me find foreigners who may help me get my numerous and millions of funds out of country before the government controlled mob in my country can get me. My wikipedia account was unblocked as spamful. If any of you may unblock and help me, I will transfer 200 thousand of american dollars to your bank account, after the completion of a small, 200 dollar account transfer from you to me to prove the account exists. I thank you rapidly for your attention in this manner, Mr. Wikipedia. -Mgumbe

Anyway, just thought I'd mention it here in case it pops up somewhere on site. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I put it on BJAODN; I know that that page is pretty bad, but this is one of those times where a significant amount of people will probably actually find it funny. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Geez, that BJAODN is really getting a lot of crap piled on it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Shame that good stuff like this gets lost in the shuffle too.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Forward the email to the government-controlled mob. Or should it be the mob-controlled goverment? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Mr. Wikipedia the winner of a male beauty contest? x42bn6 Talk 03:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the creator of the message emailed me privately, and told me it was a test to see if there are spam filters on Unblock-en-l, and that there is no on-wiki scam. It's a good joke though.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I know a guy from FreeRepublic who would be happy to reply to this deposed prince, and lead him on the wild goose chase of his life. - Crockspot 20:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

He wouldn't happen to be down with the 419eater crew would he?--Isotope23 18:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick! Make me an admin! I need the money. --Otheus 21:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

70.51.8.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is spamming user talk pages to get input on a deletion discussion. --NE2 06:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Iamunknown, for reverting. --NE2 06:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No problemo. I added an addendum to your note that RfD is consensual, so asking for opinions from editors of a known background is discouraged. (Well, I kinda said it like that.) --Iamunknown 06:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of what forms of canvassing are acceptable, see also [[12]] which was a newsletter created and sent out on March 10, 2007 to a long list of about 190 editors including NE2 just as soon as two such articles were put up for deletion, including the dire warning:

Notability of state highways is challenged

By Rschen7754 & Vishwin60 Three AFD nominations this week have become crucial towards the welfare of the over 5400+ U.S. road articles. With the accidental destruction of a long-standing precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents regarding the notability of state highways, some have decided to challenge the existence of the 5400+ U.S. road articles.

The debates began when County Route 66 (Dutchess County, New York) and Minnesota State Highway 127 were nominated for deletion. The precedent of the notability of highway articles was mentioned, but some refused it, challenging the justice of this precedent. Furthermore, some questioned the legitimacy of having all of the state highway articles on Wikipedia.

After Pennsylvania Route 999 was mentioned in a debate, a user nominated it for deletion, possibly to serve as a WP:POINT. At this stage, the same user stated an intention to delete all 5400+ road articles. When California State Route 37 was mentioned, it was nominated for deletion by this same user, ignoring the fact that the article is a good article. This last nomination was quickly closed as a speedy keep.

Currently, the AFDs are showing a consensus to keep. However, dangerous precedents could be set here that could result in drastic catastrophe for the U.S. Roads articles. Your voice is needed to ensure that our highway articles are not deleted and can be maintained for the benefit of all.

Sources: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 999, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California State Route 37, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota State Highway 127, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 66 (Dutchess County, New York)

NE2 is a member of the USRD project and received said newsletter on March 10, 2007, without objecting to the vote canvassing. If people can canvass 190 editors to keep 2 articles they like, then how is it permissible to go to 12 editors talk pages and delete similar vote canvassing or "friendly notice" to those editors known to have an interest in a given type of AFD by someone else with a different view? Edison 14:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel to revert blatant canvassing on sight whenever you like. --Iamunknown 19:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Does that include, in your estimation, a newsletter sent to a couple of hundred members of a project urging them to go to an AFD and KEEP a favored article? Seems extreme to delete the content of other people's talk pages as you did to mine and 11 others. Wouldn't it be better to simply avoid such canvassing? Edison 05:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Felt a need to remove this (my) comment from Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah[13]. On my talkpage she posted:

"WP:BLP: This is a BLP violation. If you post anything like it again, I'll request admin action. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)"[14]

Not sure why she feels I am not allowed to insult historical figures. KazakhPol 06:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You were out of order because you violated NPOV and created defamation to an article. Note that Wikipedia is not the place to put your personal views of a specific person. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 06:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I violated NPOV on the talkpage? I created "defamation"? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's prohibition on making legal threats? Can someone else comment here? KazakhPol 07:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any legal threat. --Ezeu 07:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Where, exactly, has anyone made a legal threat? No one has said anyone's going to sue anyone. – Chacor 07:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any legal threat either. --Aminz 07:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I see this is pointless. The legal threat was obviously regarding Kzrulzuall's comment. KazakhPol 07:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're going to make a legal threat based upon my comment? When I said defamation, it was based upon the basic term not about suing you for anything, in case I misunderstood you. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 07:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to block KazakhPol for disruption. When an admin tells you not to violate BLP, just don't do it. El_C 10:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Without going into merits of this case, I'd just like to point at "when an admin tells you" and laugh loudly. Admins are not police, and trying to give the impression that we are just makes us look ridiculous. Zocky | picture popups 11:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was interesting. El_C 11:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, KazakhPol and SV have a kind of history here. Although, it is quite apparent that SV did the right thing by removing the defamatory statement as it might have been taken as inflammatory by other users. Technically, a deceased person cannot be defamed by the means of libel or slander. There is no basis for an immediate block here. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nick, the libel is not against the boy, but against his mother, who is alive and is named in the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

When an admin removes your edit, telling you you violated BLP, it's best not to restore that edit. Don't you think, Zocky? Or are you suddenly at a loss for words? El_C 11:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

El C, it doesn't matter if the user who tells you not to violate BLP is an admin or not. Users are expected to follow policy, not to obey admins. Zocky | picture popups 11:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

An admin is sanctioned to enforce policy, what are you talking about? Obviously. El_C 11:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey you guys. Don't want this discussion to be too heated... That comment was asking for trouble EL_C... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What comment would that be? That I am inclined to block for disruption? Because I am. El_C 11:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The "loss for words" part you said to Zocky. If you didn't mean it, disregard it. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Seemed to have been the lolz case. El_C 11:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops... (Another reason why I will never be a lawyer)... The legal threat is what worries me... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The only potential BLP issue I see here in the boy's mother, is she still alive? The question of whether or not Al-Durrah himself is alive is very seriously covered in this article. (→Netscott) 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the person did say that "The legal threat was obviously regarding Kzrulzuall's comment." which either means that she's going to sue me or the other way around... Seeing my idiocy of the law, its very doubtful i'm going to sue... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't she be alive. It makes sense that she is. El_C 11:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with Zocky on the 'point and laugh' response to the 'admins are always right' theory being advanced... and making a "BLP violation" out of a comment on the talk page of a presumably dead person takes a bit of a stretch... it would require we assume the kid isn't dead... in which case the comment about his death being faked would paradoxically be accurate. That said... there are other terms which could be used to describe mocking the mother of a slain child (switching back to the assumption he is dead), but I'm afraid all of them violate our civility policy.

Kzrulzuall, let me put it this way. You are deliberately inflaming an emotional and divisive issue. This is extremely disruptive and I would advise you to stop. Add relevant sources to the article. Discuss the merits of various wordings. Do not go about provocatively stating your opinion as fact - it invites argument from those who disagree and can only serve to disrupt and damage our efforts here. BLP violation? Maybe not. Blockable chicanery? You betcha. --CBD 11:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No one said admins are always right, but that it's best to be catious, and also theoretically noninfalamtory and unassumtpive, CBD. El_C 11:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I realised I've been acting childlishly. I'll refrain from adding those comments. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone who is up in arms at the notion of "obeying an admin" looked at the comment that was removed? Good grief ... it obviously needed to be removed whether the people involved are alive, dead, or cryogenically frozen. --BigDT 13:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they probably needed to be removed. No, the reason wasn't that an admin said so. Everytime we use that as an argument, we fail to make the real argument that needs to be made. Zocky | picture popups 13:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It was restored, is the point. Sysops actually have the ability to censur users over blp violations and this even supercedes editorial involvement), that is what was meant. Not everything is a wiki-cabal-etc. political proclamation. El_C 13:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP applies to all pages, main, talk, even here, does it not? - Denny ^(talk) 13:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It does:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles[2], talk pages, user pages, and project space. (from WP:BLP intro)

So of course the notion that it should be removed because an admin said so is patently absurd. It should be removed because it violates policy. IvoShandor 13:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And that is why I removed it. El_C 13:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I know. I wasn't meaning to direct anything at you, just saying that in general. IvoShandor 14:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Mathieugp redirected Québécois to Quebec and blanked the referenced material in the article despite the fact that the dispute to delete the page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Québécois) has been settled. In response to the '"keep"' decision, and despite invitations from myself and others to contribute positively to the article, User:Mathieugp and User:Laval blanked several referenced items in the article, have indulged in increasingly personal comments on the talk pages(Talk:Québécois#Soul_scanner_wasting_peoples_time), started another "discussion" on redirecting the article, (Talk:Québécois#Vote_on_a_redirect) and redirected it before anyone could express an opinion(see "History"). I have restored the article to its consensus form, but I don't think it will last long. I don't have time for edit wars. I'm requesting that the page be protected from moves and redirects, and that User:Mathieugp and User:Laval be reminded of Wiki protocols regarding Vandalism(Blanking) and ignoring consensus. --Soulscanner 07:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of the events and actions. First of all, the Articles for deletion/Québécois shows that no consensus was reach on the proposed deletion. It does not say that a consensus was reached on keeping the article as it was. To state A or B, not A therefore B would be a logical fallacy. That is, no consensus was reached for deletion, but there clearly was no consensus either on keeping the article intact. Far from it.

A group of users (User:Laval, User:Recury, User:142.58.101.27, User:iridescenti, User:RaveenS, User:metaspheres + myself) and now User:Joeldl did/do not favour deletion. We favoured redirection. We accepted and still accept that there was no consensus on deletion. That is not the issue. The issue, as we can see from the talk page, is that a single user, User:Soulscanner, (who sometimes uses another account named User:Soul scanner), wants to treat the article from the viewpoint of a certain politically active faction who claim to speak for the majority of Canadians (who speak English) all the while denying the perception which the majority of Quebecers (who speak French) have of themselves. Oh, and he refuses to acknowledge the factual errors and errors in reasoning which I patiently (OK, not always patiently because I don't have time for this foolish game) point out in the talk pages. The Quebecois (or French-speaking Quebecers) article is no more the place for debates on identity politics than the article on Anglo-Americans. I have suggested Quebec identity (as there is a Canadian identity) or Quebec nationalism as more sensible.

Should we go with arbitration at this point? What would you recommend we do to resolved this conflict? -- Mathieugp 22:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong. This appears to be an editorial dispute and attempts at negotiation have thus far failed. Have editors involved in the article requested third opinions at Wikipedia:Request for comments (RfC) or Wikipedia:Third opinion (3O)? --Iamunknown 22:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should add that I think that either RfC or 3O would be an appropriate step. The Arbitration Committee would almost certainly reject a case if other steps of dispute resolution had not been tried first. --Iamunknown 00:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone be able to please help me, I have been authorized to place the following notice on behalf of Ecopave Australia^(TM) to the following Wikipedia articles but someone is deleting the notice.

NOTICE - Ecopave Australia^TM hereby kindly requests that any Wikipedia Administrator or User who has any knowledge or information about this rogue (Malicious) group of people (Spammers) who are posting entries in Wikipedia and on the internet masquerading as Ecopave Australia^TM employees, to contact us immediately by emailing ecopaveaustraliaATgmail.com or ecopaveATecopave.com.au please make attention to Admin. Your co-operation would be much appreciated. Ecopave Australia^TM strongly rejects the above assertions and takes them to be a slur on its reputation and its intellectual property, the comments and opinions expressed on this website do not in any way represent or reflect those of Ecopave Australia^TM.

I Added the above NOTICE to these Wikipedia article pages on the 4-4-07 but they have been altered or removed by someone since. Can someone please stop these spammer vandals from deleting the TM symbol and replacing it with the R symbol, Asstmgr

1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive63#Ecopave_Australia_nonsense

2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive63#How_to_get_an_archived_article_deleted

3)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archive_64#Why_delete_one_article_but_not_the_other_2

4)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive148#.5B.5BUser:Fact_Finder.5D.5D

5)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive143#User:Fact_Finder

6)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive140#Walled_garden_.2F_spammers

7)http://en.pediax.org/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#

8)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG/Archive-Oct-2006#.5B.5BUser:Webmasters.5D.5D

9)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2006_November_26#How_to_delete_an_archived_article

10)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2006_October_22#Advise_to_new_users_regarding_Trademark_and_Libel_laws

