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

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

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

Her attacks usually come in the form of sarcasm, facetiousness and targeted innuendo and derogatory remarks, mostly under the guise of outraged innocence. They have been fairly relentless since the Jim Shapiro AfD started. Recently there was an obvious personal attack on Yanksox (and Samir in passing), immediately after she said, "I'm not attacking Yanksox", although he was in her sights.[1] This might seem relatively mild, but the cumulative relentlessness of it becomes very destructive and undermining. Here is another earlier example.[2]

I had already given her a second warning [3] after a derogatory comment posted about me by her on the AfD. Immediately after apologising and saying "I won't make any other comment", she then immediately, provocatively and needlessly reposted it on her own page under the pretence of making sure that it was the comment I was referring to. [4]

There are some manipulative counter-productive mind games going on here. However, what intensifies them is that they are often carried out in liaison with Gfwesq. They have stated that they are married. They follow each other in quick succession and alternate on Yanksox' talk page [5] and on my talk page [6][7], as well as on discussions on RfA, AN and elsewhere.

She had already been cautioned about acting in concert with her husband for joint "edit warring" by Weregerbil.[8] This refers to a conversation to be found on User talk:KihOshk, which makes unpleasant reading and starts with Jgwlaw stating, "with Gfwesq and I, it would be a consensus over the other author". This conduct is completely unacceptable, and whether they are sockpuppets or not (which they deny), their conduct is no different — actually worse, because no normal sockpuppets could get away with acting so blatantly.

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

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

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

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

This has been appealed to unblock-en-l.

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

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

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

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

George, I think you should refer to official policy, rather than an article. In addition, "the Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual." Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I have been mentioned above, I'm not independent, but I give the following additional diffs that occurred after the block, in support of a continued block: Repeating the scissors in crotch line regarding Tyrenius [9], removal of block notices [10], incivility in the form of sarcasm [11], comments from uninvolved Weregerbil who tried to descalate previously [12], more sarcasm that I thought was inappropriate [13], [14], disparaging Tyrenius [15], inappropriate allegations of vandalism [16], a silly yet invivil characterization of Tyrenius as Tyranisaurus [17], and trolling [18] (and indeed I consider pretty much all of User talk:Jgwlaw as trolling). -- Samir धर्म 05:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

You've misunderstood the points:

• Samir is not saying that the behaviour after the block is retrospective justification. He is saying that it merits extending the block (presumably until such time as good behaviour is evidenced and it is safe to let this person edit again).
• The initial block was not for meatpuppetry. It was for uncivil behaviour and personal attacks.
• The provocation is not because of misunderstanding or lack of familiary with Wikipedia processes. It is provocation pure and simple. Sarcasm, belittlement and facetious lack of respect for anyone in disagreement, or even anyone attempting a NPOV and not agreeing with her/them.
• I am not referring to reposting a valid comment. I am referring to deliberately reposting a personal attack. This was the attack, initially posted on an AfD: "Unfortunately Tyrenius has removed your tag, calling it inflammatory. Sigh. Only the admin here seems to insist on muckraking." On her talk page, I drew Jgwlaw's attention to this and she apologised: "Sorry about the 'muckraking' comment about you." Having done that, she then immediately and needlessly reposted the initial insult from AfD on her talk page with the words "This is what you refer to." I can only see that this action was provocation.[19]
• I have never made any criticism of reposting legitimate material on different pages.
• They quite blatantly act in concert together, and when they are talking to a third person, they make scornful or sarcastic comments to each other about that other person. It is not a coincidence that a "husband and wife" turn up on the same pages all the time. I consider this to be meatpuppetry. It prevents fair dialogue. Check the diffs please in my initial statement. Look at the comment above starting "Unfortunately Tyrenius has removed your tag". It is glaringly obvious.

