Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Shortcuts WP:ANI WP:AN/I This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

How does everyone feel about a community ban on SPUI? After two blocks for adding the SQUIDWARD edit summaries he stopped. But as soon as he returned, he was blocked for 31 hours for a 3RR violation. It's becoming very obvious that he is coming to Wikipedia to disrupt with every edit he makes and not to contribute positively. semper fi — Moe 19:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All prior warnings, notices, and recommendations that he stop become covered by an admin. Yes, you can revert so that it is visible, but when its been covered several times, recovering becomes an incredible hassle. Looking at his block log and his recent edits, it seems as if he does not want to constructively contribute to Wikipedia after "leaving." How many "second chances" must we give this destructive user? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. He's had too many chances. --Kbdank71 19:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want to see SPUI community-banned. He's made a lot of good encyclopedic edits, and I think he's a good user. OK, so he had a moment of madness, but he's a decent editor, IMHO. --SunStar Net 19:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God let's end this already. Yes, he was a very prolific contributer, but I don't think he's here to be constructive anymore. Also, all my recent real-life experiences tell me that I would rather have someone who contributes less but doesn't cause any trouble, than someone like this. Grandmasterka 19:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His 3RR block is kind of odd. He reverted the featured article of the day 4 times by removing what he considered was unsourced original research, and then reported himself on the en-wiki mailing list. Thatcher131 19:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing his recent 3RR block as typical of any past disruption he may have been involved with is not fair, IMO. Even the best editors go into 3RR from time to time, and this specific instance involved enforcing the Wikipedia original research policy on the article that sat on the front page all day. Whether he's exhausted the community's patience, I have no real input on, although I think he does valuable work here. But let's not try to frame this specific instance from yesterday as part of anything greater than what it was. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)...or as Thatcher said above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose community banning. SPUI deserves an RFC to start with anyway, not some AN/I discussion. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 19:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We tried that. Others came and defended him, ignoring the evidence. WP:RFC/SPUI --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current popular principle behind a community block is that if no admin will unlbock then the block was probably OK. That isn's going to hapen with SPUI.Geni 19:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose community ban. He is hardly contributing and not really a problem now. If he is indefblocked for something he has recently done, I will unblock him after a reasonable amount of time. Kusma (討論) 19:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he's hardly contributing doesn't mean he hasn't been a problem. Ever since the beginning of October he has been a problem. Lets look at the facts shall we:

• October 12-13 he edits with SQUIDWARD summaries: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

He recieves a block: 03:41, 14 October 2006 Lar (Talk contribs) blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 15 minutes (Please stop SQUIDWARDing...)

• He returns October 23/24 to edit with the SQUIDWARD summaries again: [6] [7]

Blocked again: 05:19, 24 October 2006 Konstable (Talk | contribs) blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 8 hours (again, please stop SQUIDWARDing)

• He returns on November 3-5 to edit V for Vendetta (film) and it's talk: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

Blocked again: 03:35, 5 November 2006 Phil Sandifer (Talk | contribs) blocked "SPUI (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (Violation of 3RR)

Literally the only edit he hasn't been blocked for in the last month is blanking his talk page with an Image of a duck. semper fi — Moe 19:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sad, isn't it? Apparently as long as you have some good contributions, you get to act however you want, and your admirers, defenders, whatever, will at best hand out a series of 24 hour (or less) blocks, and at worst, ignore the behavior completely. Can anyone explain why this has been allowed to continue? --Kbdank71 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because he's made 74,000 contributions. Of which 40,000 are probably controversial page moves which have been corrected by new

guidelines now.. :\ semper fi — Moe 20:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and we have no real method of knowing which contributions are constructive. The page moves did nothing but create mass controversy and led many editors to quit in disgust. It's even worse when one or two admins reverted his blocks because he was such a good editor. I'll repeat what Lar spoke of during some controversy that SPUI created: "No one editor is indispensable to the project." If SPUI becomes a nuisance, then he should not be able to contribute in that manner; yes, he made good edits, but so have we, and the project continues forward. Whether or not we have SPUI is irrelevant; there will always be other editors to take his place, as clearly demonstrated today. After his "leave", we still have editors on road topics throughout all 50 states that do fine without SPUI. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because we're here to contribute? On a more serious note, I don't see what exactly is bannable here. Prior to the V 3RR thing, he got blocked for using weird edit summaries on edits that either attempted to remove OR marginally-encyclopedic material or were RfA votes. His second block was for squidward edit summaries on two talk pages. How is this significantly more grounds for banning than using no summary at all? Are people that bothered to see "squidward" on the RC list twice in two days (in latter case)? I agree with Jeff on the description of the V incident. --user:Qviri 20:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to review all of his prior blocks to get a good idea of how much he's gotten away with... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SQUIDWARD! is the name fast-pace vandal. The vandal generally gave the edit summary SQUIDWARD! as he was vandalizing. SPUI copyign that was inappropriate, whether he was vandalizing or not. semper fi — Moe 22:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's because the case is not made at present. If the guy is reporting himself for 3RR, then it may be WP:POINT, but it's hardly serial disruption. Basically, we can't see how he's going to behave after the last block. He has built up a lot of animosity from some people, and they're very ready to get the gallows ready, but I don't see him currently earning the noose. I think it has to be an unrepentant pattern, and the only unrepenting problem was the edit summaries, and now he's repented. Geogre 20:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR may not be serial disruption. What would you call the remainder of his block log? And so what if he's repented? Maybe it's just me, but to see problem, repent, problem, repent, problem, repent, would seem to indicate we have a problem with more than just SPUI. Look, I make no assumptions that this will go anywhere; as I said, there are too many people willing to overlook too much. --Kbdank71 21:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a serial disruption when SPUI was disrupting page after page with his own naming conventions. It's been done in the past, which should not be overlooked. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely: it should not be overlooked, and I wouldn't advocate turning the other way. The question isn't, I hope, all or nothing. I just didn't see anything going on since that nasty episode. If it does, I'll be on board with a community ban, but I think community bans should be when the other person isn't acting out of an interpretation of what's best for Wikipedia. When the other person is misinterpreting or being petulant about their views of policy and practice, ArbCom's deliberative process should be best. When a person is just exhausting everyone by insisting after a clearly settled issue or pride or a desire to play gotcha with someone or a desire to settle political scores (real life ones, like the nationalists and monomaniacs), then it's community patience. That's my view, anyway. Geogre 02:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my take on the situation. Give him a block that will actually prevent him from disrupting (a few days or so). See how he acts then. If he socks during, or continues acting up after, then I think that should remove some doubt. --InShaneee 03:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah why not? A community ban for a few days? Or a week? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A short block with the intention if we can bait a user into sockpuppeting is not something I could ever support. However, a permanent community ban for SPUI, who has committed many, many times more infractions and disruptions than plenty of other permabanned users, has ignored countless requests, decisions and judgements, and is bizarrely and inexplicably supported by some admins (is he nice to them on IRC?), and has driven good editors away from Wikipedia, is something I would get behind. This needs to go to ArbCom, and this needs to be resolved. Proto::type 12:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any community ban through ANI. This better be taken through an RfC. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note, it's been taken through RfC before... He's exhausted all of our patience, and its senseless to keep taking it to ANI, RfC, etc. if the outcome is going to be the same: status quo. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what a short block would solve either. While I've given SPUI blocks in the past to try to get him to stop being disruptive, maybe those just don't work with him. On the other hand I DO think he adds value and would hate to see him permanently banned. Is there nothing else? No other way to reach him and get at whatever the root issue is? I guess I am more willing than some to keep trying with SPUI. But in the end Wikipedia is not... a lot of things, including a selfhelp org for those that don't want to change, or a babysitting service, or a group therapy session, or a twelve step program, among others. If there is no change possible then, so be it. One more chance maybe but, really, no more. (as an aside, I totally reject the notion Badlydrawnjeff advances above, that "even the best editors go into 3RR sometimes" I've never, ever, ever done that...) ++Lar: t/c 12:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I longer short block than before would accomplish something in the fact that it would actually prevent him from doing something, whereas the previous blocks of a few minutes/hours it has been suggested he may not have even noticed (I did not mean to 'draw out' sockpuppets as suggested above; I merely meant that a preventative block must actually prevent something to be effective). --InShaneee 16:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had enough of this. He needs to be banned. Now. ANYONE who has the mentality that they can do whatever the hell want, like SPUI clearly does, should be blocked. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 12:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... so when the huge edit war over road names he was involved with wound up with a decision he opposed being forced through in unusual circumstances despite a lack of true consensus (again, there were reasons this had to be done and as one of the people who backed it I am here criticizing myself) the 'massively disruptive' reaction he had was to continue making valid contributions, but using the edit summary "SQUIDWARD". For this heinous crime he was blocked... twice. Then, when asked to stop using such summaries... he did! Dastardly. Instead, he went and explained that he was making changes to a new page to remove original research... some sort of theory about how the 'V' in 'V for Vendetta' was probably a reference to the roman numeral for five. That looks like original research to me. Removing it with explanatory edit summaries was therefor... proper. Edit warring when it was re-inserted was not, but seems hardly grounds for a community ban. It seems to me that SPUI is giving his detractors thin pretexts to demonstrate their bias and animosity towards him... and they are happily obliging. SPUI is not being a model Wikipedian, but as reactions to brow-beating and tossing consensus out the window go this isn't exactly the end of the world. --CBD 16:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree CBD. We shouldn't be simply community ban someone for a 3RR or for a few mild edit summaries, but when is enough, enough? His edits aren't as much as the problem as the attitude and straight-fowardness of his edits. It's not that his edits are wrong, but he pushes the issue until his opposition either gives up or a third party gets involved or blocks him. Really how many things has he done that has gotten himself blocked over his time on Wikipedia. Just to name a few:

• Moving Highway articles a lot
• Move warring
• 3RR violations
• Incivilty
• POINT violations
• Blatant vandalism
• Disruption
• personal attacks
• Copyright violations
• Testing Wikipedia's browser blocking code on User:SPUI/jajaja
• per ArbCom decisions for putting pro-pedophile userboxes on his userpage
• Probation violations
• SQUIDWARD! edit summaries

Again, he may not be wrong, but the way he edits is disruptive and non-helpful. It's not a question anymore of how useful or correct he was a year ago or a few months ago as some people agrue. We have community banned former administrators before. SPUI has made several useful contributions before, no question, but so have other banned editors. How far do we push each ourselves with SPUI? How far before we say 'enough'? semper fi — Moe 17:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You ask 'how far'. My standard is quite simple... 'has it reached the point where it seems clear this user will never be a positive contributor'? I look at 'squidward', a 3RR violation in pursuit of 'no original research', and ducks in a pram and see 'silly git'... not 'irrational monster beyond all hope of redemption'. Everything else you list up there is what, months old? And many of them seemed, to me, as much over-reactions and misrepresentations as the accusations of 'blatant vandalism' which accompanied his silly 'squidward' edit summaries (despite no vandalism actually being involved). To put it another way... SPUI made positive contributions, but put a silly 'squidward' edit summary on them. He was then falsely accused of vandalism and a community ban called for. His reaction? He issued no personal attacks, made no disruptive edits, and stopped using the silly edit summary. Where I come from that's called a phenomenal improvement in behaviour compared to the SPUI from months back you describe above. So where the indication that he is a bad bad man who will never do any good? --CBD 18:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrase my question. It's been over one month since he has contributed without getting blocked. How long do we put up with his nonsense before he becomes a 'positive' contributor again? semper fi — Moe 19:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your framing assumes that blocks for 'squidward' edit summaries were valid. I don't believe they were. 'How long without being blocked' isn't much of a standard when blocks are placed for things which represent no real 'damage' or 'disruption' to Wikipedia at all. To my way of thinking, SPUI has made exactly ONE block-worthy edit in that time period... his fourth revert on the 'V' original research. --CBD 19:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason the blocks for the squidward edit summaries may not have been valid is because he was never warned about it. After sternly warned, yes, he stopped. But does that excuse him from copying the well-known vandal edit-summary? If I suddenly started using those edit summaries and continued after a block (and yes SPUI did), would that not be disruption? semper fi — Moe 22:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other concern is that he has chased many users away from Wikipedia (names can be provided on request) directly or indirectly because of his actions. And made the highways area an unpleasant place to work. Also, SPUI has not made any uncontroversial mainspace edits in over two months (uncontroversial excluding SQUIDWARD or the 3RR). Not that that necessarily mounts to anything however.... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And in the realm of the truly bizzare...its either a sockpuppet or a fanboy here. Though why be either, I haven't a clue. pschemp | talk 04:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Bushcarrot (talk · contribs). —Centrx→talk • 04:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, then. Are we going to continue to argue or actually do something here? // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 04:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we vote? Have a more formal discussion? There is no clear-cut answer here, unless we send this to ArbCom. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the issue is here. It is really quite easy to not be disruptive. He has had more than 50 chances to do it over the course of a year and a half. —Centrx→talk • 04:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then who will hit the block button if it is to be done? Discussing it and doing nothing else doesn't help. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who will block him, because someone like CBD will come along and unblock him. Look at his block log; just a series of blocks and unblocks. I'm not going to be the one to start a wheel-war with people who look at his attitude and say, "Eh, it's not THAT bad. Why, 50% of his contributions are completely uncontroversial! What are you all complaining about?" Until someone like Jimbo puts his foot down, SPUI will continue to act like he does, half of you will continue waste your time to undo his shenanigans and argue for his permablock, and the other half will waste their time arguing why he should stay and unblocking any errant blocks. Don't you think all this wasted time could be spent better elsewhere? --Kbdank71 20:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is...if someone's going to inappropriately wheel war...then we can't block appropriately. --InShaneee 20:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I'm saying is I'm not going to waste my time blocking SPUI just to see someone unblock him. You can wheel war over him until the cows come home if you think it'll do some good. --Kbdank71 21:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wheel wars, it should be dealt with. In the meantime, that shouldn't prevent us from making legitimate blocks. It's like saying, "Why bother writing articles, they'll just be vandalized." --InShaneee 21:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So our options at this point are to a) block or b) send this to RFC or ArbCom. Meanwhile, nothing is getting done. As I was involved in the ArbCom stuff it would be conflict of interest to block so in reality I can't. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, and will say again, to make the message clear... ban ban ban ban ban ban ban. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 00:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but we might as well take it back to ArbCom. It should not be "300 strikes and you're out", and he's been blocked enough times to make anyone realize that he isn't going to do much of anything that's actually constructive. I'm not 100% sure ArbCom would be able to solve the problem, because they've dealt with him before, and he doesn't seem to have any respect for their decisions. It could still be worth trying, since ArbCom could just decide to indefblock/ban him. An ArbCom block/ban would be less likely to result in a wheel war. --Coredesat 00:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this matter can be handled without involving ArbCom. The terms are simple: I think we are all agreed that his behavior needs to improve, that he needs to make a serious & sincere effort at playing by the rules; the disagreement appears to be whether he can be convinced to improve or that he is beyond all hope & we have no choice other than to ban him from Wikipedia. As constructive as he might be (I haven't followed his edits, but for the sake of argument let's say he is), if SPUI -- or any Wikipedian -- is being disruptive to the point that he has received multiple blocks yet no one cares enough to intervene & save him from a permanent ban, then the community has made its decision & clearly wants him gone. So is there anyone who is working with SPUI offline from Wikipedia with the aim of improving his behavior & avoid having him banned from this project & losing his constructive contributions? If there is, I hope that would be enough to convince the "Ban SPUI" faction to have some patience & give him one more -- even if it is only his last -- chance. If there is not, & no one is willing to volunteer to help SPUI from being banned, then it's hard not to conclude that the proper solution is a Community Ban. All it would take is for one person to volunteer to work with him to keep him; otherwise, silence is consent & it's clear, despite what some may say, everyone wants him gone. -- llywrch 01:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than willing to assist SPUI in becoming a constructive editor here again as long as he doesn't continue with his extreme forms of silliness. As long as he is willing to be a positive contributor, we can always use another hand on Wikipedia. But this my only offer to help the guy, if he continues being disruptive, I'm not going to be as helpful the next go-around. semper fi — Moe 02:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPUI can be banned by any administrator from any area he disrupts. If he does not comply with the ban he may be blocked. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation. Any administrator may do this. Fred Bauder 03:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up a good point. We still have the option of banning rather than blocking. Banning being "you can't edit this article anymore because you've disrupted it." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that CBD's summary of the cause of the current situation is very apt. The 'highways' situation became extremely unpleasant -- SPUI was basically at one point being told that not only would he be sanctioned for not abiding by a non-consensus decision, but that he'd be sanctioned for pointing out that it was a non-consensus decision. (Admittedly he was pointing it out rather frequently, but when a bare majority is repeatedly mischaracterised as a "consensus", a certain feeling of frustration is somewhat understandable.) There's been lots of nonsense and silliness from SPUI before (I've been on the end of a small portion of it myself), but this seems to me to be different. This is sheer surmise and speculation, take it for what it's worth, but it appears to me more that he essentially quit the project over that issue, but due to on-going wikidiction and/or wishing to express residual resentment, isn't quite able to go "cold turkey", and so is making periodic forays back. I'm not especially hopeful this will end well, and in the circumstances, I doubt that "area bans" will be at all useful (since if I'm correct, it'll just force him to find other ways to vent, which he'll rise to the challenge of). I'd urge the community not to take any far-reaching steps just at the moment, but if he doesn't knock it on the head immediately, I'd be in favour of a "medium length" block (a week to a month or two, say) to stop him digging himself in yet deeper in the meantime. Alai 08:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would have thought mentorship would be a solution, in a way. --SunStar Net 11:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to ban SPUI