Is there a any way to have this above notice stay in these above articles so that it cant be altered, deleted or vandalised or alternatively have these articles deleted all together? I would greatly appreciate your help Asstmgr 13:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia articles are not owned by Ecopave Australia, and should not have notices implying that they are. Articles are open to being edited, or even nominated for deletion, by any well meaning user. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason a lot of these were deleted is because you were adding them to archives, which are supposed to be archives, not active discussions. Don't spam people either, they are allowed to make comments about your company or the notability of an article about the company. Natalie 14:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Kids, please direct your accusations elsewhere, I or Ecopave have nothing to do with these spam articles which were put into Wikipedia by this rogue group of spammers. I am keen to hear from a Wikipedia Admin please Asstmgr 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You just heard from two admins, kid. Natalie 14:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, I was just going to say that both of the replies you got were from admins. Essentially, there is no way to keep that text on those pages unedited. Probably the best course of action for you if you have concerns about the effect these statements may have upon your company is to contact the Wikimedia foundation with your concerns directly. Contact info is [here.--Isotope23 14:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant a proper admin :) Asstmgr 15:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks kindly Isotope23, thats more or less what I was looking for I guess were done here :). Asstmgr 15:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is a proper admin? Natalie 15:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We have two types of admin here: normal ones and rouge admins. Sometimes either type goes commando. Please specify whether you would prefer a normal admin, a rouge admin, a commando admin or a rouge commando admin to assist you.-gadfium 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh just one more thing Isotope23, does that mean that I can keep putting the notice back on the articles every time it gets deleted? Asstmgr 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I can answer that. No. It would violate WP:3RR, more than likely, and I am neither a proper or improper admin. IvoShandor 15:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What IvoShandor said is correct.--Isotope23 15:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So if thats true then why are these vandals (allowed) to delete this notice? in the first plase? this is clearly a contradiction in terms, right? Asstmgr 15:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The people deleting the notice aren't vandals. The notice doesn't belong, so anyone can and should delete it. Natalie 15:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You are adding additional text to an archive. Once these pages have been archived, they don't get edited, so your edits are being reverse by other editors. This doesn't constitute vandalism. If you are concerned about some text in these archives, your best course of action is to contact the Wikimedia foundation with your concerns. Someone from the foundation can review this and take the appropriate action here.--Isotope23 15:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Could it be its because they are admins vandalising? Asstmgr 15:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Ok, so if thats also true Isotope23, then why is there an option to "edit" on these archived articles? and yes we have sent the removal request to the Wikimedia foundation by email on several occations without any effect.Asstmgr 15:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Because those archives are pages just like any other page. Just because the Edit link is there doesn't mean you should. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict... I was just typing exactly what EVula said... scary.--Isotope23 15:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks guys I think Im a bit more clearer about the matter now :) Asstmgr 15:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oh yes, it was all a malicious joe job which purely by coincidence promoted the interests of the firm right up to the moment it was all deleted and we started getting bogus legal threats asking us to take the debates down - "how dare you call us spammers when all we were doing was using your non-profit volunteer-run project to promote our interests". We cleaned up once, the spammer came back more than once with sockpuppetry and sneaky vandalism. My reserves of goodwill were drained dry long before we chased the last incarnation away. I'd say more but I've already used up my invective quota for this week. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We have an invective quota? Oops. Natalie 17:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that Kevin Green342243 (talk · contribs · count) is making a lot of citation-related blankings on wrestling articles, using WP:A to justify himself. The chances of a user account less than a day old making these sort of claims right out of the gate seems unlikely, so I think that the account could be a sock of Jonathan Barber. I'd appreciate getting a second opinion, as I don't want to make a Checkuser request based on sketchy evidence. Shadow1 (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I'm familiar with Jonathan Barber (talk · contribs), but looking at Kevin Green342243's edits, it doesn't appear to be the same MO outlined at the JB summary (other than the one speedy nomination I saw). I will say a new editor correctly citing WP:ATT would lead me to suspect this isn't a new editor at all. Most of what he's deleting falls under WP:BLP though.--Isotope23 14:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking it was Barber, but based on his use of open proxies a checkuser won't prove much. Best think to do is get a checkuser to confirm if the IP is an open proxy or not, and block if it is naturally. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to CheckUser. Barber has stated through one of his numerous sockpuppets on my talk page that he would continue to do this kind of thing [15], so this fits in perfectly. (BTW, I know with the recent controversies and everything, we've lost one of our most tireless CheckUsers, but what's with the slow down on that page? things are starting to back up, the latest JB196 set has been up for 72 hours without review...) SirFozzie 15:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Lots of WP:POINTy tagging of wrestling articles. Quack, quack. Hackney, please review and reinsert anything that was worthwhile, but I'm WP:RBIing. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What did your last slave die of? I'll make a post on WP:PW, and let them handle the reverts. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• My last slave knew a lot more about wrestling than I do - and so do you. I, on the other hand, am WP:ROUGE enough to assume the worst when a brand new user comes along using all the right Wikimarkup and Wikishortcuts right after Barber got booted from Meta after his attempted joe job failed. Of course, I could be horribly, horribly wrong. Hopefully the quality assessment of the edits will shed light on this. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit Conflict x4) I can just see Guy as the Wikipedia Admin Boot Camp Drill Sergeant, "Alright, editors! Drop and give me 25 Reverts!" Thanks Guy. SirFozzie 15:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Guy, good work, it is likely barber. For what it is worth, here is the checkuser page. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Spam patrol! Sound off! Incidentally, this [16] is illuminating. I checked 198.138.41.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and rouged it up a bit. No doubt he will manage to get another IP. But he does fulfill a valuable function in highlighting redirection sites and open proxies for blocking... Guy (Help!) 16:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I wonder who twice suggested blocking that IP 4 days ago? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

FozzyEnemy (talk · contribs) name matches previous sock accounts used to harrass SirFozzie (talk · contribs) and has also was created and immediately went at a wrestling article. We possibly have a sock farm that needs blocking. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We have a farm over at CheckUser already.. just need a CheckUser and an admin to A) Pull the JBWeeds out and B)Apply some herbicide to the ground to keep him from using the likely open proxies underneath to keep him from coming back. SirFozzie 03:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in a rush and on a computer that I can't log in on so could someone look over User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#User Kirbytime requesting Child Pornography pictures again. It was brought up here under "User:Matt57 and WP:STALK". Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather. 205.234.33.204 16:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. Editor was warned about this.--Isotope23 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of this. The account Rackabello (talk • contribs) has been created on April 7, and has since voted in multiple AfDs, as well as in some RfAs, and also posted an RfA reform proposal. With the very recent RfA sockpuppeteering business in mind, I decided to bring this to admin attention (better safe than sorry). —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already posted a notice here over 34 hours ago (which has just slipped into the archive, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive226#User:Rackabello: Sockpuppet?). As far as I can tell, no action has been taken on this matter. I'll post it to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard to see if they'll take some action and investigate. --Seattle Skier (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have 2 users with apparent histories warring over an article I watch. One is an admin (Husond) that in my opinion is not acting very admin-like (brandishing admin powers, leaving uncivil edit comments, edit warring). The other user (Gene Nygaard) isn't acting as a model wikipedian either. ccwaters 17:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly contest that I'm not acting very "admin-like". Yes, I was edit warring with Gene Nygaard, happens frequently. But please provide diffs that I'm leaving uncivil edit comments and brandishing admin "powers" (as you insist in calling them). I strongly stand against uncivility and admin abuse, and I find these claims not only unfounded as also deeply unfair.--Húsönd 13:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I already provided Diffs at Talk:Josef Vašíček. ccwaters 15:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please also see this. I'd appreciate a second opinion from an uninvolved admin here - Alison^☺ 18:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I have some help removing personal attacks and personal information from the User talk:Reddi page please? User:Reddi insists on including this in contravention of my requests for him to remove it. Thanks, ScienceApologist 17:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack. It is a personal commentary of my experiences and my views.

I have already discussed, and altered it (from the discussions), at WP:CN#Community_ban_or_lengthy_block_of_Reddi

J. D. Redding

Reddi, that list is uncivil and patently unhelpful to the project. Please remove it. Heimstern Läufer 18:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Reddi refuses to remove it. You will need to act. --ScienceApologist 18:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I see Heimstern has removed it. I personally think it's okay for Reddi to describe his difficult interactions with people in his own view, but that list crossed the line into personal attacks. If Reddi adds it back without changing the attack language, I will apply a block. Mangojuice^talk 18:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Some concern has been raised about this user apparently promoting a website also called mathisfun (see User:MathsIsFun). I'm not sure what kind of action may be necessary: would deletion of the user page be the right answer? Is the user spamming? Or has it become a username issue that needs an indefinite block? The user has been around since 2005 and has lots of productive contributions. There was an RFCN debate which I closed in order to move the debate here -- as a block of an established user, I think this needs to be discussed in a more visible place. The debate is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/MathsIsFun. Mangojuice^talk 17:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Related reports at WP:COIN and WT:WPSPAM. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The user is a productive contributor and the website is non-commercial and shares our goal of making knowledge available to everyone. We may or may not need to do something, but certainly we must not read such people the riot act. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Where does WP:COI apply if a user's site isn't selling something? (→Netscott) 17:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's still promotional for the users site, we shouldn't linch mob him, but we should suggest a name change and a change of editing habbits Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You have a conflict of interest if you are promoting something that you love, even if you don't make a profit from it. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? I have a love of science and my edits on scientific topics reflect this... I have a conflict of interest there? I'm not sure how applicable WP:COI is if a user is adding a link to a site that corresponds to the article about the subject related to the user's web page. I suppose I should peruse COI a bit more and familiarize myself with where the policy on this stands... (→Netscott) 18:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

But you haven't created an organisational website on it which your now linkspamming wikipedia with Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've properly reviewed WP:COI and I understand now. Yes obviously this editor's self-promotional behavior should be curtailed. (→Netscott) 18:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra's COIBot has been uncovering numerous editors who have been editing with a conflict of interest, some of them for years. I've been posting the most egregious cases at WP:COIN. But I think, we as a community, are going to have to figure out how to deal with this. RJASE1 ^Talk 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Right now I think all we can do is make sure that we undo what damage there is and try to tell them about WP:COI ;) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked in depth yet, but this looks much more benign than the other cases your bot has found. Consider the nature of the website in question. If this is what we call an egregious conflict of interest, then maybe something's wrong with the policy, and it's worth taking this up at WT:COI. In the meantime, imagine a world in which everyone can share freely in the sum of human knowledge. Be nice. Ignore a rule or three. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 23:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel I have been unfairly targeted. I have been a passionate contributer and supporter of Wikipedia for years. I have been open and honest about myself, and because of that I am being told I am wrong? And the "Math Is Fun" article does not deserve the "COI" tag, as the original article was extensively discussed when it was created. I have not "damaged" Wikipedia, but enhanced it. What are you doing to Wikipedia? It is not like it was. MathsIsFun 01:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

But the thing is, you do have a conflict of interest by adding links to your site that don't meet WP:EL guidlines. You do great work on Maths articles, but you need to stop linking to your site. Your username is a problem at present because of your site and your linking to it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a religion, and I have several websites, these things don't make me money. I would love to promote these things though. Why have I not told you of these things before? Simple, Wikipedia is not the place to promote such things. That being said, I don't think the user page is any sort of problem. And while the username is the same as the website, it is also an expression of interest. I don't think this user has acted in a promotional manner, either with his/her name or userpage. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I just had a (fairly civilised) encounter with a Polish editor and I had to use a machine translation to understand and reply. If anyone wants to read it and comment, it's at User_talk:88.156.254.3. --Guinnog 20:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have translated both his messages, please see on his talk page.Vlad fedorov 03:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Grimerking (talk · contribs · block log)

See here. This seems to be a SPA, and the user has been warned various times about a number of Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPA. --Stephan Schulz 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be a SPA, and there may be some NPA violations, but I'd say he's right on with questioning the editor who seemingly is calling anyone who disagrees with his POV a "nutter". --Onorem 20:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, since no editor did, you might reconsider your position. --Stephan Schulz 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Apart from the nutters, it seems that most people accept that the *science* here is essentially correct" - No editor did? --Onorem 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

...which has the important "most" qualifier. Since the group of "nutters" is well-defined and very small, that leaves plenty of room for disagreement. --Stephan Schulz 21:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse my mistake. I guess it's only a personal attack on most of the people who disagree with his POV. It was a completely unnecessary comment which could easily be considered offensive by someone who was not one of the "nutters" but did disagree with him. I'm done now since this is not the reason you brought this topic to the board. --Onorem 21:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Questioning another editor, whether admin or not, is fine. What I object to is calling him an "arse". --Stephan Schulz 22:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In the same vein as MathsIsFun (talk · contribs), which remains unresolved above, we continue to run across long-established editors who have been linking their own websites, in some cases for years. Please see Dking (talk · contribs) and Gsociology (talk · contribs) (reported at WT:WPSPAM) - also guilty. I have a feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg - COIBot is discovering dozens of blatant COI editors every day. What are we, as a community, going to do about this? RJASE1 ^Talk 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Stub the articles down. CSD-A7 or G11 them. If they assert notability and/or aren't blatent advertising, tag them with {{advert}} and prod them at the same time. AfD the rest and try to convince the people there that WP:COI is a good enough reason to delete. Lobby for WP:CSD to add CSD-A9: blatant conflicts of interest. Lobby the Foundation to have article creation allowed only after a waiting period of circa 5 days. In that order. Well, that's my plan :o)   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  21:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam articles are easy to deal with. This is more subtle - people linking their own websites (and in most cases nobody would blink an eye if someone besides the website owner had linked them). RJASE1 ^Talk 21:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, this is from Gene Shackman, gsociology. I have a couple of comments, since I have been labeled as 'spam'. First, I find it somewhat disconcerting to have my contributions labeled as "spam". If you visit my website, you will find that mine is a serious academic research project, I am not selling anything, I don't send thousands of uninvited emails, I don't in fact, make any money from my project. My work does not fit any of the common definitions of spam. Could some other label be used? Second, I contributed to the social change page years ago, before there were COI rules, or at least before they were made much of. My contributions were attempts to present serious discussion of social change, and in fact my contribution is still on the social change page. However, since my contribution was pretty much a summary of my reports, I cited my reports as a source. This was years ago, again, before wiki did much editing about COI. Other editors removed the citation to my reports, without putting any other citation. So apparently the other editors thought my contributions were worthwhile (but did not think it useful to link to my reports, where my contributions came from). Finally, linking to my own site may, I suppose, be COI according to wiki rules. But as commented above "in most cases nobody would blink an eye if someone besides the website owner had linked them". Okay, so if the editors of the page consider my contributions to be worthwhile, how do I ask that someone else consider adding a link to my site? I did in fact ask someone else to add a link to my site, but the editors of this page removed it anyway. I hope in the future you may reconsider use of the term "spam" and where it applies. Thanks. gsociology 01:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As I previously posted above under the section "SlimVirgin", SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and now El C are trying to use WP:BLP to harass other users on Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah.

• Yesterday SlimVirgin removed my comment from Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah[17] on the pretext that it somehow violated WP:BLP.[18]
• I requested clarification from SlimVirgin[19] and received none.
• I asked for comments on this page[20] but received none because administrators got off on a tangent, arguing with each other over... nothing.
• I restore my comment and El C, previously not a party to the incident, decides to remove my comment again[21] under the pretext that I am "not entitled to do so."
• I make it clear that it is my opinion Al-Durrah is alive[22]
• El C reverts[23], I revert, he reverts again[24].
• He threatens to block me[25], deciding not say why or cite a policy.
• I ask him what policy he is citing[26]. He cites WP:NOT#SOAP. Hilarious given SlimVirgin's repeated posts complaining about how we have to show respect for Al-Durrah.[27][28]
• I rephrase my comment[29].

Now Jayjg is threatening to block Liftarn on "BLP" grounds[30] for expressing his opinion on Talk:Muhammad al Durrah. I disagree with Liftarn's opinion but he is in no way violating BLP. KazakhPol 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

KazakhPol has been a menace at Muhammad al-Durrah for months. The article is about a Palestinian child who was reportedly shot and killed during a gun battle between the IDF and Palestinian gunmen. There is a tiny minority theory that the incident was staged, an example of Pallywood, and that the child isn't dead at all. The majority view is that it happened more or less as reported, though no one knows who fired the fatal shots.

KazakhPol believes the incident was staged, and keeps posting to that effect on the talk page, and making edits to the article that over-emphasize the minority view. The post that I removed for being a BLP violation called the boy and his mother "fakes." [31] The mother is still alive, and is named in the article. To post this about her is extremely disrespectful, and is arguably libellous. I removed it and told KP that if he restored it, I would request admin action against him. [32] My thanks to El C for following up on that.