Tyrenius 20:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I have been mentioned above, I'm not independent, but I give the following additional diffs that occurred after the block, in support of a continued block: Repeating the scissors in crotch line regarding Tyrenius [21], removal of block notices [22], incivility in the form of sarcasm [23], comments from uninvolved Weregerbil who tried to descalate previously [24], more sarcasm that I thought was inappropriate [25], [26], disparaging Tyrenius [27], inappropriate allegations of vandalism [28], a silly yet invivil characterization of Tyrenius as Tyranisaurus [29], and trolling [30] (and indeed I consider pretty much all of User talk:Jgwlaw as trolling). -- Samir धर्म 05:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I would suggest letting the current block expire when it does. She is still hostile and thinks there is a single admin after her [31]. My guess is that when the block expires she'll continue her attacks (zero sign of it abating so far). And she will get quickly blocked, hopefully by another admin. Perhaps in time she will realize that this isn't a personal vendetta, and that her understanding of what constitutes incivility and personal attacks truly does not match Wikipedia's standards. Weregerbil 10:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Extended block

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

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

Tyrenius 11:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threat of legal action by Jgwlaw

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

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

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

I was just coming here to report it. I was afraid it might get lost in the veritable fountain of edits (and subsequent deletions) jgw has been making to User talk:Jgwlaw. Here's a diff: [32]. It's no wonder we're having trouble communicating with jgw; jgw edits the talk page so often it's impossible for anyone to keep up! =) Powers 18:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I am being bugged by User:Reinyday.

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

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

The Qho account is for me to use.

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

And my other accounts are for my brother to use.

See here[33] I did not change her comments I simply added my opinion.

Here are all of the accounts:

User:70.233.181.36 My Ip please keep private

User:Qho My True account

User:QH0 My Dop.

Now the four she did not get till later

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

User:Missingno Active

User:Misingno Dop.

User:Kittyispretty Dop.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please note that my original request, to which this is a response, has been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Archive124#request for help with user with multiple accounts. — Reinyday, 04:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:AOL was protected by User:Pilotguy despite being involved in the dispute[34], [35], [36]. As a participant in the dispute, Pilotguy should not have protected the article. If the view is so obvious and self evident Pilotguy should have been able to find another admin quite easily to protect the article. --Trödel 03:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This appointment is also well documented - Official records at the Library of Congress show that Raven's appointment papers were recorded by the Confederate government in Richmond. [37] It names "Ernst Raven, esq., who was appointed consul for the State of Texas by his highness the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and who applied to this government for an exequator on the 30th of July 1861." Most of the "International Diplomacy" section in the article is about the South's unofficial diplomatic relations with other countries. Since Raven was the only diplomat with official appointment status this is the appropriate place to put it.

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

• [38] - Revert #1 at 06:27, 17 July 2006
• [39] Revert #2 at 06:43, 17 July 2006
• [40] Revert #3 at 06:53, 17 July 2006
• [41] Revert #4 at 06:59, 17 July 2006
• [42] Revert #5 at 07:21, 17 July 2006 Rjensen
• [43] Revert #6 at 07:46, 17 July 2006

The guy he was revert warring with here also broke 3-revert rule but did it after Rjensen did, and he also seems to have tried unsuccessfully to have gotten Rjensen to discuss it. Then a third editor restored the compromise text and link about Raven, but Rjensen came back 2 days later and reverted again at [44].

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

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

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

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

Comment:Please note that -- not knowing about this incident report -- I brought a 3RR complaint against Rjensen for edit warring in Henry Ford.[45]--Mantanmoreland 23:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rjensen replies. It's a question of repeated efforts to insert original research that makes an argument that no scholar accepts. Not a single reference book on the Civil War or the Confederacy accepts this strange claim and the major book on Confederate consuls explictly says the claim is false.[46] I refer to The British Foreign Service and the American Civil War

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

On the contrary, in Henry Ford you resisted adding article source citations, and did so only when prodded three times by User:Jayjg. You also posted inflammatory comments such as this one:[47]--Mantanmoreland 04:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His comments from meta are copied below:

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

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

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

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

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

Quoting selectively from his lengthy reply,

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

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

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

The block was made as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, this user is moving pages with diacritics to versions without them only because there was no redirect from the unaccented version (e.g.). He refuses to make simple redirects because it does not teach the involved editors to make redirects. Three users protested his actions, but he is still insisting on his own way. See related talk section. I have no time or will to babysit him and revert the moves. Please do something about it. Thank you. Renata 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Nygaard seems to be on the edge (or beyond) of WP:POINT, but well-intentioned. Perhaps if a few admins weighed in we could channel his desire to help more effectively. Martinp 01:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this: [48] It seems that Beckjord (talk · contribs) has declared a "Wiki-War," and given his past disregard of Wikipedia rules, including dozens of evasions of his current 1-year Arbcom ban, I think a permanent ban is in order here. (Remember how Jimbo banned Wik?) Editor88 18:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Were to even begin with this fella. Well let's start with the most recent AfD for Anime Warriors!, an article about a fanfic that Myalysk (talk · contribs) was working on. Myalysk forged several signatures on the AfD[49] and had been warned by InShaneee (talk · contribs)[50]. Myalysk also removed the AfD notice from the top of Anime Warriors![51] and was warned by Fan-1967 (talk · contribs)[52]. In protest Myalysk has now C&Ped the AfD notice from Anime Warriors! to Gilmore Girls[53] and once again forged another message to the Anime Warriors! AfD page.[54]