I have made a motion to ban SPUI for a year at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#SPUI Fred Bauder 10:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. If I had to "learn" to behave myself then so should he have. He's had his 1,000 chances and now should cool his heels for a bit. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 04:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have opposed this there, for what it's worth. SPUI can't be banned for a year by that arbitration committee ruling until he has been blocked justifiably under its probation restrictions five times. I count four, at least one of which I feel was unjustifiable. I also feel there is not consensus for a community ban; there is, from what I see, considerable clamor for one, but also some opposition. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, as long as SPUI watches it and contributes productively I have no problems with him around. Actions such as the Squidward edit summaries will result in an immediate block from me though. In short, as long as SPUI doesn't mess around, I welcome him here. If he wants to be disruptive, then we have to think about measures. Let's not jump the gun here -- Tawker 09:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that in most cases once SPUI is blocked once or twice about an issue he stops doing it. The sole exception was what he got an arbcom ruling about - edit warring about highway names (in other words, a genuine content difference, not the silly provocation of most of the other stuff).

We should also be cautious about baiting someone under probation and blocking him for things that if other editors did them would not be blockable offenses. I've on occasion noted a way of thought that goes, "SPUI is a troll, therefore ..." Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So in reality, we're back to where we started. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not prepared to ban SPUI for a year at this time. I still remain hopeful. If ArbCom so rules I'd be disappointed. ++Lar: t/c 00:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is we've said that so many times, giving SPUI slack, and he then takes it and runs. If any of us had done all that SPUI did... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until a suitable replacement is found. —freak(talk) 00:53, Nov. 12, 2006 (UTC)

Not an admin, but damn it would be disappointing to see SPUI go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SchmuckyTheCat (talk • contribs) [14].

Oppose. SPUI, no doubt, deserves banning - but, since we don't do punitive, what he deserves is beside the point. I'm convinced that it is not in Wikipedia's interests to ban him, per this wisdom from an unlikely source.--Doc^g 01:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, it is things like that link which make me like her even though we disagree on alot of issues. :] Well said indeed. --CBD 10:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flat out oppose per the reasoning of Bastique should have an RFC and I see no community concensus for banning and agree it is not in the communities interests to do so.--Dakota 06:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as well. Per his userpage, "I used to edit a lot. Now I only edit when I see something that really needs to be fixed. Some say this makes me disruptive." He isn't that active anyways, so it's not really a problem. Khoikhoi 06:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for the reasons listed above. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support strongly. SPUI's behavior is not acceptable. As one opposing admin indicated, blocks/bans are not meant to be punitive, but preventive. SPUI's behavior disrupts Wikipeida; worse, he either doesn't realize it or doesn't care that it does, which means that we can expect periodic disruptions from him. --Nlu (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• And again, nothing happens. As I said a week ago, there are too many people willing to overlook too much. --Kbdank71 18:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say at this point that we need some RFC or ArbCom to do anything. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yah, overlooking the 'massive' problems caused by the word 'squidward' and a 3RR violation. Why... it could be the end of the wiki as we know it. :] --CBD 12:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, user Tajik is systematically searching and changing Turkish related articles with wrong and unsourced informations. WikiArticles are not improving because of his/her wrongly editings. He/She is searching 'turk' or "turkic" words in an article and deleting or deforming sentence or changing with 'persian' word in a baseless way. And he generally makes this secretly. He/She is making these changes with 'minor edits'.
A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. By contrast, a major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word.
However, Tajik's systematically minor editings hardly affects of articles. And he/she always uses this illegal method. Please have a look at his/her contributions;<br|> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferdowsi&diff=78165928&oldid=78165559<br|> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Ghaznavid_Empire&action=history<br|> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hephthalite&action=history (Almost all of the minor editings by Tajik)<br|>

Actually, these are the ones that i could see. Please look at Contr. ;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Tajik<br|> Secondly, if he/she is frustrated in editing he/she is inviting to article other wikipedians. What can be the evidence for teamworking else. He/she is not seeing wikipedia as an culture and information organization. He always deforms sourced turkic related articles and infos. He/she could has problems with other nations and races but is here true platform to solve his/her nation-based problems? Please help to improve Wikipedia...--Karcha 10:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While this does seem to be a legitimate problem, note that Karcha also copy/pasted this to the talk page of three admins, including myself. --InShaneee 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

inshanee, if you looked at my user page, you don't need to add this comment. I'm a new wikipedian and was unaware of AN/I that's why i posted this to three admins until one of these admin's suggestion.--Karcha 23:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is invited to take at the links you have posted - especially the article hephthalites, in which you have been depanted not only by me, but also by User:Sikandarji, an Oxoford academic and a specialist on Central Asian history.

I also suggest every neutral reader to take a look at the nationalistic nonsense you are trying to propagate in Wikipedia, especially your hillarious accusation against the Encyclopaedia Iranica and more than 500 world-renowned and well-respeced scholars: [15]

YOU are the problem here ... not me, and not someone else. Tājik 22:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tajik is completely out of control, posting personal attacks on my talk page, on the Herat page, about NisarKand, about everything, every where. When NisarKand acted like this, he was blocked by administrators, however no one has bothered to block Tajik's even worse behavior directed at everyone. Tajik clearly shows that he has no understanding of Wikipedia dispute resolution policies or Wikipedia NPA policies or WP edit war policies. For example, he is currently attacking me on my talk page for "vanishing when everything is out of control." This I am doing on purpose as it it good solid Wikipedia policy that Tajik should respect and try for himself instead of personally attacking everyone who tries to resolve a dispute in a advised manner.

WP dispute resolution, Second step: Disengage for a while.

His comments to me about following Wikipedia policy which he ignores? "With all due respect: I am really tired of your pointless efforts in messing up articles and then suddenly vanish when everything is out of control (see Afghanistan where you first supported all the nonsense of NisarKand, including his racist comments against Iranians, and then suddenly dissapeared when things got out of control until an admin protected the article!)." Tajik's comment on my talk page.