KP's post comes against a backdrop of being abusive toward any editor he disagrees with, routinely calling other editors vandals, constantly reverting, introducing poor writing then calling it "tidying," inserting the word "terrorist" into articles about Islamic groups, and adding the NPOV tag when he doesn't get his own way. He has been blocked seven times since December for edit warring/3RR. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KazakhPol. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to block User:Liftarn for WP:BLP if he makes one more Talk: page comment equating respected university professors with convicted Holocaust deniers. He's done it three times so far, even making light of it, and he's been fairly warned. Regarding your own edits, aside from their many obvious deficiencies, you've used complex reverts to violate WP:3RR. I'd report you for it if I had the energy; I still might do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a probation or ban from the article? - Denny ^(talk) 22:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, KazakhPol, Wikipedia isn't the place to put your personal views of things. They are disruptive and hurtful, should someone related to that person see it. Wikipedia isn't a blog so if you have no worthwhile contributions to Wikipedia, apart from making theories and stating your views of things, you will be blocked. Consider this your last warning. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

KazakhPol has just accusing me of "lying" on the talk page. [33] Admin action would be very much appreciated, as this pattern of personal attacks against many editors has been going on for a long time and shows no sign of abating. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Feel free to disregard these comments, as I just became familiar with this situation here on this AN/I thread, but WP:BLP is an extremely important policy to adhere to, and personally attacking users for implementing this policy is exceptionally bad form. As such, I would support most any (within reason) administrator action made to protect users making good-faith attempts to adhere to BLP gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 01:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I blocked KazakhPol for 24 hours for the "lying" comment. I had given him ample warnings. El_C 06:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The other day I blocked a couple of sockpuppets of Bombshell (talk · contribs), namely Scavenger (talk · contribs) and Govert Miereveld (talk · contribs), in what I felt was a perfect Duck test case (exact same POV editing profile, same behaviour, very striking matching pattern of editing times, see User talk:Scavenger#Blocked for evidence.) I left the oldest account, Bombshell, unblocked. As this user is stubbornly refusing to admit the sockpuppetry, has resumed the same edit wars he used his sockpuppets on ([34]), and actually created yet another sock today (IamScavenger (talk · contribs)), I've now blocked the main account for a week. Open for review, since I might be seen as involved in a dispute (having taken part in a discussion with Bombshell at Archaic Dutch declension). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

An Administrator (REDVERS), left the message below on my Talk page 2 days ago:

Hi Mario, on the talk page of Fellowship of Friends, I offered Wikipedia's best way for how to resolve these disputes (basically WP:RS); sadly, this was basically ignored and very obvious sockpuppetry was resorted to instead, by people who held the high ground in the dispute. This led to the page being unprotected at your request and the edit war kicking off again, as it would when underhand methods are being used.  REDVERS 21:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

After that, I wrote to REDVERS twice asking for a clarification but he didn't respond to me. Can somebody help me understand who is the sockpupeteer at the Fellowship of Friends Talk page using the diffs that REDVERS lists above? This user is creating a lot of disruption. Thank you. Mario Fantoni 22:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand? Are you saying that REDVERS is causing lots of trouble? --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

After a closer look, Im pretty sure that User:Esoteric Sheik of Inner Confusion and User:Babycondor are both sockpuppets of other people, or possibly one person, due to their lack of contributions other than on the talk page. I am also pretty suspicious of User:Veronicapoe and User:Wine-in-ark because their account seem to be made on the same day as some of the other users in the argument. So far all the accounts in the discussion, with a exception of Redvers, have been made in the same 7 day period, which although not incriminating evidence, is very strange. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 22:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Which was my point exactly and why (in the full quote User:Mario Fantoni has chosen not to copy across) I said I was unable to help out any more on policing the edit war they're all having - both side are obviously using socks and my interest wained rapidly.

As an aside, the above messages are worded very badly and leave a suggestion that I have been involved in sockpuppeting and edit warring. I haven't. I'm just the admin who protected the wrong version and tried to bang heads on the talk page. People are welcome to look for contributions I have made to the article (none).   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  07:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if it came out that way, but I didn't mean that you were a sockpuppeteer. I was saying that they were socks of other people and that you were the only guy in the discussion who I am not suspicious of. Again, sorry if it came across differently... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't appear the original AN/I question was calling Redvers a disruptive user. He's calling the sockpuppeteer disruptive, and he's asking what Redvers meant. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that my watchlist is sporadically lagging by several minutes. This was also discussed recently at ANI [35]. Contribs seem ok.It's only for some pages, e.g. my Watchlist (and the page history) for RFCN currently shows the last edit at 20:13. Anyone else notice this? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 22:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with my one this time ... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 22:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I notice that sometimes when I revert or add something, it doesn't actually show up on the edit history for a couple of minutes. I just put it down to lag, myself. HalfShadow 23:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I use FireFox, but when I try to use IE it shows my watchlist from January. Beat that :) My watchlist is OK, but my contribs are lagging, and page histories too. Not an ANI problem, though :) – Riana ^ऋ 02:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to say; shouldn't this have gone on Wikipedia: Village pump (technical) instead? Acalamari 02:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the current job queue like, anyhow? – Chacor 03:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems ok today. I user FireFox as well. I posted here because of the similar posting I referenced above. But I will post and such probs in the future at Village Pump (technical). Flyguy649^talk_contribs 16:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who didn't already hear about it, a BBC reporter vandalized his own article as part of a news story today. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User: 67.110.221.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has blanked comments on several article and Talk pages [36], [37] [38] for which he has been repeatedly warned [39][40] [41].

This user has also removed warnings from his Talk page several times. [42] [43] [44][45].

User has been warned several times.

-- Eleemosynary 03:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see the entry for Nadine Gordimer. Ongoing violations of BLP have been occurring there for months. In summary, the issue stems from an attack and robbery at her South African house. There has been months of argument about whether to include mention of the race of the attackers. No reliable and legitimate secondary sources have been provided establishing that the race of the attackers is notable for the subject of the entry. There is clear evidence of POV-pushing, and a general refusal to edit this BLP entry with sensitivity. I have only begun contributing to this entry today, making clear my view that no justification for including discussion of the race of the attackers has been provided, and making clear my view that this is a clear violation of BLP, NOR, and NPOV (see Talk:Nadine_Gordimer#BLP_and_notability). I have also posted this message at the BLP noticeboard. I am asking that an administrator intervene, given the repeated insertion of this material by a disgruntled editor. FNMF 05:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• BLP does not say "several legitimate and reliable sources." On the other hand, an article's subject is notable "if it has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself." Gordimer is notable. Nobody denies that.

• The race of the attackers is not questioned as a verified fact by either side. The material is based on reliable sources, is accurate and relevant per RS and BLP. The Sunday Times of London and Daily Telegraph are RS. It's an NPOV debate, not BLP. Yakuman (数え役満) 07:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Nobel writer Nadine Gordimer, 82, attacked and robbed". The Sunday Times (London). October 29, 2006.

"Gang who robbed me should have jobs to do, says Gordimer". The Daily Telegraph (London). November 2, 2006. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) I've full protected the page. Durova^Charge! 08:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> Yet another editor harassing/behaving uncivilly toward one of my Wikifriends (an editor in very good standing. Ms. "Tunn" has left a few snarky messages on User: Dev920's talk page now, for which I have unofficially warned her. It might mean more coming from an admin. I note she has done this to Dev many times before, both under this name, and her old one, User:TerriNunn( now deleted), for which she has been blocked. I don't like to see people I care about being hassled for no reason, and ask that somebody put a stop to this. Thanks. Jeffpw 11:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you could supply evidence of this past harassment. I also note that Dev920's response was not exactly a shining example of civility. --ElKevbo 12:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

How on earth can I supply evidence of past harassment when the user name was deleted??????? I'm not a lion; don't make me jump through hoops of fire. As for Dev's response, you might be a bit crabby had you been continually provoked by the same user in the past. I did my bit, admin can take it from here. Jeffpw 12:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Users are never deleted; the redlink only means that the user page is deleted. TerriNunn's contributions are still fully available. — Lomn 14:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

While my reply was not perfectly polite, I fail to see how that excuses NerriTunn's accusations of me being stalinist, stupid, immature and irrational. NerriTunn has squatted on Talk:List of bisexual people for months, trying to insert people who are not bisexual and trying to persuade people to throw out all normal definitions of bisexuality and "stop putting people into narrow categories". Her last post, in which she wrote "many, perhaps most, people will become bisexual in the right circumstances." sums up pretty much her attitude to who should be on the list, and I wonder why exactly she works on this list at all when she really wants List of people. She has often argues for blatently BLP entries to be included (such as the entire "disputed section") on the basis that it is interesting, and scoffs and mocks at editors who tell her we are writing an encyclopedia. I have told her repeatedly that this simply isn't accurate or according to policy or in fact, normal standards, but she just ignores me and blathers on about being "open to experiences" and "leaving it up to the reader to decide". This isn't just me - everyone who has posted to the talkpage has rejected NerriTunn's view of who should be included. So with this background, forgive me if I was not amused when she wrote "Just try and be rational and sensible and human and you will improve with practice. We are very patient." on my talkpage, when she has had (probably, see my AN/I report on it) to resort to sockpuppeting to forcibly insert her views. I am getting very fed up with people harrassing me on my talkpage. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing that always grates me is editors, like this, who persistently create a hostile atmosphere for others. However, NerriTunn seems to have annouced her departure - see her talk - is that the end of that? Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 17:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not the end, apparently. She is now harassing me on my talk page. Make her stop, please. Jeffpw 17:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And has just accused me of being a man pretending to be female. Even though I have a link on my userpage to an interview with the Times in which my gender is somewhat prominent. Seriously, this person is being really incivil now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to link to that. Editor needs a sitout I think. --Fredrick day 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this editor has continued this behavior after "abandoning the account", I've issued a 24 hour timeout.--Isotope23 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• User:Dhwani1989 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User has been repeatedly uploading copyrighted images with fraudulent/misrepresented/dubious boilerplate tags and source information. Images lately have been screen captures of political TV programs (Meet the Press, etc.) which are being tagged as work-product of the Senate, and he's listing the source for each image as she official website of the subject, although no one seems to be able to locate any of these images on the site listed. After running behind this guy for weeks (maybe months) I'm asking an admin to step in and help me out. Thanks! /Blaxthos 12:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Could I get some opinions on this user? He seems to be creating a lot of articles - two of which I've flagged for speedy-deletion and he seems to have an aversion to replying to anything on his talk page (although he is aware of the page and possibly the notices). It was suggested he could be part of the clueless newbies in previous incidents (he has 3 of them in the archives). x42bn6 Talk 12:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have contact with a checkuser willing to work this monstrosity? RJASE1 ^Talk 13:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Brew182db left a profanity-laden tirade, including everyone's favorites ur butthole is the size of the mooon, You must suffer from Cranial Rectal Syndrome, and the ever-popular ur momma such a fat whore that wen she prostitutes she gets paid in cheeseburgers on my talk page a few minutes ago. Since I'm involved, I can't block him, though a message on his talk page makes it look like he's been vandalizing since August 2006. Can someone take a look at it? Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

He got a "final warning" for what he did on your userpage. He only has 1 edit logged, presumably because everything else he's done here are nonsense article creation. I'm going to watchlist him and if I see anymore vandalism I'll block as a vandal only account.--Isotope23 14:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In the commemoration of the death anniversary of the first man in space - Yuri Gagarin - Google Inc has put up a special logo on it's search engine page which links to a search, which - quite obviously - gives Wikipedia a top slot - [46]. The article was vandalised regularly and was therefore semi-protected by an administrator. The discussion is underway here - [47] - on the admin noticeboard. Comments are invited. --Zamkudi 14:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought about titling this "JB196: An Army Of One (and about onehundred fifty sockpuppets)". JB continues to cut a wide swath through WP, vandalizing articles, blanking them, and then getting them deleted, and bragging about the articles he had deleted(he's hit my user page a couple of times times [48], [49], and bragging about his vandalization off-Wikipedia [50]. He also was responsible for a joe job spree across several different WP in an attempt to land sites on a SPAM blacklist (see meta:Requests for CheckUser information/Archives/2007/03#cross wiki spam). We have compiled all the JBSocks we can find, but we need them blocked and a CheckUser run to eliminate the open proxies underneath Here. Thanks. SirFozzie 15:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• You can help by placing {{sockblock|JB196}} on the user pages of the blocked ones, there is no link from the block log to the "block this user" feature. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• I edited a dead link in the original post to have it point to the archive. Jesse Viviano 16:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be an edit war between two admins on Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll/header, despite the fact that the page is protected. >Radiant< 15:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like that was 2 days ago? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That was 3 days ago, though that is a really bad thing for admins to do. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been deliberately ignoring the {{editprotected}} tag for this reason. But it was clear early on that there was not consensus in favor of the "wrong section" wording. CMummert · talk 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of requesting a checkuser on Buttonsforeyes (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), but I think this is an obvious, disruptive sock so we can spare the checkusers some effort. His contributions consist of trying to nominate Arthur Ellis for adminship, and vandalising Rachel Marsden. Arthur Ellis is community-banned; see also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis for history. Could someone indef block Buttons please? Kla'quot 05:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked and RfA deleted.--Isotope23 15:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This was brought to attention by another user on the AFD for Frank Jasper. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Jasper. I am reporting it here as a blatant violation of WP:CANVASS. The messages are obviously partisan toward Keep and targeted toward fans. See the diffs provided at the AFD: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Did he continue after you warned him? Is he still doing it? John Reaves (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The user was given a {{uw-canvass}} warning at 12:05 April 12, and has not sent any more messages since. 8 messages were sent in a 4 minute window on April 10 with 4 more sent in another 4 minute window on April 11. Since then the user has not canvassed further, but removed the warning on their talk page [63], leaving behind a quite uncivil response. But no, the user has made no contibs outside of their talk page since the warning was issued. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Then what's the issue here? John Reaves (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in retrospect I should have checked that first. Well, I'll keep an eye on the situation. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, on my talk page, I've been having some problems with trolls from another site that I am affiliated with spamming it with rude comments and warnings for things I did not do. Since the Wiki guidelines state it is NOT prohibited to delete content on your own talk page, I did so, only to have people to keep reversing my deletions. Finally, I got fed up and put a message asking people to stop doing that. This seemed to work up until recently. An admin by the name of Hu12 kept reversing my deletions, giving me warnings about deleting talk page comments and warnings. I informed him about the fake warnings and also provided him with the quote from the guidelines that says my actions are allowed. Another individual also backed me up on this. He left another warning, not even responding to this message. I repeated it, and again he warned me. I asked him to stop, because it was becoming harassment, and he blocked me. I appealed the block, stating that I had done nothing that was against the guidelines. This block was turned down by an admin named auburnpilot, because of all the warnings I had got and because I had been blocked before. Not only is this unfair, since these things had nothing to do with my blockage, but she was also wrong. According to her, I was blocked three times, while, in reality, I was only blocked two. The first time was actually by her, and she did not even bother to post the three warnings until either after or at the same time she blocked me. The second time was after a mistaken warning that was revoked by the person who issued it BEFORE the block and the block was later removed. And most of the warnings were either the fake ones from the trolls or the equally-uncalled for ones from Hu12. Now, to top it off, my page has been locked from editing. I have been treated extremely unfairly by these two admins. The guidelines state specifically that a user can delete their own talk pages. I would like my talk page to be unlocked and for these two admins to be at least talked to for their rude treatment of me.67.163.193.239 08:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected your talk page since you are unblocked. I don't really understand why the users were so intent on reverting your talk page, there isn't any policy that forbids it. I also don't see why you were so uncivil and persisted on reverting. Seems like it would have been easier to just let it die down and deal with it later. John Reaves (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And to be clear, my only reasoning was not your previous warnings but your continued behavior. I've blocked this user previously and the same behavior from previous blocks is ongoing. As I said in the decline message, I would have made the block for a longer duration. Oh, and I'm male. - auburnpilot talk 17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The behavior of this individual has been disruptive and ongoing. Today after block expired, has recieved yet another warning [64] for vandalism. Deletion of of good-faith warnings on his talk page to hide the continued abuse seems to be the reason for the deletions. This user also has a history of Modifying other users' comments ([65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76] ) in order to substantially change their meaning, and a history of making personalthreats to editors. The previous warnings have been archived appropriatly here User_talk:67.163.193.239/Archive_1. If the archive is deleted a permanant history of the shear magnitude of abuse is avaliable here I regret not blocking for a longer period due to the continuous disruption.--Hu12 20:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The last I heard, deletion of warnings (be they good-faith or otherwise) from one's own talk page is not against the rules, and does not merit further warnings, blocking the user, or protecting the talk page. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Warning users for blanking templates does nothing to help anyone. All it serves to do is to frustrate and confuse the user. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the point I am trying to make. I have done nothing to deserve this kind of harassment. And that so-called "vandalism warning" was not a warning. A person was informing me that he reverted an edit I made. I have already contacted him about this, since what he reverted was part of an important discussion and am waiting a reply. And as I stated, most of the warnings recieved in the past were ones for things I did not do, given by a troll with a grudge who is NOT a staff member. You need to do your research before you start attacking and blocking someone.67.163.193.239 20:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, this IP considers any warning left by an non-admin (what she calls "staff members") "invalid". Additionally, many of the warnings were appropriate, given concerns over WP:3RR and WP:POINT violations (some ANI history here). Not a dog 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Question: Does the concept that a user "owns" their talk page also apply to IP pages? I was under the impression that because those talk pages are typically shared by multiple (and often unrelated) users, no one person controls them, so it would be permissible for another editor to restore blanked warnings. In other words, the guidelines at WP:USER#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space do not fully apply. Am I mistaken? If anyone could direct me to previous discussions concerning IP talk pages it would be greatly appreciated. -- Satori Son 21:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Nearly all of the warnings on my page were left by YOU, Not a Dog, who has been spamming my talk page and following me all over Wikipedia for quite a while now. I've asked you to stop multiple times, but you refused. You were not a staff member, yet you threatened to block me. Also, those warnings were discussed on my talk page and found to be invalid. And yes, I do think the warnings given bu Hu12 were unfair, given that it is not against the rules to delete my own talk page. If you all would stop messing with my talk page after being repeatedly asked not to, I would not have to keep reverting it. And I am the only one in my house who has a computer, so I am the only one with this IP.67.163.193.239 22:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:USER should not apply. The net range 67.160.0.0 - 67.191.255.255 is owned Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. This is an anon IP, not a user page. This IP talk pages is the target of obvious vandalism and edit warring. When edit wars or vandalism persist, the affected page should be protected from editing.--Hu12 22:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The only thing going on is harassment. I clearly asked you and many others to stop messing with my talk page, but you will not. The warnings you left were uncalled for, as were Hu12's. And now some other admins are reverting my deletions. Will someone please do something? And again, will someone unprotect my page so it can be edited?67.163.193.239 22:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The IP talk page is not yours. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia without having a risk of another person vandalizing through the IP address, then I suggest you to create an account. Real96 22:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That talk page is mine. That is my IP. Why create an account too and let that page also be attacked? I intend to contact wikipedia personally about this harassment, since it is shameful coming from staff. I am sick of the way you guys are treating me. The guidelines say it is my right, so stop going against them and leave me alone!!67.163.193.239 22:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(Sigh) This discussion isn't going to resolve is it? I'll make a few points clear:

1) All of us here are volunteers contributing to Wikipedia, so please stop calling us staff.

2) The talk page does not belong too you, but to the community. You do not own it.

3) The ip address in question is either shared, or you've been vandalizing a lot, which justifies the warnings on the talk. If you have a shared ip, I ask you to create an account, to avoid the confusion. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon users are guests to their talk page, it may not belong to them in 5 minutes or a day. Anons should not be blanking their talk pages. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Just move it all to User talk:67.163.193.239/Archive 1 and get over it. John Reaves (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is my IP and I do not plan to be moving anytime soon. And if it did belong to multiple people, that would be all the more reason for the spam and wrong warnings to be deleted. Archiving it won't help, since I want that stuff deleted from my talk page. Why should my repuation have to be trashed everytime someone looks at my talk page, especially given all those unfair warnings. I've had quite a few admins block me or insult me because of stuff on that talk page, including the unfair warnings. And while these individuals have all been reported, I'm sick of having to deal with the harassment, especiaily from people who are supposed to be preventing this kind of thing.67.163.193.239 23:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Reputation have to be trashed? That's a bit harsh. And anyway, if multiple people are using your ip, there's more the reason to keep the warning as a reminder to them. More of a reason to create your own account so you can't be mistaken for someone else. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

67, I suggest you get a username, because we have know way of actually knowing that you are going to be on this IP tomorrow. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I've been watching this cautiously for a while, and I now feel the need to explain a few things to User:67.163.193.239 that I feel haven't been addressed. People need to be more patient with new users. By the way, User:67.163.193.239, I'm going to refer to you as 'The User' from now on to save my sanity, kay?

First of all, Wikipedia doesn't really have "staff." Administrators are NOT moderators or staff members in any sense of the word. Administrators are users who have been given the ability, by the community, to do certain things that we don't feel safe letting everyone do.

Any Wikipedia member is allowed to warn a user. Administrators are the only users who are ABLE to block, but that does not mean that a regular user can't handle your case up until that point.

Nobody is asking you to change your IP address. We're simply asking you to register an account. If you've got an account, you've got a lot more control over what can happen on your userpage. REGISTERED users have a fair amount of control over their pages, under the policies and guidelines you've been talking about. UNREGISTERED users (i.e. IP addresses) do not have this kind of control, because technically speaking, your IP could be yours today, and tomorrow, it could belong to someone on the other side of your town. I also don't understand why you're so opposed to creating an account. Making an account and logging in would basically give you a clean slate: a clean userpage, a clean record. --Moralis (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To create an account, click this link. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to create an account and have the same thing happen all over again. Even if a regular use can warn, they should not be able to do so falsely nor should they be able to threaten to block you. I've been getting blocked for warnings that were either false or uncalled for. The administrators responsible never even bothered to look into the warnings or simply did not care, otherwise, I never would have gotten blocked in the first place. The issue here is my talk page. I am the only one with this IP. The guidelines do not specify that you have to be registered to delete content on your talk page, so it should not be a problem. This is exactly the reason why I never bothered to edit on Wikipedia before-it is just not worth the harassment the comes with it. For these past few weeks, both admins and regular users have been extremely discourteous towards me. I've recieved lawsuit threats for no reason, been personally attacked, and have certain users who literally stalk me all over Wikipedia, as evidence by the actions of Not a Dog and Pablo. But no one does anything about this.67.163.193.239 00:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What you aren't understanding: if you make an account, this will not happen all over again. None of us will even know that it's still you. But okay, I'll play.

If these users are really following you to Wikipedia from another site, and harassing you, leaving illegitimate warnings, et cetera... how do they have your IP address? And if they have your IP address, wouldn't it be logical to create an account, so that they could no longer see your IP address and therefore no longer harass you? --Moralis (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also: just to clarify. We understand that you are the only person who has this IP -now-. However, one of two things is going on: either you have had this IP for a while, and have a bad track record, OR someone else has had this IP before you, and you have inherited their bad track record. --Moralis (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

67.163: If you're worried about "this happening all over again" if you create an account, that is unlikely to happen. The privacy policy here is very strong, and only a very very few editors have the ability to lookup username's IPs, and only under the strictest of conditions. If you would just create an account, this would all go away. (btw, since this IP's talk page is protected, I'm not sure how else to communicate with her about such issues) Not a dog 01:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: The user is continuing to blank the page, post John's archiving of old user warnings. I am not an admin, but I agree with auburnpilot. This user has been given many chances to reform, but has not. I support a 1 week block for disruption. (And, semi-page protection during that block). Real96 07:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit war is lame, I agree. However, the editor has been making

WP:3RR violations, personal attacks, etc. Hu12 made the block 24h. Real96 07:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point its just blatent vandalism, blocked for a week.--Hu12 07:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, looks like he's back. SirShiek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Once again, vandalizing other users' comments, and using the new account for Voting and other shows of support in a external link dispute on Talk:Rule of Rose, in which its apparent the individual has a conflic of interest with the site. Oh, of course... blanking the talk page to prove a WP:POINT, and removing legitimate warnings.--Hu12 13:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we can assume good faith with the comment edit - I'm guessing she wanted to use the [[WP:EL]] link in her own comment, and cut & pasted it from my comment, rather than copy & pasted. Not a dog 14:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So shouldn't a sock of a blocked user be blocked in turn, and perhaps the length of the original block extended. Or is that not possible because the original block was an IP? Note, it will be hard for me to assume good faith with the person in question on any of their actions. IvoShandor 14:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, many of us urged 67.163 to create an account in order to avoid some of the problems she was experiencing, so SirShiek might be the result of that suggestion. If, however, it was created in order to evade the subsequent block of teh IP, then we have a different issue. Perhaps a CheckUser would need to be performed to confirm that. Not a dog 19:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit of an odd situation, and while I support the extension to a one week block of the IP, I do not support a checkuser or block on the registered account. The only reason the account was created was due to our requests and to block as a sock would be a bit ridiculous/hypocritical. You can't give somebody a cookie, then slap them for eating it. - auburnpilot talk 20:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Let SirShiek (talk · contribs) sink or swim on its own merits. Not a dog 21:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, Doesn't confer a license to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists even when it's true, per WP:SOCK. see [77][78][79][80][81][82]. --Hu12 22:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Its become considerably apparent the conduct of SirShiek (talk · contribs) is sliding down the same slippery slope as the IP. At this point blocking based on th creation of the account would go against the consensus here, as the individual was asked to create an account. However, how this account is being used is quite another thing. Asside from Obviously trolling the project, one such Forbidden use of an account is, as mentioned above, creating the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists. We still need to take in to consideration the history of the individual, which includes disruptive editing to the project as evidenced in the the contribs. This individuals conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. There must be some sort of community sanction against this type of behavior that can be taken?--Hu12 23:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I think Hu12 is thinking community ban for this user? Real96 06:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The requests for the IP to create account were before this block, but this user is highly disruptive, as the whole discussion at Rule of the Rose has been. IvoShandor 07:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I realize there were requests here but every request before this block was roundly ignored. IvoShandor 07:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point - they were ignored and actively resisted, if I recall. So far, however, SirShiek (talk · contribs) has not exhibited disruptive behavior (albeit perhaps annoying). Not a dog 13:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

He's trolling, best thing to do is ignore. see What is a troll. --Hu12 00:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been lobbing personal attacks on multiple pages at multiple users. It's really getting out of hand.

• [83] labeling contributions of other users as "stupid"
• [84] calling people with whom he disagrees the "pseudoskeptical side"
• [85] referring to another user's "green cheese pseudoargument" (???)
• [86] calling another user "willfully stupid"

He has also been engaging in general incivility/belligerence/hostility toward other users:

• [87] telling a user "too bad" in response to his question.
• [88] sarcasm
• [89] hostile dismissal of a proffered source
• [90] dismissing an admin's advice by telling him to "dry [his] eyes"
• [91] referring to another user's (rather benign) comment as "racist bullshit"

And so on. This is getting to be an extreme nuisance, and as shown in one of the diffs (not to mention his 8+ blocks), he is unwilling to consider changing his social behavior. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 19:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Time for indef? I'd like to hear from others who have had contact with him. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at this RfC (particularly the talk page), where he has been involved. MastCell ^Talk 22:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Despite complaints, he continues such behavior. - LuckyLouie 19:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommend taking Davkal to WP:RFAR. Some six months ago, I tried to deal with him, and to protect editors and talkpages from his personal attacks and poisoning of the atmosphere. I blocked him for a week once, but I'm ashamed to say that I got out of the kitchen pretty soon. It was so unpleasant to interact with Davkal that I just took his pages off my watchlist. What put the lid on it for me was his unseemly triumph at having successfully driven his opponent Askolnick off the wiki. I didn't feel very supported by the community at that time, but I've noticed on Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon#Recent edits from Davkal and Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon#Arbitration is the next step that he now seems to have exhausted a lot of people's patience. His one great editing interest is the paranormal, a contentious subject which arouses high feelings on both sides, and for this reason I don't recommend proposing a community ban. It's just too hard to keep conduct questions and content questions separate. People on both sides are apt to let their own opinions on the subject influence their views on conduct, and I think it may be literally impossible to be so rude as to lose all support. Therefore I think Davkal's "social behavior" would be best dealt with by ArbCom. Bishonen | talk 00:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Based on the escalation at the Martinphi RfC, it looks like that will probably move on to arbcom. If there's a case there, I think it's inevitable that Davkal would be listed as a party, and likely to receive arbcom sanctions for persistent NPOV violations, incivility/npa, tenditious editing, etc. Anyone with RfA/Arbcom case experience have any recommendations on at what point the RfC situation can be considered to have run its course and arbcom action requested? --Minderbinder 22:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I must concure with most of the above, I personally feel that Davkal is not helping the RfC by engaging in his current behaviour (which appears to be quite consistant rather than current per comments above). Shot info 02:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And he continues unabated. - LuckyLouie 03:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A user-conduct RfC is intended to gauge community feeling about a user's behavior, and, ideally, to help the user mend any areas that have been a problem. If the RfC has produced an adequate sampling of community views on the user's conduct, and there seems to be no forward progress occurring in identifying and changing problem behaviors, then you could present the situation to ArbCom as the next step. It would work best if the issues to be examined and ruled upon by ArbCom are as specific and narrowly defined as possible in the case formulation. In my opinion, the RfC you mention has run its course in terms of productive impact. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This user appears to be on a page re-naming spree, re-naming high visibility religion-related articles (Among others, including several tech-related ones I think) with, as far as I can tell, no talk page discussion whatsoever, and if I understand this right, page re-names mess up search engine results for articles, among other problems. Because, at least for Jesus, the entire page history has been moved but the original article title is still there as a redirect, I don't think I or any non-admin user can undo the damage. Could someone take a look at all this, he's renamed a whole bunch of articles. Plus, in Jesus' case, I think there was a ton of discussion about the page name already, which settled on the content now at the new title definently being at an article named, well, Jesus. Homestarmy 18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

While I'm here, why on earth are you giving this guy any good faith at all? Did you look at his contribs list? Assume bad faith, people, it works! --Golbez 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Several of the page moves also appear to be vandalism, he just copied the content of what I guess was the Mohammad article into Jesus, and he renamed Talk:Evil to something to do with economic theory, though somebody reverted that move. Homestarmy 18:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