This, however, is just part of a pattern of removing AfD notices from articles up for AfD. Myalysk was given three warnings from removing the AfD notice from Zatch Bell! Saga Event List [55][56][57], another article that he created, and one warning from removing the AfD notice Hyde and Eido [58]. All of these warnings have been issued within the last month. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First

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

Second

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

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

The woodwork in the recent AfDs led me to

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

• AN/I on A_multitude_of_hoaxes
  • Category:Eyre family

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

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

And a third

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

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

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

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

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

update - further disruption diff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I don't think Aaron Brenneman (talk • contribs) is smoking crack again. However, why does he believe it's ok to slam participants in a policy discussion by linking to their "monolithic" edits and mocking their "fervor" [59], while at the same time censoring a response that includes a link to one of his edits as a "personal attack". I made no personal attacks and while his eagerness for handing out blocks is obvious, his approach to the discussion is not exactly winning accolades. --JJay 03:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new user (Try433 has vandalized my talk page with large and some disgusting images, to the point that I cannot revert it back; he has also vandalized Calton's user page [60]. I seek an immediate block and administrator help in rolling back to the last edit. Thank you. Captainktainer * Talk 07:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a new vandal/troll from New Zealand. He uses various IPs registered to Telecom New Zealand (kinda like New Zealand AOL?) and/or University of Auckland. I've reported him on Wikipedia:Abuse reports, don't know how else to deal with him. He's easy to identify because he seems to want to be caught, and edits his own blocked accounts and pages for admins who have blocked him, like this: [61] He claims his aim is to "bring Wikipedia down" because it's "stupid": [62]. Contributes idiotic vandalism and likes to blank pages. --woggly 10:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Registered to University of Auckland:

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

and possibly:

• 130.216.191.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked 4 times, most recently in March. Similar page blankings and stupid vandalism [63], interspersed with possibly valid edits.

Registered to Telecom New-Zealand:

• 222.153.112.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) first block yesterday
• 222.153.113.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) begging to be blocked [64]
• 222.153.34.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) first block yesterday
• 222.153.148.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) the latest, freshly blocked. I sorta fed him on this talkpage, couldn't resist. --woggly 10:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I was blocked for the fourth time by admins who push POV at the Lance Armstrong article. Just because he is from the same country as most editors of the English wikipedia does not mean his article needs to be a fanzine. The admin who reported me even implicitly admitted I had not broken the 3 revert rule. However, I got blocked for 72 hours. Another editor who had deleted a POV tag without discussion three times, which is explicitly described as WP:Vandalism, was not punished at all. JzG who had abusively blocked me three times before even though he was in a content dispute again took advantage of the block to delete the history of two articles about journalists who wrote a book about alleged drug abuse by Armstrong. Even though his suggestion to merge the articles failed and a thir opinion had helded to get a consensus on the talk page, JzG just went and made the articles into redirects: Pierre Ballester and David Walsh (sports reporter). Thus I cannot present the links any longer to show that there he had violated the same rules about biographies of living people that he had claimed to have blocked me for. There are many editors concerned about POV at the Armstrong article. [65][66][67][68] Please help to resolve the conflict. Socafan 11:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sorry for mixing up two links. Here are the right ones, three different users plus an anon complaining about POV at the Lance Armstrong article: [69] [70] [71][72] Thank you for kind way to apologize for your vandalism. [73][74][75] Socafan 11:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Community ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The editor from 84.56.29.199 claims not to be banned user [76] though at least one other editor thought the same way I did in response to the IP's edits, their timing and their subject matter: So Socafan gets community banned and an IP user comes to defend him? Hi there Socafan. You're not fooling anything.[77]--A Y Arktos\^talk 23:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Multiple sockpuppetry was confirmed for Appleby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/HSL for details). 12 confirmed sockpuppets were blocked indefinitely, but Appleby, the main account, got only 24 hours. We need to assess the proper block periods of time.