The article I messed up? Well, he didn't follow my edits quite, but his original complaint against me was that I left in a comment that said Pashtuns are the second largest ethnic group in Herat, while Tajik swore they weren't because he had information stating that Tajiks were 85% and Pashtuns 10%. When I pointed out that there is an important reason, namely current human rights issues, for specifically leaving in the information about Pashtuns being the second largest ethnic population, he threw this statistic back at me, saying, again that it was wrong that the Pashtuns were the second largest population, as they were 10% next to the Tajiks being 85%. He has apparently learned something new today about the ethnic population of Herat, and has taken this as an invitation to personally attack me.

There are some Wikipedia policies that make great sense, one of them being to just back off for a while. Would some administrator please explain this policy to Tajik and get him to back off of attacking me for trying to implement Wikipedia dispute resolution policies? And get him to stop attacking me at all? This is one of the Wikipedia polices I don't agree much with: allow people to continue personally attacking others.

KP Botany 14:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mancation is using the definition of the word mancation to promote himself and his business.

Koavf has managed to rack up eight distinct blocks for 3RR, and 2 more for other disruptive behavior(block log). Note also edits like this.. I just extended his latest 3RR block to idefinite, as I think the community's patience is likely exhausted by now. He has had many opportunities to mend his ways. Having recently returned from a week-long block, he started edit warring again almost immediately. His behavior is unmodified despite the volume of blocks he has received. Of course, I put this possibly-controversial action up for review. Dmcdevit·t 08:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no note on his User or User_talk page? - Francis Tyers · 19:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? He has lots of warnings on his Talk page. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the lack of note on his talk page regarding his indefinite block. A note has subsequently been added. - Francis Tyers · 01:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's much possibility of recovery here. While I'm sure he's a nice guy, I don't think he has the temperament for editing here. I'm going to endorse this action, though sadly. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, harsher than we usually are. But then perhaps we are usually too soft. Endorse with the proviso that we put a note on his talk page indicating that he will be considered for a 'last chance' if he indicates that he 'gets it' undertakes to behave.--Doc^g 01:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that a long block of some sort is in order. Not sure if indefinite is needed, just yet (I'm not too familiar with the situation), but the long-term disruption and failure to learn from past transgressions is pretty worrisome. Luna Santin 01:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he deserves an indefinite block, but I think that some kind of length (maybe 3-6 month block) with the option of a "last chance" before indefinite would be appropriate. He has been a useful editor, and the disruption comes from edit warring rather than vandalism. - Francis Tyers · 01:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin is a nice user but w/ a temperament. It is this same temperament that leads him to edit warring non-stop. If you'd ask me i'd say i'd prefer a definite ban from editing Morocco/Western Sahara related articles where he got most of the blocks. -- Szvest 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}[reply]

Agree with Svest. - Francis Tyers · 22:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a very strict block. I have edited on the Western Sahara articles before and I think that Kovaf has been struggling with some users who only have the aim to put certain viewpoints on Wikipedia. I'm not convinced by his neutrality entirely either, but I think the articles could become very unbalanced and that we would lose a valued contributor if he were indefinately blocked.

A block of a much shorter duration should be enforced here - 1 month, 2 maximum. I definately don't think he should be blocked from editing Western Sahara/SADR aritcles (but might support a block from aritcles on Morocco). --Robdurbar 16:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don’t want to interfere in your discussion guys but Robdurbar’s remarks justifying Kovaf’s behavior as just a "a struggle with some users" oblige me to do so. I think this is simply unfair from an admin.
• There are reasons why Koavf has been blocked (no need to list them again) and this has nothing to do with any "other users". Trying to Justify his behaviour in this way is simply wrong.
• The unbalance of the topic is an other wrong argument. He had the chance to cooperate with all and he clearly did not. Now there is a real chance that the topics will be more balanced and the atmosphere among the editors more co-operative and peaceful. All he was doing is (mis-) using Wikipedia for a platform to fight for the independence of a disputed territory and discouraging others with his obsessive reverts.
• There are rules, and they apply for all, so remember which message you will give if you unblock this user; it's like telling everybody "ok, just continue with your edit-warring and reverts, you’ll always find a nice admin to defend and unblock you."

Kind regards - wikima 18:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Koavf has been reverting and edit-warring on many articles, and especially on Western Sahara related. Normal when he declares in his user page "I try to particularly represent the interests of truth and the Sahrawis of Western Sahara (SADR).", and on Wikime that "I will do my darndest to free Western Sahara". His talk page and contributions show that he resorts to personal attacks, and has trouble issues with a large number of users on a wide range of articles. After coming form every block, he immediately started by reverting all the changes done in his absence, even the articles he was blocked for. Short period blocks seem to "only make him bitter" as he made it clear. Koavf has not shown any change after all the successive blocks. He misuses AWB for increasing edit counts at the price of creating confusion, although he was warned and blocked for it.

As to Robdurbar's comment, I think that Koavf has made the articles related to WS very unbalanced, and in his absence you are urged to watch if the "some users" commit the same mistakes as Koavf or are the articles becoming balanced by giving both views of the WS conflict.

An indefinite block, or at least (as Francis suggested) a 6-month block after which a "last chance" is given to him to show he changed, otherwise 3RR loses its purpose and becomes a short vacation from Wikipedia before one returns to resume reverting and edit-warring. --A Jalil 00:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to infer any bias from most users - including wikima - though I hope he would accept that he, like us all, has some sort of inherent bias. With there being so few contributors to Western Sahara pages, I don't think we can afford to lose Koavf. I appreciate this ban is over conduct, not content, but when banning we do need to consider what a user has contributed to Wikipedia. Equally, I agree, that koavd's contributions have been far from neutral but they have been in good faith. Can we agree to at least reduce this from an indefinate ban? --Robdurbar 09:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a fairly even split so far between endorsing and not-endorsing, is 50% sufficient for an indef ban to be upheld? - Francis Tyers · 11:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've only had bad experiences with Koavf. When things haven't gone his way, he has tended to run off to an admin, which has backfired on him each time (example 1, example 2). Lifting the block would be a bad move, in my opinion, which I'm sure will be proven if it happens. Several of his past blocks were reduced in length, only for him to pick up where he left off, which shows he disregards other people's good faith towards him. - Dudesleeper 15:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather difficult question, as he's mostly editting in territory which is *very* prone to POV-pushing. I'm fairly certain he has done it on occasion, too, and he's certainly revert-warred, but an indefinite block seems a bit harsh... Apart from all this, someone neutral should take a good look at all the Western-Sahara-related articles, as almost all of them contain either a pro-independence or a pro-Morocco POV. —Nightstallion (?) 18:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, many others and me have been doing just that. We had experienced a very lenghty and hot debate at Talk:Morocco recently and i am sorry to say that among around a dozen of participants, only Justin was the most tendious. The participants had reached a concensus but Justin kept arguing against that. This is what makes Justin's case a bit torn. On one side, we need to keep all the articles free of POV and on the other side, we need no tendious editing and edit warring.