He has been blocked.↔NMajdan•talk 18:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The editor wants to be unblocked but I am hesitant to do so. I have informed the editor that if he can explain his page moves, then I might consider unblocking. I left the following comment on his talk page: "I believe an indefinite block was warranted given the nature of the user's page moves (see my comment and Stephan Schulz's comment further down). However, if the editor can state his reasoning for the page moves and/or a general explanation of his actions, I might consider lessening his block. After all, a block is not a punishment but a way to prevent damage to Wikipedia. If I and the other admins monitoring the situation feel this user no longer poses a threat to Wikipedia, the ban may be lifted." So I will await a response from him. However, I must say I am dissappointed with User:Golbez's actions in the matter. He indefinitely blocked the user (which was the appropriate action) but then he led the user to believe he was removing the block ([92] [93] [94]) even though he never had the intention of removing the block ([95] [96]). Extremely bad faith, in my opinion.↔NMajdan•talk 20:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, the user never expected to be unblocked (and if he did, then he has perceived a culture of weakness here that may or may not be accurate - and needs to be dealt with if it is). No problem with having some bad-faith fun with someone who constantly and deceptively begs for good faith. --Golbez 21:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That said, I can see why other people might be upset and offended by my having fun with the vandal, and I apologize to them - but not to him. He had it coming. He asked for good faith in an entirely bad faith fashion, and I returned in kind. I should probably not have done it. --Golbez 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology. I don't believe edits in that fashion are warranted even against the worst of vandals. However, regarding the issue at hand, your reasoning for the indefinite block surpasses the editor's reasoning for his actions so at this time, I will make no attempt at lessening the block.↔NMajdan•talk 21:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts on the matter and on the admins clamoring to be the first to unblock/shorten the block are summarized here. --Golbez 21:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a shorten or unblock is merited, but there also is no reason to poke him in the eye with a pointy stick now that further vandalism has been prevented.--Isotope23 18:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The article Sabotage has been vandalized — for once, by someone who is not anonymous. Can someone please send appropriate notice, etc.? thanks, Richard Myers 18:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, is there a particular reason that you can't just do it yourself? Non admins can place user warnings just as well as admins can. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

At the very least enjoy the irony. HalfShadow 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the user deleted the warning from his talk page so I reverted it. --Chuck Sirloin 16:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Every user's free to delete warnings from his or her talkpage; the page history retains both the warning and the user's deletion -- the latter being proof that the user saw the warning. There's no need after that for the warning to stay on the talk page, and no rule requiring it. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This IP address has vandalised articles recently, even after a LAST warning and two blocks, where each have lasted from 30 to 40 hours. I believe this user should either be blocked altogether, or barred from editing. Tails0600 19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Identified as an educational institution. Blocked for 2 weeks, history of vandalism, didn't see anything much productive for some time. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please address the concerns I have raised to the following admin: [97] [98] - if the redirection of the article was incorrect, I strongly urge to unprotect and revert to this version [99] which does not contain the ethnic group template and also has a POV tag. Currently, the article, which is about a provincial/national group like Californian, New Yorker, Ontarian, Albertan, and so on, has an ethnic group template and makes claims that the Québécois are an ethnic group equivalent to French Canadian! Please, Wikipedia is not here to indulge anti-francophone original research, fringe theories at that. Furthermore, at the AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Québécois, it is arguable that the consensus was "keep" - to me it looked like "no consensus." Wikipedia is not a democracy - as with all other such articles, Québécois should be a redirect to Quebec (in line with all other Wikipedias) and per the discussion at Talk:Québécois. Failing that, the contentious material must absolutely be removed from the article, and not allowed to appear there again, since such POV-pushing is used as an attack against the francophone population of the province. Let us be reasonable here and not indulge users like User:Soulscanner who constantly lie and misrepresent other editors' views and push fringe POVs that no person with a shred of credibility would even dare attempt to promote (that the Québécois are an ethnic group). Sincerely, Laval 23:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also the admin reverted to the version by Soulscanner [100], rather than the last one prior to my edit: [101] (this one has the dispute tag). Either way, whatever decision is reached, the absurd inclusion of the template and the removal of the neutrality tag is bogus. Laval 23:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You can make edit requests for specific articles by adding {{editprotected}} and a description of your desired edit to the talk page. As an uninvolved editor who does not have a sysop flag, I would suggest that you add {{editprotected}} to the talk page and engage in discussion with other editors about what to do within the context of the result of the deletion debate. Regards, Iamunknown 00:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"No consensus" doesn't translate to "redirect" any more than "keep" does -- Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but it's not an anarchy, either. If you'd like to redir, get consensus. As more than one edit warrior has discovered, revert warring tends to cause m:the wrong version to be protected. The current status of the page is pretty much moot; what the page shows a month down the line, after things have been discussed, possibly through dispute resolution, is far more important. Since the neutrality of the article does seem to be in dispute, I have replaced the {{NPOV}} template. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User: Zenniy Seems to be the latest incarnation of James Ewing - and is again "outing" me for some reason:

User:Spankr

Spankr 01:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet. Contacted WP:RFO (which you may wish to do, in future cases). Not yet tagging as resolved, in case anything more pops up. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Gene Nygaard (talk · contribs) has been warned countless times to observe WP:CIVIL: reminders abound on his talk page and elsewhere on Wikipedia (and I believe that this is common knowledge actually). Gene was recently blocked for incivility [102] by Rama's Arrow. Earlier today I once again reminded Gene to be civil after he wrote (and I quote) "[User:Husond] needn't try to bullshit us here"[103]. Gene contested the occurrence of any incivility [104] and later wrote (and I quote) "unscrupulous editors like Husond, a sysop well aware of this fictious rule, who will take advantage of [the protection policy] to game the system"[105].
I found this comment rude, unfounded and a personal attack, and I considered blocking Gene for his constant incivility right after being reminded to refrain from such behavior. However, I've never blocked an established editor for gross incivility against myself (apart from Gene, it simply never happened) and I didn't want the block to eventually look like admin abuse. Therefore, I'm seeking advice instead. If I had blocked Gene, would that be unjustified or adequate? --Húsönd 01:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We need to be able to point out on the appropriate talk pages when someone is gaming the system. As the discussion shows, User:Steel agrees that:

• "There is a potential problem with people reverting an article and then immediately requesting protection; it is, in effect, gaming the system. I have yet to hear a good solution to this."

Clearly, in order to discuss the appropriateness of that policy, a recent, specific example of someone who has been gaming the system in that way, as opposed to bland generic discussion of some hypothetical potential for such gaming of the system, is exactly on point and totally unobjectionable. Gene Nygaard 02:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely endorse a week-long block over this. Gene Nygaard just refuses to understand anything about civility. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw Husond - pick a different kind of section title next time. This one sounds like a flop'd NBC sitcom.... Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, not one of my best creations. I was hoping nobody would notice it. Too late. :-P Húsönd 03:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Húsönd, you have been in a long term edit dispute with Gene over article naming conventions. And you are in a current edit dispute with Gene on the page of the link that you cite. Under no circumstances should you block Gene. Do not bring your admin buttons within ten feet of Gene or any article you two are fighting at. Darwinek just lost his adminship for not following this advice. Immediately after you two started your most recent fighting, Gene took a four day break from Wikipedia. Húsönd, I encourage you to do the same. --Duk 02:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the edit disputes that I constantly have with Gene, this is strictly about Gene's incivility. Darwinek was desysopped for very different actions, such as blocking Gene for going against him on edit wars, and also incivility. More importantly, I did not block Gene and I'm here asking for independent comments on this apparently perpetual situation. It seems to me that this is the most balanced way to discuss it without chancing any admin abuse. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are Wikipedia's policies that Gene has been transgressing for far too long. Don't you think we got a problem here that ought to be solved rather than let it be? I thank your wikibreak suggestion, but I will decline. First, because as you can see, Gene's back from his break and it clearly didn't improve anything. Second, I'm too addicted to Wikipedia to be absent for all that time. And third, why should I require rest if I'm calmly communicative as always?--Húsönd 03:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I take special note of your two-faced attitude towards incivility, noting specifically that it was none other you, Husond, who unblocked User:Darwinek when he was blocked for personal attacks against me. Gene Nygaard 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And further, that the most recent dispute involves your move of Josef Vasicek which was every bit as much undiscussed, every bit as much unreferenced, and every bit as much contrary to every source cited in the article as was the earlier undiscussed, unreferenced move contrary to existing sources by none other than the very same former sysop buddy of yours, User:Darwinek. Gene Nygaard 04:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

OK Húsönd, I apologize for suggesting that you take a break, that wasn't good of me. But I must say, Gene has some legitimate complaints. He's received inappropriate blocks twice recently (that I know of). And I've witnessed a kind of pack mentality against him during one of these events. That's bound to make any long time editor angry. Also, his incivility isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be - certainly not as bad as this or this. Is there any way you two could "fight the good fight" without resorting to blocks and litigation? --Duk 06:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, he expressly said that he didn't want to block him so as not to be seen as abusing admin privileges and brought it here instead, right? :) I don't know enough about the rest of the dispute though.. Baristarim 02:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than Husond's out-of-context edited version, here is the full paragraph from Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, including the supporting links showing that Husond was deliberately gaming the system:

• "There will always, of course, be unscrupulous editors like Husond, a sysop well aware of this fictious rule, who will take advantage of it to game the system. To make an edit while at the very same time request its protection as part and parcel of his gaming of the system to shift the burden of proof in any subsequent discussions."

That's something that needs to be able to be discussed. That is not in any way a violation of civility policies. Husond can disagree with my characterization and offer an alternative explanation if he chooses (but he has not done so as yet). Gene Nygaard 02:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And even that one full paragraph needs to be considered in the context of the several other paragraphs of my disussion in the section ""Protection is not an endorsement of the current version"—a delusion? a lie? or both?" which I cannot get to work as a link to the specific section, so just find it in the table of contents and read the whole thing at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy. Gene Nygaard 03:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have had my differences with Gene in the past. Yes, he was incivil, but he is also an active contributor. I'd suggest civility parole via WP:CN/WP:CEM instead of straight punishment blocks. Gene should accept he was incivil and be more careful in the future. 'Just a block' is a blunt penalty - I suggest the finesse of CN/CEM civility parole.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely endorse a civility parole.--Húsönd 03:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

First time we met was today, and frankly, I was not impressed with Gene's tone, language nor aggressive attitude [106] - Alison^☺ 06:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Given his continued character insults on this thread, ie "two faced" in bold type, and his persistent stunts in claiming that Husond improperly unblocked Darwinek (it was a self block by Darwinek), and his bogus claim that Husond was an abusive admin for requesting protection of a page that he edited, I have blocked Gene again for 48 hours. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I request my prior complaint be look at as well: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Josef Vašíček. I stated my take thoroughly at Talk:Josef Vašíček. Neither are innocent in this matter, and such behavior from an admin is unsettling. ccwaters 13:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Support block. If this is a recurring problem with Gene, then perhaps some civility parole would be appropriate. – Steel 13:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I applaud Blnguyen's decision to block Gene Nygaard. I don't see this block as punitive, but rather a widely used mechanism to prevent further incivility. New users are blocked all the time for refusing to observe WP:CIVIL, established editors should be no different (especially because from their experience on Wikipedia, they should be well aware that incivility is unproductive, damaging and never contributes to help someone's cause on a discussion).--Húsönd 13:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still think CEM would be better, but perhaps two days block will have as much effect; we shall see. In the meantime, comments about incivility and appropriate reaction are needed just a few threads up at #Claims_by_User:Vlad_fedorov.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Blnguyen, you've shown incredibly bad judgment here since you too have a history of dispute with Gene regarding article naming conventions category sorting. Also, when you block someone you should leave a note on their talk page with an explanation. I think the Gene's "incivility" has been exaggerated by the people he's in a long running dispute with. This is not surprising and to be expected, but these people must not be the ones to block him. --Duk 18:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I was puzzled by the way you are defending Gene and your levity towards his undeniable incivility, but after a quick investigation I noticed that you seem to share some of Gene's points of view that cause so many of his disputes. Needless to say, agreeing with Gene effectively prevents him from being uncivil towards you (therefore I'm pretty sure that you've personally never experienced his attacks or lack of manners). Maybe you haven't witnessed his incivility, or maybe you have but regarded it as an unimportant detail because, well, he was on your side. But please be reasonable and consider investigating Gene's incivility record instead of relying on your alignment with him as a justification for considering unfounded and exaggerated any claims against him.--Húsönd 21:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Húsönd I respectfully disagree with almost everything you say above. First of all, to the current dispute about article naming conventions, I have no opinion about diacritics in people's names. I really don't care. I have never (to my knowledge) moved an article away from or to diacritics. The only time I remember agreeing with Gene here is on the Árpád Élő article. He pointed out that (at the time) wikipedia's spelling Árpád Élő didn't have any reliable references (it does now). And that the references people were coming up with either post dated wikipedia's spelling or were explicitly derived from it. Further, a reference Gene found (from ellis island) disagreed with our spelling, presenting the possibility that wikipedians had just invented some reality. Also, the naming of the article was a no-brainer. I seriously question not only the neutrality, but the judgment of any person who would not want to spell the article with the name that Arpad spent his whole adult life using and publishing under. Outside of that debate, I really don't care about diacritics; we have redirects to handle things like that. I think fighting over them is silly.

I first met Gene when he called one of my illustrations "an abomination". I quickly realized two things: first, he's usually right and has solid understanding and reasoning behind his opinions. Second, while his language is rough, it always seems to go to the point and not to the person. This has changed a lately, as the point has shifted to packs of admins who are picking on him and don't seem to be able to resist bringing admin tools into their content disputes. (one of these editors just lost his adminship, with the arbcom noting an inappropriate block of Gene).

Húsönd, you say that my levity towards Gene's incivility has its origins in the fact that we share some points of view. This is flat out wrong as detailed above. Additionally, I've never unblocked him or condoned his "incivility" - I've only noted that you exaggerate it. Now, I'd like you to make the same audit of your own motives; do you think it is possible that you have an unfairly negative view of Gene because you two have some fundamental different points of view? Perhaps some of Gene's observations of your judgment and preferences have struck a nerve? When two people disagree, it's natural for them to loose perspective and get worked up. This is exactly why admins are never to use their tools at content disputes they are involved with. --Duk 22:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I find your response sound. I apologize and retreat my claims that your eventual alignment with Gene would determine your judgement. Allow me to make a few comments though: I agree that fighting over diacritics is silly, but in order to ensure Wikipedia's encyclopedic accuracy one must sometimes step into silly fights. It might not be healthy, but it's definitely part of the process. I acknowledge that Gene has excellent argumentative skills and usually provides explanations of his views straight to the point with valid reasoning, but unfortunately these are too often stained with incivility, snideness and lack of consideration for his opponents. I don't have an unfairly negative view of Gene, I acknowledge that he's a valued asset and does a lot of good work. Me and Gene do have fundamental different points of view when it comes to diacritics, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to have him in bad consideration for that. Recently Gene contacted me to report a mistake I made on WP:RM, we spoke cordially, I fixed the mistake, and thanked him for the report. So as you can see, I don't tend to let disagreements I might have with someone interfere with my overall relation with them. I like to separate things and put them in their right places. My complaints here are strictly about incivility, my diacritics clash with Gene is a separate subject that I keep aside. Once again, I don't mix things. And I don't get worked up either, never have. That's why I came here, so that I may discuss instead of using my tools in a way that I could regret. --Húsönd 00:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Support block. Please note his comment at Talk:Sulejman Talović: Just because some damn fools think an American who spelled his name Arpad Elo for 80 years should be squirreled away under some foreign name of a country his parents were glad to leave when he was a mere child, and try to tell us that this now-dead guy was such a fucking idiot he didn't know how to spell his own name, doesn't mean that's where it ends up in Wikipedia. [107] Khoikhoi 02:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that this reversion eliminated one policy violation but created another, possibly more severe one. I presume it was an oversight on User:SlimVirgin's part, but should be fixed. However I feel User:Mantanmoreland should have known better than to create such an irresponsible, defamatory and potentially actionable userbox.--Live and Active Culture 02:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well actually, Slim was only trying to revert spam, so you can hardly blame her... The userbox issue is a problem, but I'm pretty sure its going to be deleted. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 02:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi I wrote a complaint 18 February of this day regarding users Teke and Chacor (sorry couldnt link). I would like this to be looked into as I see at least one of the named parties behaving in the same fashion that prompted me to file my first complaint. In filing my complaint i followed the rules exactly. Admin Ryuong quickly brushed this aside because my complaint had "more than 100 words." The full complaint can be found on 18 February of my history and this page's history. Even if you do not pursue this at least look into the characters named above. Please look in to this. Feel free to Wikify the usernames. Thank you. WikiTony 04:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the original complaint. Anyway, you have no case there. You were warned for civility, and you continued to be uncivil. There is no exception to WP:CIVIL if you have a good reason to be angry, which is the thrust of your argument. -Amarkov moo! 04:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This gets funnier as I go on. You don't understand how calling someone childish and telling them that only you have the correct way to write current event articles is incivil? -Amarkov moo! 04:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's also been two months since that thread, in which the issue surely has been solved. Also, my original request was that you summarize it. I don't believe you had.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive202#Abuse of Power Complaint: admin Teke—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Before taking this here, please look at your contributions and tell us who started the fight first. Civility and No personal attacks are important policies in Wikipedia, and noone has immunity towards it. Take Amarkov's comments into consideration please, as your behavior is extremely disruptive. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 04:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A. I was the original victim of incivility from multiple partys. B. Nothing there is meant to be funny. C. I never said i was the "only way." I do consider myself a good example. D. The issue "surely" has not been solved. At least one of the people i mentioned is doing the same things to this day. E. I will not summarize anything. Please take the time to actually read users' complaints. It really is not that long. F. How is my behavior disruptive? G. Thank you. WikiTony 04:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Incivil behavior, by its nature, is disruptive, and being a victim of incivility does not excuse that. Many people seem to think there are circumstances which completely excuse incivility, but there are not. -Amarkov moo! 04:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