Some information for making a decision:

1. Appleby violated 3RR several times. Previously he's been blocked up to 72 hours.
2. And now, multiple sockpuppetry was confirmed
   1. Appleby circumvented 3RR with sock puppets. One case was reported by Endroit (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Appleby reported by User:LactoseTI (Result:)) but some seem to be left unreported.
   2. With sock puppets, Appleby also created the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/HSL for details.

Any comment? --Nanshu 12:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Appleby is likely to reform? Just zis Guy you know? 14:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note:He's been blocked 8 times in 10 months for 3RR violations. He's not getting that message. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with an indefinite block as exhausting the community patience. 12 sockpuppets is ridiculous. Certainly no less than 2 weeks. JoshuaZ 14:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree strongly. Disruptive, unrepentant, unlikely to reform, show him the door. Just zis Guy you know? 15:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for a further 24 hours pending the outcome of this discussion. Given the above I certainly wouldn't oppose anything up to and including an indefinite ban. --kingboyk 16:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The unfortunate thing in all of this is that, despite multiple blatant rules violations, he's made some good contributions as well. It's unfortunate that he doesn't learn to play nicely as I think he could make a good editor if he'd put forth the effort to do that instead of edit warring and puppetry. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get over it, Nihonjoe. Appleby is not just Appleby. This guy's a full time revert-warrior. Just look at the actions of Dollarfifty (talk · contribs), HSL (talk · contribs), Damool (talk · contribs), and the other socks. Appleby inherited some good traits by dumping some of his bad traits on to his other sockpuppets. But look at the number of Dollarfifty's reverts on June 13 (there's over 50 reverts on that day alone, perhaps?). This proves that Appleby is a full-time revert-warrior. If you're not going to indefinitely ban Appleby, you have to think of a method to monitor and restrict his reverts.--Endroit 20:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't go jumping all over me, Endroit, especially when it appears you've misinterpreted my comments. I wasn't disagreeing with anyone that Appleby shouldn't be blocked for longer. I've already said I agree that he should be blocked for a much longer time in order to cool his heels for a while and think about how to play nicely in the future. I was just expressing some regret that it came this far since he obviously knows how to edit in an acceptable fashion, and yet chooses not to. You don't need to convince me of Appleby's indiscretions. I've been around most of them, so I have first-hand knowledge of what a pain he can be. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't condone what Appleby did. In fact, he messaged me once with his sock Dollarfifty, presumably to make the sock look more legitimate and I don't particularly appreciate being used (there's probably a better word) like that at all or wasting my time writing a response to someone who didn't need to read what I wrote. But I agree with with Nihonjoe that Appleby has made some good contributions, especially in an area of Wikipedia that is often neglected. I think a long Wiki-break for Appleby is probably a good idea but I don't think an indefinite ban is the solution. I can't speak for Appleby myself but my suggestion is if he/she promises to be good (taken in good faith), a last chance should be given in my opinion (After a long break.) Tortfeasor 20:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least Appleby's writings were reasonable and it means he/she knows how to behave him(her)self. Now that all other accounts were blocked, and the main account's warned, I think he/she can do good job from now on as it was done under Appleby. It doesn't harm to give it another shot and see. Therefore, I object to indefinite ban. 2 weeks will do. Ginnre 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am reporting anonymously as an observer. A user AaronS is making vicious personal attacks on the Talk page of another user, such as "In the end, however, you're just an inauthentic sophist, a false intellectual, and a phony, because you're incapable of autocritique, incapable of seeing your own insanity -- in a word: a charlatan. I always think that it's sad when people who have the potential to practice real philosophy settle for the lowest common denominator. You're nothing more than a partisan pundit. Anybody can be a mouthpiece. Anybody can latch on to any ideology and expound it throughout the world. Your overcompensated sense of of self-surety is what exposes you for what you are: a child, frightened, weak, and isolated." [78] The user TheIndividualist is getting a slightly abrasive back but not to the level of personal attacks. He/she is showing remarkable considering the attacks . Also another user User:FrancisTyers, who is supposedly an administrator, is reverting back and putting the personal attacks back in after TheIndividualist deletes them [79], which is totally unethical for an administrator. ConcernedUser 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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