However, as i am not for a permablock, i'd still suggest a ban from editing Morocco/WS related articles as his POV pushing has reached limits. Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Fayssal said, I would also oppose a permanent block. Koavf is an obstinate user regarding matters relating to his personal views but he has shown willingness to follow dispute resolution procedures. I know this is not the point but Koavf truely believes he's doing the right thing most of the time. Regarding a topic ban or a revert parole, these matters would have to be decided by ArbCom. If anyone wants to take this to arbitration, I am more than happy to express my views on the issue. Personally, I feel a bit guilty as I was informally mediating on the WS/Morocco articles but eventually left these aside because time restrains. Koavf has been with us for long enough to deserve a proper arbitration process instead of a fast-track community ban. Regards, Asterion^talk 18:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Well said Asterion. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those opposing a permanent block are doing it out of good faith and kindness rather than out of rational and reality. This is a very clear case of someone for whom 3RR means nothing, blocks mean nothing, and edit-warring is a style. He has proven it again and again and again. There is no hope at all that he will change. I am quite sure many users have been indef blocked for much less than Koavf's record, and if this case were to end in a no-indef ban, it will serve as an argument for warring-editors, and as a blatant failure to enforce Wikipedia's most basic rules.--A Jalil 21:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you have been here for under 3 months, I find it hard to believe that you've seen enough of Justin to make that call. Furthermore you have edit warred from the opposite POV to him. It is in your interests for him to have an indefinite block. Hardly the right person to be commenting on this. - Francis Tyers · 18:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If three months is a short period, I have actually seen during it koavf racking up so many blocks, using aggressive language, and disregarding Wikipedia's most basic rules, I have seen him promising admins he will obey by the rules but did not hold his word. I have seen 3RR losing its meaning in his case. A bad example for newcomers, like me, Isn't it?. Moreover, you can "see" all one's history of talk and contribs, even if you've been for just one week. So, one's opinion is not weakened (nor strengthened) by how long he/she has been on Wikipedia. You can't help Koavf by trying to redirect attention from his unjustifiable abusive behavior to other users, it is an insult to the admins' intelligence. You (Francis) have been recently blocked for edit-warring. As to my editing on WS, Koavf has reverted me , and would revert you , and everyone who writes anything that does not go his way. Is it enough that I support the WS articles to be filtered from POV by neutral editors (like you), as has been suggested above?.--A Jalil 08:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf is currently a problem editor, but not a vandal. I suggest a long block to give him a chance to mellow out, but not an indefinite block. —Michael Z. 2006-11-14 16:16 Z

I'd agree with that. He has put a lot of time into editing up until now, so I wouldn't want to see all that negated by an indefinite ban. A time-out would suffice, in which time he'll hopefully expand his horizons. - Dudesleeper 17:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• From what I can see now, the topic of Western Sahara for instance is like recovering in his absence, already. There is a sort of peace coming back and the atmosphere is likely to become cooperative and productive again.

• I would prefer to see more people join and also feel encouraged to stay longer, than only koavf “owning” the pages and pushing others away with his possessive way.

• His obsessive, always instant and systematic reverts and his extreme edit-warring discourage anyone who wants to do the tiniest change that does not fit his POV.

• He certainly edited a lot (may be sometimes too much), but all his edits and article creations are POV and propaganda and it takes others always a huge effort to overcome his edit-warring and reverts in order to balance.

• Wikipedia is not about quantity. Articles that are shorter, neutral, concise, let say encyclopaedic, have much more value than long stories that are nothing than a fight in favour of an ideological organisation and against a country that is seen as enemy of this organisation.

• This sort of behaviour clearly damages the topic areas in question and it damages Wikipedia as a whole.

• He had many chances but he just ignored all and he didn’t care about using one single of them.
• It’s time now to protect Wikipedia and these topics and for their sake I would plead for keeping the indefinite ban.

Thanks and kindest regards - wikima 20:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try not to make it a personal vendetta against him. His misgivings are clear to those who care to look. The admins will act as they see appropriate. - Dudesleeper 00:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Koavf is currently a problem editor, but not a vandal" - I think this describes the situation best, thanks Mzajac. This is why I think an idefinate block is counter-productive and a long-but-not indefinate one could 'solve' the problem. Of course, any user - myself included -who is arguing for a long-but-not-indefinate would be happy to endorse a full block if his bevahiour did not improve upon return. --Robdurbar 11:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair enough to me. But i'd prefer that we agree on what problems we are refering to when we say a "problem editor". Are there many problems? Is there a particular one? I say this because i know for some of us or even for Justin, this may be debatable and could lead us to the same situation if he is back. Could we be more concise? Szvest ····> ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 13:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Necronudist has been acting rude and uncivil against several users lately, as well as not caring about other policies either, but as I have been involved in some of the discussions myself, I prefer to let another admin solve this. It has been going on for a pretty long time now, on and off. The first "conflict" I can remember can be found here (example edits [16] [17] [18]) and he has since continued to be rude against other users, or has shown a complete lack of understanding of policies and their function (for example [19] [20]).

The conflict has then erupted during the last week. See this discussion where the user recommends another user to break WP:3RR because he thinks the policy, along with WP:NN and WP:NPOV, are "bad ideas", and the latest conflict in this discussion, specifically rudeness and lack of care for policies (example edits: [21] [22] [23] [24]) I have warned him and told him to stop several times during the discussion ([25] [26] [27]), but nothing changed, and thus I gave a final warning ([28]), after which he answered with this, saying he would go away and he has also edited his userpage ([29]) to show that. But since he's had a statement on his userpage for long ([30]) that he was to quit editing Wikipedia on May 23 earlier this year, I don't really know how serious he is this time.

Actions? – Elisson • T • C • 15:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, my friend, but I'm "too free" to be part of this moneypedia. However, you forgot to write that I've linked to wikitruth that is considered an high crime here in Jimbopedia. And, please note, I've never offended anyone, just spoken frankly. I didn't quit before because I wanted to keep up to date some pages I created or heavily edited, but this time I'll seriously quit, me and my future projects. Be sure. I'm not a drama queen like someone wrote. You are a good person Elisson, maybe one day you'll notice. --82.61.59.136 17:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC) (ex-Necronudist)[reply]

P.S.: Maybe you'd better say that I've also done something positive here, like reverting vandalism and creatin' unique and hard-working pages. You know, just to say who you are tryin' to ban.

Already implied in one of my warning edits linked to above (this one, to be specific: [31]). And making good contributions does still not allow anyone to be uncivil or break policies. I'd like to have you at the project considering your good sides, but seeing you fail—and judging by how you act, you do it on purpose—to adhere to the rules over and over again, I do not longer believe that the sum of your contributions add to the betterness of Wikipedia. – Elisson • T • C • 18:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, there's no problem for me. You (wikipedians) have lost a football researcher (hobby) and an historian (studies & job) because of a pair of stupid rules. Sure I'm not the first, and not the last. Let's think about this. Wikipedia isn't God (is there a policy like this? :-), it fails sometimes, maybe you (wikipedians) should try to improve it. --82.61.59.136 18:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC) (ex-Necronudist)[reply]

Imagine a wikipedia without rules. It's a shame you've been banned, but it's for the protection of the community. Wikipedia functions as a society and an acceptance of the rules of the society are required. Without those rules (even stupid ones), whatever they may be, the society will collapse... and no one user is worth such a collapse.

I find your attitude here slightly insulting as well. Moneypedia? Wikimedia has refused buyout offers, runs no advertisements, and is one of the largest collections of free content on the planet.

If you don't accept the laws of the land, thats fine. But you can't blame us when you leave. ---J.S (t|c) 22:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not blaming anyone. And we all know who Jimbo was before this project: one of the thousands that tried to make money with porno. Fortunately he found the new religion: Wikipedia. And so t-shirts, high paid wikimania interventions... However, I see your point, I accept it, and I quit. Simple. I was here for the culture, to give my little contribution, but if the religion comes first, well, I leave your stupid dogmas to you. It's not right that a person can't revert a vandalism 'cause the vandal has vandalized the page more than three times. It's stupid. I must have the possibility to break the rule for a good reason, not to be scared 'cause I'm breaking a stupid rule. Just think about. --82.61.59.136 10:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC) (ex-Necronudist)[reply]

3RR doesn't apply to reverting obvious vandalism.--QuantumEngineer 23:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now? :-) --82.54.80.135 14:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC) (ex-Necronudist)[reply]

P.S.: I've written (before all this mess) to the most important Italian football magazine about wikipedia and "my project" and they've published the mail. I'm TOO EVIL. I deserve the electric chair :-)

There is serious edit war at Cedarhurst, New York where a veteran user alansohn (talk · contribs) is trying to intimidate a new user Helical Rift (talk · contribs). For example Alansohn is calling this editors changes vandalism which is result in a block.[32] Both users have been uncivil, but perhaps the new user doesn't know about WP:CIVIL as the veteran user has raised the temperature of the argument. Alansohn has a history of referring to other editors as vandals and throwing around name calling see: Talk:B. H. Carroll Theological Institute.