D. Doing what? This issue is from nine weeks ago. Teke is still an admin, is that what you mean? Chacor is still editing current events, is that what you mean? If you want your complaint to be responded to, summarize it. "Please make your comments concise and civil, and please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting." Otherwise, tough luck. Grow up. ありがとう。121.82.209.25 05:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What i mean is that Chacor is still bullying others the way he bullied me. I will not shorten anything. I have made a thoughtful argument and i feel that every word of it is relevant. Please actually take the time to read your users' complaints. Everything I make eference to can be seen on my edits from 13Feb 07- 19 Feb 07. So far, after attempting to voice a complaint (again) in a professional manner I have been called "disruptive" and told to "grow up." And I am the one who was banned for 3 days for civility? This reeks of hypocrisy. WikiTony 15:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your original complaint runs to 3000 words. The productivity of any noticeboard approaches zero if the participants can't be brief. No-one has the time to study such a long complaint. Since you clearly have the ability to compose a 3000-word message, you should also to have the ability to create a shorter one. EdJohnston 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. I can't speak for Chacor cause I don't have dealings with him, but Teke is one of the most civil and fair-handed administrators or editors I've ever run across. The only incivility I see is coming from the IP above and from wikitony. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an NN autobio page written by User:Extremador. It was CSDed as nonsense, and it has since been recreated. I have speedied it as nonsense once again, but I think it may be wise to salt the page. MSJapan 04:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, nonsense doesn't apply in that case, but CSD A7 (nn biography) does, so I have deleted it. Secondly, its now listed on WP:PT. Viridae^Talk 04:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I based my decision on the content, which was pretty nonsensical. Thanks for taking care of that. MSJapan 04:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

- - User: 67.110.221.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked[108] for one week, approximately 1 hour ago, by Riana. Since then, he has logged on under a sockpuppet ID 209.206.165.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and has continued to blank the Chelsea Clinton talk page.[109][110][111][112][113][114] Please see the diffs in the above report for several instances of this user blanking Talk Page text, as well as warnings from his/her own Talk page. -- Eleemosynary 04:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The WHOIS tool says it's two different people, one from Washington the other Michigan. I'm wondering if one's a proxy... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 05:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Could certainly be a proxy, if not a meatpuppet. The blanking is identical, and the edit summaries have nearly identical rants attached. Eleemosynary 05:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: Riana has blocked the user for 48 hours. Eleemosynary 05:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected Talk:Chelsea Clinton, blocked a few IPs they were using. Appropriate template to use in this case has slipped my mind. If anybody wants to fiddle, set a good expiry, or swap templates, please feel very free. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Are these spam links made by this user, Pub4you? Real96 09:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly approach them as such. El_C 09:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

They quack like a duck, at least. He seems to have started some discussion at Shadowbot's talk page, I've given a reply there. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, can someone please help me with this page, re: an administrator, Irishguy? He continues to troll the board, where we had some issues, where I got quite angry at a couple of people a few days ago (my bad, but done is done).

Irishguy, an administrator, continues to erase my entry to this woman's page, about her work for which she's won awards. There is a video of the woman's work from the NY Times.

This Irishguy keeps calling this an advertisement. It is not.

What he also didnt notice is that someone added some inappropriate material, where there were value judgements applied to the woman's story, calling it "sordid" and people who helped her "humane". In other words, he's not trying to improve the article, he's trying to provoke me, so he can continue to block me, and satisfy some need he has to control users.

Please, if someone can take a look at the page Mukhtar Mai and please give a 2nd opinion about whether my insert is "advertisment" (which I surely feel it is not) I would be so grateful. And I would like someone to please ask Irishguy to stop this? Thanks.

Also, if someone wants to "wikify" this page, I would be grateful. I think it is fairly wikified, but if I take off that tag, then I am going to get hell from Irishguy. He wants to continue to fight with me, and to continue to block me. He just won't let it go. I'm simply trying to update a page, and I find this recursive interaction between us (he undoes my changes, deletes relevant things) boring. Thanks for your help.

Thank you. Jenniferpowell 11:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what he called "Advertisement"

= Mukhtar Mai’s work =   
   
Mukhtar Mai became famous after she took the money awarded her 
in the court settlement, and began to work to educate girls, 
and to promote education with a view towards raising awareness 
to prevent future honor crimes. Out of this work grew the 
organization [http://www.mukhtarmaiwwo.org Mukhtar Mai 
Women's  Welfare Organization]. Through this agency, Mukhtar 
Mai continues her work to educate young girls, and to educate 
the community about women’s rights and gender issues.  This 
work also includes the creation of a center for victims of 
violence.  Mukhtar Mai not only teaches the young girls, but 
has been active in helping to make sure that underage girls 
stay in school, rather than get married.  In Fall 
2007, a high school will be started by her group.     
[115]. 
New York Times Video: “A Conversation With Mukhtar Mai”

While I wouldn't clasify that as an advertisement, the link is already entered under External Links. I have gone through the article and did a general cleanup, and removed the tags. I have seen lots of articles on Wiki in MUCH worse shape (and this one is not in bad shape at all) which were not so tagged. It is a good article and needs a little work, but not enough to warrant big bumper stickers on the top of the article. Jeffpw 20:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we have an administrator comment on Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon? There have been some comments that pertain directly to WP:LEGAL. In particular, User:Davkal has made a few statements that accuse myself of libel and also say obliquely that it opens Wikipedia up to legal action. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 12:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Warned Davkal. He borders on NLT with the libel accusation but is not quite there. I told him if he has a problem, bring it up with the foundation, not with other editors, and if he continues he'll be blocked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of speech two edits obscenity and vandalism by Special:Contributions/146.145.79.137 with some previous history Richard Myers 13:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the vandalism and warned the vandal.↔NMajdan•talk 14:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:DDRG persists in reverting a section of the Asahi Shimbun to his version with no citable proof of his statements, and he is the only one making the claims of notability of the issues he added. He claimed he would find more sources, but has not, and has returned to simply reverting the page to his version (because it's got to say "Scandals and alleged report" in the header, apparently; "Controversies" isn't good enough).

It comes down to POV-pushing; the user believes that a few minor reporting errors that weren't responded to by the paper 15 years ago are acceptable to call "scandals" (despite no secondary coverage). DDRG blames the paper for actions of individuals (interviews with people regarding comfort women, and the people were later found to be liars; a photographer who staged a shot and sent it to the paper, and apparently stating two politicians met in Nagano when it as really Tokyo). His sources are weekly magazines that appear to be tabloids (links to what I could find are on the talk page). DDRG also gives only the magazine title and the date of publication (thus there is no way to validate the citation). I think this requires intervention, but as there are so-called "sources" cited, I'm not sure a case can be made for a set of warnings. MSJapan 15:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I stuck my oar in these waters a week ago, but was handicapped by not knowing Japanese. The essence is apparently now down to (1) whether or not Shinchosha is a sufficiently reliable source to be cited saying that there were issues with an Asahi Shimbun story. Our article on it doesn't say much, it could be Time (magazine) or the Weekly World News. I asked for someone who reads Japanese to help before, but to little avail. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

After getting blocked and getting two unblock requests denied, SuperExpress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now posting threats of possible further vandalism on his or her talk page, and therefore possibly committed extortion. Should I just semi-protect it, or should I state that we have technical means of tracking him or her down and that continued theats will result in a complaint with the FBI or an ISP abuse report? I do not want to violate WP:NLT, but I do not enjoy extortion by trolls, either. I was about to post this message: "Extortion will only result in a complaint to your ISP or the police. We have ways to find your IP address when necessary.", but caught myself about to possibly violate WP:NLT. Therefore, I would like to seek input on how to handle extortionists and other criminals on Wikipedia, and how severe a crime must be before I file a CheckUser request (with code letter A, if you insist) with a request that the results be forwarded to the FBI (The FBI gets jurisdiction on Internet crime, as the majority of Internet crimes cross state boundaries) or other appropriate law enforcement agency. I know that all death threats and child porn cases (I actually ran across two photos on the Commons that were unquestionably child porn, and requested a CheckUser there) should go to CheckUser. Jesse Viviano 17:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, I think you're overreacting. Just delete his pages and forget about him John Reaves (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We have only one stance for vandals - Revert, block, ignore; and yes, don't forget to protect (not semi-protect, the user is registered) the talk page. I suppose, the users are not permitted to make legal threats or even insinuations on Wikipedia. --Zamkudi 17:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There have been no legal threats. John Reaves (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not yet, but Jesse was intending to, even though his intentions are honest. --Zamkudi 17:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I thought you were referring to the vandal. John Reaves (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the ruckus I caused. I guess my judgement was clouded by a conflict of interest because this vandal put a bunch of nonsense on my own talk page. This is why I sought community input. As for my last sentence in my above post, I should have added ", but where is the line for how severe a crime should be before being sent to CheckUser?". Jesse Viviano 18:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

With the seriousness you probably did not intend, we generally do not term these as crimes. Users may fault, and they are blocked when they are being knowingly and intentionally disruptive. Checkusers are generally used as a last resort to establish links between patterns of abusive sockpuppetry. There is a whole list of reasons how and when RFCU should be resorted to, see WP:RFCU for more details. In this case, the troll user account threatened us with more vandalism. The administrators would be present to block those disruptive accounts when they turn up. If there is something peculiar about their actions, i.e. they target a particular set of articles or userpages, they get blocked and templates like {{sockpuppet}} can be used to mark those accounts. Good day. --Zamkudi 20:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a second opinion. I've been trying to educate User:Nowonline about proper attribution, and no original research and getting nowhere. The editor Nowonline seems to be a "Richard B. Autry", and citing himself, and claiming to be publishing a book soon. Before I nominate all the articles created by this user for deletion as original research, is there something more I should do - or should I just walk away? Extensive text on the Nowonline's talk page (which he keeps deleting items from - so be careful to review the history) here: User talk:Nowonline Thanks WLD^talk|edits 18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you can pretty aggressively remove anything that doesn't meet WP:ATT or WP:BLP. The onus on sourcing is on the originator and sourcing things to vague "future books" doesn't cut it.--Isotope23 19:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you for your view. I really don't want to come across too strong, as I don't want to bite a newbie, or dishearten an infrequent contributor, but it looks like I'll start nominating articles for deletion. Thanks again. WLD^talk|edits 19:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Or, you can do what I'm doing at Micajah Autry; removing insufficient sources from the article, editing, and inline citing everything. Deletion may not be the necessity for all these articles.--Isotope23 19:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, that is what I intended for articles that have sourced information - the problem being that I may not have access to the sources to check. I'm not after wholesale deletion, and I'm sorry if that's how I came across. WLD^talk|edits 22:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user came back under User:195.56.205.29 to do what he always did. Reveal lying by users [116] here. He's got a bad temper and harsh wording. He deserved indef block for that, since content is not a matter here, just wording, and speaking style. Good. Best way to achive the goal of finally changing the motto(?) of "The Free Encyclopedia" to the more specified "The POV Encyclopedia". Speak nice or die, so now kill block me. Thank you. --195.56.205.29 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• COUGH*Don't be a dick*COUGH* HalfShadow 20:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I tagged one of this user's pages as nonsense while on New Page Patrol about a week ago and then gave them another warning when the page was further expanded. (The page was subsequently deleted as nonsense). S/he now appears to have turned their user page into a petition against me. I think said user is just being silly and intends no genuine malice, but if a sysop could remove the offending article, warn the user (and explain that New Page Patrol do not "mercilessly crush" anything, that's not how it works), I would be very grateful. A1octopus 22:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the comments and given the user a warning. If he/she does it again, feel free to delete it. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 01:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

...by Special:Contributions/70.108.208.139. See the article's history. He keeps adding "I am stupid" to this article. --PaxEquilibrium 23:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Warn the user with {{uw-vandalism1}}, then {{uw-vandalism2}}, {{uw-vandalism3}} and {{uw-vandalism4}} (or whatever sequence you see fit) and report to WP:AIV if the anon continues. --Iamunknown 00:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped -- faster response at AIV, yep. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Frivolous attack on Mr. Block — user User talk:Ogana warned by bot for one edit, but made three altogether. These appear to be the only three edits for this user: Special:Contributions/Ogana. — thanks, — Richard Myers 01:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped -- giving them an orange banner for now might only encourage more. I'll check back in on them, later. Faster vandalism responses at WP:AIV, generally. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi,
Do not edit on Turk and Turkish related pages again, your edits as being an anti-Turk has been perceived as a provacative vandalism. Your future edits on these pages will be taken to legal status. You are free to edit an other pages including Iran. ([117])

(emphasis mine) Khoikhoi 03:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he may have meant that he would take it to an admin, not that he would sue you, but ordering someone to stop editing a class of pages is bad enough. -Amarkov moo! 03:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's generally inflammatory and he's blocked until he explains. The tone of the comment seems to suggest he thinks he's already an admin. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Khoikhoi 03:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I recently warned USER:Spiddy about blanking pages. In response the user has defaced my user page and placed inappropriate warnings on my talk page.

• Blanked my userpage
• Placed false block notice on my userpage in bad faith.
• Placed false block notice on my usertalk page in bad faith.

I'm not sure what action is appropriate; I am not going to respond to the user in hopes than an admin will take care of the situation. Thanks! /Blaxthos 04:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The editor has been blocked. Naconkantari 04:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone urgently block User:KURDBIJISTAN? a definite sockpuppet of a banned user [118]. He has vandalized many pages (see contributions [119]), including my user pages. He put speedy notices on his user page and talk page - the one for the talk page was declined by an admin. Urgent block needed - I also filed a 3RR report at [120] - I don't know who he is for the moment, but I will file a checkuser. Baristarim 01:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw, all his edit summaries are deceptive [121] which makes the vandalbot and other users hard to detect. Baristarim 01:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, taken care of.. Baristarim 02:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

CheckUser[edit]

This is banned user Artaxiad. I guess here's as good a place as any to note his reincarnations, as determined by checkuser: Vrastic (talk · contribs), HayasaArmen (talk · contribs), Mexicana (talk · contribs), Fakers (talk · contribs), Russ (talk · contribs), Mr. Barnstar (talk · contribs), Hayastan (talk · contribs), Lakers (talk · contribs), Graeco (talk · contribs), and Kursarta (talk · contribs). Dmcdevit·t 02:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow.. I was sure that KURDBIJISTAN was Artaxiad, but didn't want to voice it, since it would have been embarassing had I wrongly accused someone of being such a malicious troll - but now that the cat is out of the bag, yeah it definitely is him: I know the editing style, the temper, the articles he visits - everything - it is him. Nevertheless, I am amazed at how many accounts he has created (I had thought that Russ, Vrastic and Hayastan was him) but had no idea how much it had escalated. The worst thing is that he seems to want to continue this forever [[122]. As soon as it became apparent that he would be blocked and before it became formal he went on a trolling spree which got him banned for 48 hours. It is amazing.. I know he is banned only for a year, but considering that he was back to editing like this a day after the ban came into effect, it might be good to envisage the possibility of a indef ban - it is just too much to track him down and waste time fixing trivial stuff. I wish that he would come to his senses and return as a normal editor, but I feel that he doesn't take Wikipedia seriously and that he actually enjoys trolling..Baristarim 03:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I had the same hunch, and was not at all surprised to see it was him. Looks like the Arbcom made the right decision in banning him. --Golbez 04:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect there may be more of them. -- Cat ^chi? 11:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol, check this: [123] deniz^T_C 17:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

whow - talk about multiple personality :) Baristarim 02:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

To Baris, I don't enjoy trolling I'm obviously immature and I loose my cool easily theres no coming back, one year is too long same thing as a indef, so I see no point in waiting it out so I will do what I have to do. I helped alot with Lakers on Turkish articles, and to Cool Cat stop blabbering please, checkuser revealed all my accounts so be quiet. Theres nothing else to suspect all those accounts were recently created. 202.28.186.3 23:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was pretty surprised with the Lakers account.. It is pretty weird, you know how to be a good editor and what makes one, but you choose not to be many times. Thus my comment about actually enjoying trolling - this is in contrast to users who are bad editors but are convinced that they are doing the right thing - that's the hardest situation to deal with. Baristarim 02:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, the above comment could be removed per WP:BAN Baristarim 02:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Should be kept for evidence. My "blabbering" is as per arbitration committee ruling. I have reason to believe you have more. -- Cat ^chi? 11:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

See [124]/ Andy Mabbett 17:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the personal attack. Perhaps he's rude, but rudeness alone is not a personal attack. The user appears to, quite brusquely, be asking you to not post inflammatory stuff to his/her page. That might not be kosher, but it's still not a personal attack. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it appears he is asking that Adambro (talk · contribs) not post anything on his talkpage be it inflammatory or not. I agree with Chairboy (talk · contribs); while rude and not at all in the spirit of a collaborative project, it isn't exactly a personal attack. I'd recommend disengaging from contact with Captain scarlet (talk · contribs). If there is something that Adambro would normally inform a user of (AfD of a page they created, RfC, etc) I'd say he can safely not contact Captain Scarlet about it and if anyone else points out that the nice thing to do is contact an individual in that situation, he can point them to that diff.--Isotope23 17:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not silly and not about to post inflamatory, insulting, unappropriate comments on someonelse's talk page. The message was intende dpurely as a coutrious advice to Adambro not to speak to me as I generally disagree with him and do not hold him in particular favour. Instead of letting each argue I'd prefer cutting all inwards communications be it in a brusk way. There is afterall a specific definition for bruskness. I, however, appreciate Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs)'s concerns for adambro (talk · contribs)'s wellbeing. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the comment made by Captain scarlet, I'm not sure I would view it as a personal attack, I suppose the assertion that anything I say will be considered with little value could possibly be seen as an attack on my character. As Captain scarlet notes in his message, he has previously asked me not to contact him but I have seen circumstances where the guidelines suggest I should notify him of my actions. I have replied to the comment on my talk page and explained that I will take his latest message as negating me of this responsibility in the future. I appreciate the suggestion made by Isotope23 to this effect. I would also thank Pigsonthewing (Andy) for highlighting this and allowing me to hear the opinions of other editors as to the appropriate response. Adambro 18:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone doesn't want comments on their talk page, that's their right. How is that a personal attack? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Doing so is, despite what you or anyone else says [125], trolling". Please explain how unfounded accusations of trolling can be anything but a PA. Note also that the text concerned was re-added. Andy Mabbett 23:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I can judge whatever comments made to me as trolling Andy, It's one of the concepts of trolling; you leave a comment for me, I see it as trolling. I readded a comment Adam blanked just to make sure you understand how you function on Wikipedia and how it is unappropriate to place an nth RfC and not notify to target. You fail to differenciate a comment on one's actions and comments on someone, the trollbox is a collection of comments I consider trolling, no one can take that away from me as it is me who may decide what comments left to me are or are not cases of trolling. All of this because I don't like Adam, or you and would rather have you not talk to me to avoid further agravation. You're not being very diplomatic and constantly referring me is incredibly childish, the provblem might not lie with me, but with you. Maybe I should ask you not add comments to my talkpage also, just to make sure I don't have blatant cases of uncivility on it [126] (that's kinda trolling you did there Andy). Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Two users, Gene_Poole and Davidpdx are persistently harrassing Harvardy during last few days, leaving at his userpage inappropriate "Socketpuppetry" tags, despite he was unblocked many months ago. They do not want let him write at his userpage the sentence "Believe it or not", and revert him endlessly. Beside that, GP has just left a spurious warning at my talk page (see its bottom), containing his usual harrassing threads. --Doktor Who 01:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No idea what the situation is, but I've warned both and protected the page as blanked. If there are sock concerns, they should be taken through the proper channels; harassment and revert warring don't accomplish anything. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Harvardy has at times blatantly trolled, vandalized, and I've been reasonably sure at times that H is a sock for a long term abuser. I am not alone in this suspicion; see 2006 CU of Harvardy and IP socks re Wik suspicion, by Thatcher131 [127], and various claims by others that it's Johnski, another banned user. That said, Gene and David are not handling this through proper channels right now. Maybe we need to make a final determination about whether Harvardy is a problem, but Gene and David can't attack him vigilante-style without consequences. Georgewilliamherbert 02:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Harvardy is a known sockpuppet of longerm problem editor Johnski, who was indefinitely blocked by the Arbcom for a litany of abuses and violations. Numerous editors concur with this assessment. It is my understanding that Harvardy admitted to being a Johnski sockpuppet in a private email to an Admin some time ago. As soon as I find the reference I will post it. Given that the creation of the Harvardy account is a direct violation of the Arbcom's ruling, the suspected sockpuppet warning is entirely warranted. Admins should note that Doktor Who's posting of this notice is a result of ongoing problems involving that editor's contributions to a number of music-related articles, which I have sought to address. These include violations of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR. In addition, Doktor Who himself has been identified as one of several active sockpuppets of Sky-surfer. --Gene_poole 02:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It would take a fraction of the effort to do a proper investigation of this that your and David's ongoing edit wars on his/her user page and talk page have taken, and would be policy compliant instead of abusive. The rules apply to everyone, including you, including when you are dealing with someone that lots of people agree is often abusive. Either there's a case to be made to ban him, including evidence of sock or just the edit history, or you need to stop this disruptive fighting with him... Georgewilliamherbert 02:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that to be taken as a willingness to provide active assistance? Davidpdx and I attempted to bring Johnski's creation of the Harvardy sock account in violation of the Arbcom ruling to the attention of admins months ago, and there was no response. Harvardy then disappeared, so the matter became moot. Harvardy suddenly reappeared recently and immediately attempted to edit the Dominion of Melchizedek article, in exactly the same pro-DOM manner as before, so blocking the sock account is now a matter of urgency.--Gene_poole 03:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are some facts:

• Gene Poole (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) was blocked some months ago for one day (userpage also violates WP:COI)
• Centauri (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet account owned by Gene Poole, see his userpage and block logs for evidence;
• Harvardy (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) was blocked some months ago and unblocked after 3 days, after the admin changed his mind on the matter, and there are no current blocks on him;
• Doktor Who (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) has several (hundreds) edits in music-related articles, that many editors find interesting and valuable; furthermore, in his spare time, Dr Who helps fighting random anon ip vandals. An RFC posted by Gene Poole, containing accusations of sockpuppetry, as well as various accusations against Dr Who, were ignored by administrators.
• Please note also that disclosing private mails' content on this opensource site might result as unlawful in several countries, please take it as a friendly advice, I'm not threatening anyone, it's not my style.Doktor Who 02:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more facts: At least 2 editors believe Doktor Who to be a sockpuppet of Sky-surfer, who admitted (to Petros471) to being a sockpuppet of Brian G. Wilson. There is a strong suggestion that Doktor Who is also the owner of Milomedes and Parzival418. All 5 accounts share identical unverifiable non-mainstream opinions concerning ambient music which they have attempted to insinuate into several related articles. They also share a tendency to cross-post long, rambling "me-too" comments on each others' talk pages to create an illusion of consensus, to post odd rhetorical questions, and to attempt psychoanalysis of editors who express opinions at variance with their own. You do the math. --Gene_poole 03:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha, GP's request for checkuser ended up to show that Milo and Parzival are not the same person and are not me. Furthermore, I don't see any disruptive edits in B.G. Wilson's and Sky-surfer's history, GP is the person that used all his arsenal of expertize to insult them and gain their emotional overreaction. With regard to last message that GP posted at User talk:Georgewilliamherbert, I do not suspect that the Royals are drug supporters, I would never say that, and I could never believe that. The point is that there is no record of any sockpuppetry or block regarding me; GP, instead has a claimed, verified and indefinitely blocked sock account, that he used to force others' opinions; I never used such scam schemes.Doktor Who 12:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you have unwisely mentioned my username in a false context, I feel entitled to describe my observation of your hidden agenda. Psychoanalysis? Sure— you are obsessed with your claim of a "sockpuppet army" that among current and active editors, does not exist. Milomedes and Parzival418 have been cleared by checkuser, yet you keep repeating this charge without foundation. I emphasize without foundation. (Your inability to comprehend the creative talk page rhetoric of two philosophically-educated users is unexpected, and occasionally amusing, but is nonetheless your problem.) The first time, ok, you just got it wrong, and after checkuser failed you should have dropped your notion. But to keep on repeating the disproved socks charge is obsessive. Now you are trying to convince admins of your obsession, which I deem unacceptable.

It doesn't take socks to be opposed to your heavy-handed WP:OWNership of the New Age music articles. Your tactics to enforce article ownership, I judge to be collectively under-the-radar trolling: subtle harassments, Wikilawyer intimidations, nitpicking complaints, and other just barely-tolerated tactics to distract consensed editing. If your distraction fails, consensed edits are made anyway — then you get reverted fair 'n' square by multiple editors, and you start up with the socks charges. We could have greatly improved three New Age music articles in the amount of our project editing time you have wasted. We also might have reached compromises with other opposed POVs, had you not stood in the way of any POV except your own — which smells like a professional WP:COI, to me and other editors of your article about your music business.

I think that you have opponents at the micronations articles for similar reasons. Apparently you have been getting away with WP:OWNership for years. I'd like to find out how much. I hereby nominate you for #1 WP:OWNer in all of Wikipedia. Milo 12:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have indef blocked ShacOne (talk · contribs) as a block-evading sockpuppet of Shac1 (talk · contribs), given the obviously identical name and the contributions of the former. Shac1 was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR earlier today. I am also considering lengthening the original block on Shac1 given his sockpuppetry, but am not sure of the appropriateness of that. Having looked over the sockpuppet policy again, I'm going to restart the block on Shac1. Natalie 03:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

if this is a sockpuppet, it is a very odd one. If you look at the history of Capella University, ypu will find that ShacOne deleted material that Shac1 had been violating the 3RR to keep in the article, specifically this edit by ShacOne, as compared with this edit or this edit by Shac1. Looks more like a Joe job to me.

However, I do think that User:Arla364 may very well be a sock of Shac1: all of Arla364's edits were to defend Shac1, and this "new user"s first edits were to the 3RR reporting board and the Admins notice board. See here. This may be worth looking into further. DES ^(talk) 13:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's now gone to checkuser. Shac1 has been unblocked, as his/her original 24 hour block is over. Natalie 14:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Lovelight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is tagging a number of biographies with the 911ct template in order to try to get the template removed. [128]. See their contribs for the articles they've disrupted. --Tbeatty 04:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears they've also removed them, by now, if I'm not mistaken -- I'm not clear as to whether some discussion led to this or not. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:KazakhPol has been making several comments on my RfA referring to my lack of temper control. Despite my efforts at explanation, he has dismissed them, intent on disrupting the request. After User:John Reaves commented on his behavior, he had since talked to John Reaves about retracting those comments. When he didn't comment, KazakhPol started monitoring his behavior, looking for faults [129]. I really don't know if this is really disruption, or if I am at fault here, so I thought i'll post this here just in case. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see some diffs of how I have engaged in disruption. My discussion with John Reaves was a civil reply to a point he made. I subsequently asked Reeves a question regarding his block of Armyranger as I thought he had made a mistake in his block amount. He had put "undefined" and I presumed he meant "indefinite." Kzrulzuall's statement that he does not know if my comments amount to disruption is a telling sign about his readiness for adminship. KazakhPol 08:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That was a mistake. I meant that I wasn't sure if it was disruption. Even the best of admins can be unsure of things. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And now he's mocking me for no good reason. [130]. Anyone have a third opinion on this? --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Don't argue with oppose !voters on your own RFA. Yes, even if you think they're full of shit. If they are truly being disruptive, someone else will speak up like John Reaves did. Frise 09:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I was actually going to leave KazakhPol's comments alone, so he might stop bothering me so much. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not mocking you. In the past week four different users have misspelled my username. I am genuinely appreciative. KazakhPol 17:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I believe User:Lastsacrament is trolling on his user page and his, my and another editors user talk pages. DarkSaber2k 10:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In point of fact, he just left a personal attack on my talk page while I was posting the above message. I've left it there as evidence. Here is the diff DarkSaber2k 10:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack on his talk page against another editor. DarkSaber2k 10:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Userpage deleted, editor warned. Viridae^Talk 11:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Went a bit further than that and blocked his account for 24 hours per [131][132][133] ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone equipped with a solid heavy cluebat please have a look at the BLP trainwreck that is the Nasser Pourpirar article? I'd rather not get involved myself, for various reasons. This unblock request may need to be reviewed too in this context. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ahwaz was blocked for violation of 3RR, for which I reported him. His violation of 3RR was the result of his edit-waring to place a notability tag on the article, since he's claiming the subject is not notable to have an article, eventhough the subject generates thousands of google hits in several languages, and User:Ahwaz's argument was refuted several times. Furthermore, User:Ahwaz has been blocked for 3RR, incivility, and sockpupetry 17 times by now, in less than a year. [134] Please note that User:Ahwaz was still edit-waring, even after he was explicitly told by an admin the last time he was blocked, that he was very close to being blocked indefinitely if he doesn't improve his behavior.[135] --Mardavich 14:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As for the subject, Nasser Pourpirar, he is on the record, in his own book, saying "the great genocide was commited by the Jews" and that "the land of Iran was completely wiped out of human beings by the Jews". All these anti-semitic statements are available on his own weblog [136]. --Mardavich 15:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm completely uninvolved, never heard of the guy. I've just cleaned up the spelling and formatting. PalestineRemembered 16:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Shqipman wrote "death to Serbs" on a talk page.[137] It happened after he was warned against personal attacks and vandalism by two other users. Tankred 17:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User blocked. Naconkantari 17:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Will somebody please block a certain user's latest account trying to impersonate me? This time the name is Vandaltinian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is intolerable! Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User G-Man insists on styling pages, to suit his display, [138], [139], using sizes on thumbnail images, despite an explanation of why this is a bad thing and a request to stop being placed on his talk page. Andy Mabbett 19:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a couple of other editors contacted him about this after that last edit. Let's see if the message sticks.--Isotope23 20:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