An admin. needs to step in the middle of this violation of WP:BITE. Arbusto 08:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems to already be resolved, other than Arbusto/oo's efforts to interfere with the resolution. User:Helical Rift had removed Category:Orthodox Jewish communities from the article Cedarhurst, New York, based on his interpretation of the category implying that the location was 100% Orthodox. After clarifying the scope of the category based on the examples of the communities already listed therein, Helical Rift was given several examples of communities with both Irish and Orthodox communities that are labeled as Irish, despite being under 100% (or 50% for that matter). Helical Rift then modified the description of the category to require a majority population. After several attempts at deleting and restoring the category, Helical Rift was told that the article has an explicit source for Cedarhurst being an Orthodox community. Helical Rift, then proceeded to remove all references to Cedarhurst's Orthodox community from several locations within the article, and then claimed that "article does not mention orthodox jewish communities..." in the edit summary. Helical Rift was warned that such removal was vandalism, removed it again and was warned a second time. After re-offering a suggestion that we label Cedarhurst as both Orthodox AND Italian, we were able to agree that this soultion would address our mutual concerns. Arbusto seems to have created this ANI in violation of WP:POINT. This issue seems to have been resolved with the user in question, but Arbusto/oo seems to have inserted himself into this issue, goading User:Helical Rift into further action after the situation seems to have been successfully addressed, even after Helical Rift pleaded to end this argument. Arbusto/oo has persisted in misinterpreting an explicit source that specifies Cedarhurst as an Orthodox community, deciding that the source is not valid because it does not state the exact words that Cedarhurst is an Orthodox Jewish community, a nonsensical standard that is not applied anywhere else in Wikipedia. This issue should be closed immediately, assuming that Arbusto/oo has no further need to interfere with the subject. Alansohn 08:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this as I posted the new incident below. I had already seen the altercation between them and warned them both about 3RR. They both deserve to be temporarily blocked for edit warring / 3RR and at least one should be cautioned for bad language. I have also nominated the category in dispute for deletion. --ArmadilloFromHell 08:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that yes, the issue has been resolved but Arbusto did not "goad" me. I had strong feelings on the matter and discussed it with Alansohn. To me, the matter is closed and I apologize for my bad language. Alansohn was also changing the Cedarhurst page as well every time that I did so we are both at fault. This is an incident that will not be repeated Helical Rift 09:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cedarhurst, New York issue seems to have been addressed with User:Helical Rift. All that stands open now is Arbusto/oo's efforts to stir up a false claim that the article does not meet the category's standards, after all, based on his blatant misinterpretation of an article that explicitly provides the needed source. Arbusto/oo's bad faith in this issue can best be seen at User talk:Arbustoo#Alansohn. Alansohn 09:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith this new user was being bullied by YOU and contacted me on my talk see below. Arbusto 21:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, this issue is closed. Alansohn is not helping the issue now by incriminating Arbustoo. Both of those editors have a past history that they need to resolve on their own. The issue at hand is between me and Alansohn. The matter has been dropped and again, I apologize for the absurdness of this. Helical Rift 09:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category is dispute was put up for deletion where Alansohn has continued his games. You more striking is his violation of WP:POINT.[33] Arbusto 21:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alansohn and User:Helical Rift are continung their edit war on their respective talk pages. Since I have my own issues with what's going on and would not be considered neutral, I don't want to be the one sending out warnings, but it's become very uncivil and needs to be stopped. --ArmadilloFromHell 22:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Helical Rift and I have addressed and resolved our outstanding issues, as reflected on our respective talk pages. Unless anyone else has any issues to address in this matter, it should be closed, Alansohn 19:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Silentbob4477 has once again given himself Barnstars. (Revision as of 2006-11-11T13:16:15) one he give himself, and the other is a copy paste with another signature. The is the second time he has done this. He also has a past history of contributing to the Percy "Nobby" Norton/hoax issue Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Percy Nobby Norton - which he perpetuates on his user page. He did not sign his post there - but it says

This article was deleted and recreated on Nov 2 with the intention of providing a completely factual account of Norton's life. I am asking Starblind to give me 1 hour of my life back after he so blatantly deleted this article. STARBLIND YOU ARE AN ELITIST AUTOCRAT WHO TAKES PLEASURE FROM CRUSHING THE DREAMS OF THE WORKING CLASS WHO WILL ONE DAY RISE UP AGAINST YOU. YOU AUTHORITARIAN PIG-DOG. You have yet failed to provide a decent response explaining why this article was deleted again. I assure you, I will recreate this article under differnet names every week for the next year on every different IP adress I have access to. There is no limit to how much I will write and I warn you, a LOT of spare time has come across me and I will find it enjoyable to torment you motherfuckers.

Do we really ne4ed this? --ArmadilloFromHell 08:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that AFD, it would also appear that there is a lot of, either, sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry going on also - with significant numbers of new editors only having posted to that AFD.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that also, if I knew how and had the time, I guess I could request a trace, it almost certainly would show something. --ArmadilloFromHell 18:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I considered deleting the hoax from his User page, but I guess it does no harm. Forging other people's sigs isn't appropriate, though. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about barnstars, but I don't like his using wikipedia as a free web host for perpetuating the hoax. I've removed it from the user page on those grounds. Friday (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a tour through is contribs, and I see no redeeming qualities in this user. Apart from the edits to that deleted article, about 90% of his edits are to his userpage, and a good portion of the remainder is worthless. We keep him around why? --Golbez 10:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has had a short term block for vandalism, but it should be permanent, as far as sockpuppets, note Enknowed and these two related histories [34] and [35] --ArmadilloFromHell 15:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I filed a RFCU for Silentbob4477 and Enknowed. Hopefully, that'll show what's what. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked him earlier today for his vandalism to User:Ryulong (he marked it for speedy deletion as nonsense -- at the very best a strong WP:POINT violatoin). I support a community ban here -- anyone else? Mangojuice^talk 16:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried hard to assume good faith with this user, even when he cloned my user page, complete with barnstars and the admin template. But looking at the trouble he's caused versus the actual contributions he's made (nil as far as I can see), I've got to agree now with Mangojuice. --Guinnog 16:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Silentbob4477 came back as Likely. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Silentbob has been indef-blocked, could someone drop a block on Enknowed as well? I'd do it, but I don't have The Button. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. For what it's worth I should have some of the blame for these recent shenanigans: I cleaned out the Nobby/Briefs sock drawer last week, and I forgot all about these two. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joining the party totally late here, but I think the OP shouldn't have begun the post with something about self awarding barnstars. It seems that this user's other activities are way more serious than self awarding barnstars. That offense is pretty minor compared to forging sigs and WP:POINT violating edits. ~ crazytales_{-My talk-}^{-Your talk-} 00:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked AlternativeAccountK (talk · contribs) this morning because it was by their own admission an account used to get round a ban. I did not know, or care, what the original account was.

It turns out that AlternativeAccountK was a sock of Konstable (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who has now abused their admin bit to unblock AlternativeAccountK and continue to use that account:

"oh lookie, I just got blocked again, heh, lucky I couldnt be bothered filing to get my sysop removed"

Suggestions on way forward please.