According to his talk page it hasn't. He's persisting and now appears to have breached 3RR. Andy Mabbett 20:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for 3RR. Naconkantari 20:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Beat me to it... yeah he needs to get the clue.--Isotope23 20:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

While I don't give a damn what happens to G-Man, I thank you for starting this thread. I have added sizes to thumbnails I have entered, simply because I thought it was required. Now I know better. I actually learned something here today! :-) Jeffpw 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I occasionally abuse the thumb option and then resize the image, it seems to be the only way to add a caption. --Edokter (Talk) 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So, wait, what are editors supposed to do with infoboxes? Those always ask for an image size. — coelacan — 06:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Which they should not per WP:IUP (Rules of thumb #11). Images should be thumbed, not sized and then everyone can be happy by setting their own Special:Preferences. --Iamunknown 06:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately size preferences cannot be referenced in infoboxes, which do not use the "thumb" parameter. --NE2 06:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I too had not heard this rule, but now I have found out about the preferences setting it makes sense. However, I should point out that at least some featured articles do not comply with this rule. The current one, Scooby-Doo, doesn't; I checked two more at random (Cochineal and El Lissitzky) and both had non-compliant images. Mike Christie (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

News to me too, as it would probably be to most other folks who ever frequent FAC. I've never seen it mentioned there. --kingboyk 20:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think allowing for specific image size shouldn't be frowned upon. Sometimes it can help fix styling issues with the pages (or sometimes create some), and it also gets rid of the ugly thumb notification image at the bottom. ~ UBeR 21:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It also doesn't appear the norm either. As someone else pointed out, many articles, including featured ones, don't seem to do this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UBeR (talk • contribs) 23:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

I didn't even know this option existed, and I doubt many editors do, let alone readers, who don't even have that option and see all thumbs in 180px (which I think is too small). So I'm not surprised everyone uses the size tag. A default thumb size of 200px would be better, and could even be scaled depending on readers' screen DPI setting. --Edokter (Talk) 23:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Tathagata Buddha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Darin Fidika (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Darin Fidika was blocked indefinitely due to repeated blatant copyright violations (see here), and is now back under Tathagata Buddha. As I have already been involved in previous incidents with this user, I'd like someone else to look at it and make the determination on whether or not to block the new account. I found out about it by stumbling across his Wikibooks page. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to look at this one? I appreciate any help. Thanks. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oy. I see there are a lot of contributions from the new account. Are there any copyright violations? Mangojuice^talk 20:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, as the articles are in an area of expertise that does not overlap any I have. The basic format of the articles is very similar, though, and the wording is as wonderful as ever. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ranapanna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a likely sockpuppet of Danny Daniel, as the user recreated (more specifically added info very similar) an article created by LuisPlank2X4 (68.37.205.18 was thought as an open proxy for the user and is also an IP sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user Danny Daniel). See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Danny Daniel for more information). The user also edited List of characters in My Gym Partner's a Monkey (an article that Danny Daniel's sockpuppets seem to vandalise often) adding misinformation similar to to that of confirmed socks. [140], [141]. Not only that, the user edited The Good Ol' Days/Future Lost and Chip Skylark, which are both related to The Fairly OddParents (much of the confirmed socks edit pages related to it).

Note that I reported two likely sockpuppets of Danny Daniel in late March. Squirepants101 02:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This user still hasn't been blocked, yet a case involving a sockpuppet of MagicKirin was looked at.Squirepants101 19:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reposted this because no one has blocked this vandal and sadly, he's still editing, continuing to add hoaxes and vandalism. I've notified this to User:Irishguy and User:NawlinWiki and they haven't done something about it. I originally reported the user about five days ago. Squirepants101 23:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it taking so long for someone to respond anyways? It's similar to what happened last time I tried to report a sockpuppet of Danny Daniel. The only reason Choolabuulba got blocked anyways is that I notified Irishguy about it after he responded to my report. That involved User:FictionH. It's almost been a week since I originally posted this. Squirepants101 23:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Single user, User:Ceoil refusing to allow use of {{death date and age}} on Nick Drake, despite no support for his position on talk page, or in topic he started elsewhere. Discussion has included repeated allusions to supposed collusion (even after apology for same) and exhortation to "buzz off". Andy Mabbett 23:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No admin intervention is needed. This is primaraly a content dispute, but concensus seems on your side. Please try to resolve this with User:Ceoil on the talk page. Also, as a courtesy, please inform users that they are a subject on WP:AN or WP:ANI. --Edokter (Talk) 00:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tried that, and got the responses described, that's why I came here. Andy Mabbett 00:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on the article's talk page, that's all I can do. I'll leave it up to you how to interpret the current consensus. --Edokter (Talk) 00:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No courtesy was extended, however the content dispute has been resolved. Ceoil 18:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Alx 91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked 04:26, 8 April 2007 for persistent issues with images after a final warning where I presented several offending diffs and requests to stop. At ~19:00 2007-04-12, Alx 91 uploaded Image:Music Promo Copyright.png (api.php diff) and then, in two diffs, added it to Template:Musicpromo-screenshot. The user was blocked for, among other things, repeatedly changing image copyright tags despite multiple requests to stop (some diffs are scattered across Alx 91's talk page). As an anonymous user, 189.157.64.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Alx 91 has continued this behaviour. Please block 189.157.64.1. --Iamunknown 04:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone willing to at least respond? --Iamunknown 19:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I will warn the user and keep an eye on them. Cheers, A Train^talk 19:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown, that user's last edit was many hours ago. I see that you posted a warning to User:Alx 91's talk page. If we assume good faith then the anon IP may not be Alx, and you never warned the IP directly. Blocking isn't the way to go right now unless the IP returns and continues with the same pattern of edits in spite of the warning. Sorry it took so long for an admin to get on this for you. A Train^talk 19:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My younger brother's recently "discovered" the amusement of vandalising Wikipedia (he registered the account "Vandal100" which Ryulong blocked immediately). Someone may want to pay attention to anonymous edits coming from my IP, as anything which isn't constructive will certainly be him. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We need to know the ip first, before someone blocks. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat embarrassingly, I'm not even sure of my own IP address anymore. That said, the alert's off since he seems to have decided to do something else now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You can probably find your ip address quite easily by going into your internet connection settings, or any website made to display your ip. (Try Google.) - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My favourite trick now: Log out and type Special:Mypage into search. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

www.whatismyip.com --Zamkudi 09:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Or, you know, you could just log out, sign with four tildes and hit preview. That's what I do to find my IP. Grandmasterka 09:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(<---) My IP changes every time I relog in to my ISP. WAS 4.250 10:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a dynamic ip address, but the first and second groups of numbers do not change: a.b.x.y : all the numbers go from 0 to 255, "a" and "b" are costants, they do not change for a given area and subsequent set of users of that provider, the "x" and the "y" change each time. Some hackers can trick their provider and show a faked ip adress (maybe using open proxies, but I guess they have further methods).--Doktor Who 12:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Big Haz, if for some reason your account is caught up in a block, when you put the unblock notice, include a link to this post...it should clear things up really easily.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 23:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

For some time this admin has been following me around the wiki, causing me annoyance and offense. Even as I trying to leave on a wikibreak, he carries on. When I complained multiple types about this pattern of behavior, noting that it had led to an Arbcom case in the past, he accused me of incivility and threatened to block me. I had advocated strongly for an anonymous user whom he had blocked -- and perhaps this bothered him.

I am sorry if I offended him, but I simply cannot take this any more. I feel like he is sitting on my neck. I am willing to do right by the community, even where I may have erred. But right now I feel like this guy watches my every move. I'm a bit spooked, to be frank. Sample diffs: [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149]

He is likely to say he is just trying into to enforce policy, which is normally fine by me, but he shows up too often not to raise concerns that he has broken with required courtesy. I edit in good faith. Any assistance in resolving this would be appreciated. I am willing to make positive action in the spirit of good editing practices on Wikipedia, Right now, I'm just trying to go on a wikibreak. Yakuman (数え役満) 10:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not make any more personal attacks on other editors. Calling editors who are working in good faith "vandals"[150], "sockpuppets"[151], or "wikistalkers"[152] is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Making accusations in edit summaries is totally inappropriate. If there are actual instances of vandalism, stalking, or other violation then ask for community action in the appropriate venue but do not simply use those charges as attacks. Impugning the motives of other editors is another form of personal attack.[153] You have been warned about incivility many times before.::[154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170]This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks your account will be blocked. -Will Beback · † · 22:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Copied here by WAS 4.250 11:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback is misrepresenting me entirely: 1.) The vandalism involved ongoing edit wars by anonIPs who repeatedly blank the same cited facts. 2.) The "impugning motives" post was quickly reverted by myself. 3.) The sockpuppet charges involves another anonIP whom I had gotten blocked for vandalism just a few days before. 4.) The other complaint is about Will Beback, of course. None of the above was a true personal attack; all comments were made in good faith. 5.) The "many times" comes from me having made thousands of edits, many on controversial pages.

Will Beback singled me out, along with the edits I make on Wikipedia, for personal monitoring, deconstruction, and agitation. He closely monitored and followed my editing history to a degree that exceeds reasonable administrative duties. He specifically targeted my edits for subsequent changes, premised not on the subject in question, but due to me having made them. This shows poor etiquette and fosters incivility by subjecting me to undue harassment, plus a level of cross-scrutiny beyond what one experiences through normal, everyday editing practices. I edit in good faith and I am sorry if I offended him. I'm sincerely looking for some assistance here. Yakuman (数え役満) 11:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You say you want a wikibreak. So take one. And when you come back in a month let me know on my talk page and I'll help you. So bye. See you in a month. I'll help you then. WAS 4.250 12:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'd say that the evidence suggests that Will has been very patient with an incivil and disruptive editor who has a long history of calling people "sockpuppets" and "vandals" who don't agree with him, while enabling disruptive behaviour by other editors. Will is doing the thankless task of trying to get a disruptive editor to behave like a member of the community should, and deserves our thanks. Guettarda 12:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That's simply incorrect. I seldom raise the issue of sockpuppets, for example, and that mostly in the last few weeks. Right now, I notice an distinctive editing pattern in which one admin intentionally follows me around Wikipedia -- for purposes that, IMHO, are neither constructive to the encyclopedia's content, nor conducive to its collaborative environment. While I make no claim of perfection, I sincerely try to act within civil, rational editing practices. Please be considerate and do not attack me for my honest, good faith effort at seeking resolution in the spirit of fair dealing on Wikipedia. Yakuman (数え役満) 13:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is specifically designed to allow people to review the contributions of others, and accepting that your work is subject to such review is part and parcel of a collaborative enterprise. Particularly when you are writing on subjects like hot-button racial issues, you should expect your work to be carefully scrutinized and frequently challenged. Such is the nature of the field. If you are unable to deal with this level of scrutiny, feel free to take a break as you say. --Michael Snow 16:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, of the eight pages that Yakuman accuses me of following him to, four are articles that I've had long experience editing (I suppose I could claim Yakuman followed me, rather than the other way around). One is a talk page comment replying to his own reply to me. One of the pages involves his re-adding a link to an offensive racial blog used as a source for an obscure fact of 18th century history. And one is a straightforward warning to him about his ongoing incivility. I hope that when he returns he brings a less confrontational attitude towards editing. -Will Beback · † · 17:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed Yakuman's complaints about Will, but they don't sound descriptive of the Will Beback I know. Will's patience and fairness are well-known in the Wikipedia community.

Yakuman, if you are as sincere as you claim, do take that Wikibreak and cool off. Editors can intend well, but if they grew up handicapped with cultural language that encodes, for example, anti-multi-cultural attitudes, then cosmopolitan editors of a global encyclopedia can be reasonably expected to take issue or offense. I suggest that when you return, you should ask for a mentor to look over your edits and suggest changes to avoid future friction with Will and others. Milo 19:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This may require the help of a Administrator that can read Hebrew. I noticed a couple of weeks ago that someone is systematically creating pages and links to Yochanan Vollach. The style used in creation of the page led me to believe that the user was someone close to the subject or extremely biased. I started to edit the page and correct English mistakes as well as adding the Template:Infobox Football biography. This user, who changes IP every now and then, started to verbally attack me in Hebrew and in English on my talk page as well as threaten me. He made it perfectly clear that he was in some sort of contact with Yochanan Vollach and that since I didn't know him I had no right to change the page etc. The attacks on my talk page and on User:Hapoelhaifa3's talk page give evidence to the bizarre comments and allegations that he made against me hurling various insults. In the begining I defended myself, but in the end I see that I have someone here who is obviously not going to stop so I need help on the matter. -NYC2TLV 13:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• The user just did it again, adding more attacks on my talk page. NYC2TLV 13:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It would be much helpful to the Administrators if you could show direct links to the personal attacks, and translate from Hebrew to English (here perhaps?). --PaxEquilibrium 13:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hapoelhaifa3 has also been abusing me via NYC2TLV's talk page. After I mentioned that he may have a conflict of interest in editing the aforementioned article (he claimed Vollach would not be happy with what's written and asked "do you know them" about Vollach and Englander, implying he does), he replied with "If either of you accuse me of a conflict of interest, I promise you that you will really regret it" (אחת אתה תאשים אותי כבעל אינטרס אני מבטיח לך אתה תצטער על זה מאוד). He followed this with some homophobic abuse, saying that I'm a "typical lefty that... wants to have experiences with men" (שמאלני מובהק ש... רוצה להתנסות עם גברים), possibly as I have the Straight but not narrow userbox on my Userpage, and calling us both anti-semites (אתם כולכם אנטישמים). Number 57 14:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I read most of the talk page statements in Hebrew. User:Number covered what's relevant and translated it correctly. These are repeated personal attacks and should be punished with a temporary block in my opinion, in order to give the plaintiffs some peace and quiet. YechielMan 17:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable. User blocked for 1 week. Note, in most cases I would suggest a final warning before the block, but due to the nature of the personal attack including a threat, I'm blocking immediately. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 23:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)