Thanks/wangi 09:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Konstable wasn't banned. He has left the project for an indeterminate amount of time.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, misuse of admin powers. I'd call for an emergency desysop. – Chacor 10:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is any of this at all necessary when he's just popping back in to keep me in check and he was unfairly blocked each time?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a clear misuse of admin powers, and he clearly knew what he was doing. Admins have been desysopped for such before, and this shouldn't be an exception. – Chacor 10:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Either somebody has left the project or not, if they have not and are just "popping by" to keep you "in check" then they can do so with their original account. Such use of sock is at the best confusing and counter-productive - i'm not going to trawl through contribs to see if it was actually used to work around a bin, but that's certainly the implication made by the user themselves. Ta/wangi 10:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wangi should read policy before blockging an admin, see WP:SOCK - clearly allows legitimate socks. I have no futher intention to participate in this thread, as I have left this nonsensopedia already and that account was created as a legitimate sock to close off some business I had here without making edits from my main account. I will decide what most "productive" way for me to leave Wikipedia already, thank you.--Konst.able^Talk 10:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In which case you should voluntarily relinquish your admin powers, please. This was hardly productive, and was pretty disruptive, wheel-warring as well. – Chacor 10:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sysops are not supposed to unblock them selves .. even if its just a sock in essence you unblocked your self..? Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 10:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yet another counter-productive disruptive thread to make a big thing out of nothing and throw technicalities of policies around in the air. Lets make the thread as big as possible so we can keep our mind off this and this and oh oh oh! what is it called again? Building an Encyclopaedia? I was talking to someone, I was blocked by mistake by someone who thought I was a "banned user" (as he said in his edit summary). I am not a banned user, hence to finish talking I unblocked myself. Easy, end of matter. Now I'm gone, go ahead and re-block if that makes you feel better, I won't be editing anyway, I no longer have interest in Wikipedia's bureaucratic nonsense. If I want to talk to someone I'll use email.--Konst.able^Talk 10:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite confusing. The AlternativeAccountK account's first edit is about a prior edit by...? El_C 10:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:AltUser by the looks. The user and talk pages have been deleted. This was the user closing AFDs as deletes, though they weren't an admin, though now it turns out they were... My head hurts. --pgk 11:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it him? Why would he do that? This is not getting less complixcated... El_C 12:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the previous account that AltK was referring to. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is very sad. I don't know what this is all about, and I suppose it's not particularly my or anyone else in particular's business to know, but two months ago User:Konstable was an enthusiastic editor whose RfA had just passed 47/0/0, and now he wants nothing more to do with the place, and a number of others seem to be quite cross with him in return. I know that in any online environment people come and people go and one isn't supposed to get too worked up about it, but it's always a shame when things go this wrong this quickly, and I often find myself post-morteming these situations and wondering if a happier outcome could have been available if people had sought one. Would it be appropriate for anyone to shed any light on what the heck is going on here? Newyorkbrad 19:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the history of his talk page, before he removed criticism (as an anon, with edit comment "(sorry, but I don't want any more discussion. (I am Konstable, don't revert))". It looks to me like he decided to leave, and then created an alternative account, clearly labelled it as a sockpuppet account but not for which account, and proceeded to close delete AFD's in order to provoke a reaction (WP:POINT). When he got such a reaction, he responded abusively, and was blocked. He's now claiming that this is an example of WP:BITE even though, because the account was a self-labelled sock, that doesn't apply. He claims to have left but is creating socks to pursue the same point and using his admin abilities to unblock his socks. Frankly, I think he is playing a dangerous game and Wikipedia would be safer if he was desysopped immediately.-gadfium 19:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for why he decided to leave, I really have no idea. Although we live in the same city and go to the same University, I've never met him (to my knowledge) and have had very little to do with him until the last couple of weeks. I didn't vote in his RfA because I didn't know anything about him at the time.-gadfium 19:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate, when I initially blocked I did not know who the "sockmaster" was, I just read the contributions and it was clear that the account was being used to get around a ban and/or otherwise against the spirit of allowable uses in WP:SOCK. It turns out that this was a larger case than it initially looked, and two sockpuppets were used by Konstable. Anyway, I think it makes sense to remove the admin bit from K for now, and if he does return and intend to do productive work here (as i've observed in the past he's very much used to doing) then it can be applied for again. Thanks/wangi 00:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh how I miss these wonderful debates on Wikipedia... Some mis-informed accusations from people who had nothing to do with the issue, yet only words of defence against the block from the people whom I've allegedly harassed. The first account was not disruptive, nor abusive. The second account, as I already said (but of course the point of these discussions is to say the same things over and over again) was created to finish off talking to people due to the discussion that was started on my talk page for some reason. If someone is accusing my second account of disruption for quietly talking to people on their talk pages, then I have nothing to say to you and recommend that you quit Wikipedia also.

It was my initial intention to take a break from all admin conrtibutions to get away from the mix of bureaucracy, trolls and arrogant elitists regarding which I was getting increasingly frustrated (and on my user page I made the edit " 01:10, November 5, 2006 . . Konstable (Talk | contribs | block) (temporarily suspending all admin contributions)" removing all mention of me being an admin). Though after being unfairly blocked for "closing AfDs" it was my first impulse to make a post on WP:AN detailing the reasons why I quit and why I have no intention to be admin any more, I ended up not requestiong to have "+sysop" removed because I thought that even though I don't want to have anything futher to do with this so called "encyclopaedia" (where? are we writing it right now? I didn't notice), I might change my mind one day and come back - so I would be able to help out again without reposting the long explanation that I had on my user page (deleted to stop discussion, I have left why should I have to keep talking about this). Though now it seems unlikely that I will actually return - this lovely reception on AN/I is the true Wikipedia spirit. A huge post on an issue which all rolls down to me popping in to leave a quick message to Ryulong on his talk page (who knows very well who I am and didn't seem to find this too "disruptive" as some people here would like to think, in fact he argued against the block).

Do what you will with my account, it will make you feel better and help you deny the bureaucratic mess, I want no futher part in it. Go on, maybe put a community ban on me for my latest crimes of talking to people, that would make you happy. No, I will not drop by any futher to talk to mis-informed people making false accusations of "trolling". If someone wants to contact me (regarding something other than "trolling"), use my email insted.

As User:Newyorkbrad said above, yes it is sad that I was here to help out enthusiastically, helped bring an article to FA status, have gained about 2000 entries in my admin log within 2 months, and now I want nothing to do with this project. And futhermore that people don't want me here. But that's how Wikipedia works. Two prominent contributors who've also left recently are User:Werdna and User:Draicone (actually both for similar reasons relating to bureaucracy), I hope more do leave, maybe someone will learn and quit this a mix of childish nonsense and bureaucracy.--Konst.able^Talk 00:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one's stopping you from leaving, but don't insult everyone on the way out. --InShaneee 00:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've not being sitting all day waiting on this post, have you ;) If you're going to leave then just do it. Otherwise help us out and get working taking more articles up to FA - it's the best response there is the wiki-nonsense (and more productive than admins!)! Thanks/wangi 00:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just request desyropping and write some articles and do simple non-admin work like what I'm doing, just don't leave. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to wrap my poor little brain around what exactly happened here, but I can say that if it is determined that AltUser (talk · contribs) is Konstable, he is then also the user behind the impostor (or attack or whatever it was) account Ryushort (talk · contribs). CheckUser shows both were on open proxies, but Ryushort, which used one of the same proxies and was created at the same time, was clearly the same as whomever AltUser was. Dmcdevit·t 00:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the people asking for a desysopping, you should make a request for arbitration, as that's currently the only mechanism for desysopping. Dmcdevit·t 00:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.. very strange. User:Ryushort, and imposter of User:Ryulong who is also involved in this discussion. I wonder who could have done this? It's very obvious AltUser was Konstable and if it's a fact that who created AltUser created Ryushort, then I support desysopping him as he would have become nothing more than a lousy imposter. Creating a new account to get away from pressure: OK. Creating an account to close AFD's in favor of deletion: Disputable, even a blockable offense. Creating accounts to mimic other users: nothing short of trolling. semper fi — Moe 01:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, no Ryushort was not me. User:AltUser and User:AlternativeAccountK were both mine, and User:KonstableBot and all the unused accounts I created to prevent impersonation. As I remember I used Tor for AltUser (I used to have it permanently set up on my alternative browser, not trying to hide from CheckUser who I am or anything - as I obviously admited it was me straight after), so I would probably have went through quite a lot of different IPs there - you can check, either all of them or most of them would be Tor. As for closing AfDs, I'm out of steam in talking about that. Have fun at arbitration, I won't be there.--203.109.209.49 02:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to leave, leave already. You're editing is just getting to the point to where it alone is becoming disruption. semper fi — Moe 05:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Konstable. Thanks/wangi 01:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh just fucking leave him alone already.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously now. Cool it, I'm sure you don't want to be blocked. Konstable is only attracting replies by continuing to post here, although others should know WP:DNFT. – Chacor 09:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to Matthew Fenton's point above about sysops unblocking themselves, he said

"Sysops are not supposed to unblock them selves .. even if its just a sock in essence you unblocked your self..?", am I correct in saying that if you're a sysop, and you're testing block options (e.g. edit summaries for blocking users, block options etc.) you're not supposed to unblock yourself??
As for the point about arbitration, that seems to have been the best course of action - I agree with this. --SunStar Net 16:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony fusi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding a "no source" tag to album covers even where the image has a fair use rationale (e.g. Image:The KLF-The White Room (album cover).jpg), and where the source is quite clearly stated as being a record cover. Who scanned an image of a copyright artwork is totally immaterial: the scanner doesn't acquire any copyright in their work, as it's purely a 2D digital representation of a copyrighted 2D piece. Only the owner of the album sleeve copyright has any rights in it. Thus, this tagging seems to me to be disruptive. Do others agree? --kingboyk 17:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge the author of the image needs to be stated (source) even if they don't own the copyright just like amazon is credited as the source for dvd covers etc. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's good practice at least, even if it's not required. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 17:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Kingboyk that this is (almost) pointless. The reason to identify the source is to make it possible to identify the ultimate copyright holder for purposes of investigating claims of fair use or infringement. In the case of an album cover the copyright owner is plainly obvious as the music publishing company. The intermediate source (Amazon.com or a person's scanner) is immaterial to the copyright. While you can make a techincal case that the record publisher should be cited by name (Capitol Records, etc) that seems like an overly technical point. Thatcher131 17:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ultimately not clued up on copyright, but does this apply, perhaps? --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 17:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

technically, sure it applies. However, the rationale for specifying the immediate source is to enable investigation of copyright status. For example, a flickr image might be licensed with a version of creative commons license we accept, or a version we don't. With things like book, CD and DVD covers, it is obvious that the image is copyrighted, that the ultimate copyright holder is the publisher or distributor, and we are using under fair use, not a free license. In other words, specifying the source of most web images is essential to determine their real status; specifying the intermediate source of a book, CD or DVD cover adds nothing of value. I've said this in the past regarding TV screen caps; the identity of the capper has no bearing on the copyright status of the image. I would absolutely bow to the understanding of someone like Durin or Carnildo in this case if I am wrong, but I don't don't see any practical benefit to tag and delete such images, especially since they could be recreated in 10 seconds from Amazon. Thatcher131 17:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to understand your reasoning, it seems very logical. Perhaps we should consider asking someone more qualified to tell us about such matters? --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 17:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that the image I cited had it's fair use rationale scrutinised by the fair use eagle-eyes over at WP:FAC (it's used in a featured article). For this image to be tagged and possibly deleted because it doesn't say much about the source doesn't seem right to me. (Needless to say, I reverted on that particular image, but thought the issue worthy of discussion - which seems to be correct from the interesting thread so far :)) --kingboyk 17:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Template talk:No source/archive1#When not to use this tag and Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Archive 5#Album and single covers implicitly state a source for archived discussions of this matter. Thatcher131 18:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, excellent! :-) --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 18:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Might be some ammunition against the "don't allow album covers in discographies" brigade there too. The DK case cited is exactly the kind of argument I've been using to no avail in the past; good to see there's a a precedent for it. (see Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Album_cover_art_in_discography_articles)

Anyrode, anyone fancy reverting or fixing a few of the "source missing" edits by this user? --kingboyk 11:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Well over 100 undone. Phew. --Guinnog 13:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thank you. --kingboyk 11:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here. 16:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the editor may have exposed personal information here, but I am not sure. What is the procedure? -- Avi 18:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant to say Gary Weiss editor, Mantanmoreland has said categorically that they are not Gary Weiss. Arniep 18:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you spin this [36]? Another typing error? The word for what you are doing is "harassment," for which you are digging into the trash pits of the usual attack websites.--Mantanmoreland 18:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it is just personal attacks and incivility, not personal info. That is a relief. Personal info needs to be revereted immediately. NPA/INCIVIL can be handled through normal channels. Although I am afraid I must concur with Mantanmoreland that Arniep seems to forget WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA on a rather regular basis. -- Avi 18:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And on just a regular basis you and Mantanmoreland go round reverting "in sync" and post sarcastic messages about vandalism with little smiley faces on userpages of anyone that has expressed criticism of Israel (actually the last bits just Avi). Arniep 18:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is called Freudian projection, Arnie . I use emoticons and smileys since body language cannot be transmitted in cyberspace. I daresay there are more non-Israel related smileys than not. Regardless, this is another example of your inability to assume good faith and what I am afraid is the projection of your own issues into others. -- Avi 19:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is nonsense. You use the smiley faces most often when in dispute with muslim editors or people who have expressed criticism of Israel- please refrain from doing so and posting vandalism template messages telling people to "go and experiment in the sandbox" when they are clearly experienced and do not need to "play in the sandbox" and neither were their edits vandalism. Arniep 19:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the facts would tend to disagree with you. And even not, perhaps my point is to show that I am trying toengage in open dialogue as well as see to the enforcement of wiki guidelines and policies, as opposed to some other editors that may come to mind ;) -- Avi 19:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that Avi is incorrect on this point [37]. Contrary to Arniep's feeble effort to spin it, this was an effort to reveal my supposed "identity." My understanding is that purporting to reveal the actual identity of an editor is a bannable offense whether the "outing" is correct or, as in this case, wrong. I've been attacked right and left in an attack website and tabbed the identity of a well-known author because of my edits in articles unrelated to this one. Arniep picked up those attacks and harassed me with it. He should receive the appropriate penalty, which is an indefinite block. P.S. The "in sync" business is absolute rubbish, as our respective contribs indicate.--Mantanmoreland 19:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MM how is it your first edit today was to leap in and revert the Mahmoud Ahmedinejad article when there was an obvious edit war going on? Have you been discussing this edit war outside Wikipedia? Perhaps you would like to explain why you have used sock puppet accounts to edit the Gary Weiss article to keep it to your POV as proven here? You're the one that should be banned, not me. Arniep 19:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I see that you are, in addition, a meatpuppet of User:WordBomb, whom you are parroting, as further indicated by your sudden interest in Wordbomb's favorite subject[38]. As for blocks, I can learn a lot from you on that subject, as you have a half-dozen so far. [39]--Mantanmoreland 19:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think all people involved in this behaviour - whether it be incivility, false accusations, personal attacks etc, need to step back and stop editing the areas of the site where they are coming across these issues for a while. Edit something else and think about what Wikipedia is - an encyclopedia, not a battleground for personal grudges etc... Also note that personal attacks, incivility and harrassment are not acceptable. If they continue, the editor in question will end up being blocked.

If you do not want to take a break for some reason, I suggest that you go to dispute resolution.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I made an edit on Mahmoud Ahmedinejad (for the first time in many weeks) and User:Arniep, whom I have never encountered in my life, commenced the unprovoked assault on me described above. Are you suggesting that I cease editing Mahmoud Ahmedinejad because of this editor's misconduct?

"Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action." [40]--Mantanmoreland 19:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Based on the amount of arguing on this page that the 3 of you are involved in at the moment, I am advising all 3 of you to. I am going to warn the individual users using the correct templates regarding individual conduct, but it seems that the problems that are occuring are not going to stop simply because editors are warned. I am suggesting that all 3 of you calm down and realise what the purpose of this site is. What do you gain by sitting on this page and arguing between yourselves? All that will happen will be that admins come along and start blocking people for being disruptive. Rather than that happen, wouldn't you say that voluntarily calming down and doing something else for a while would be a better option?-Localzuk^(talk) 19:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I pledge to not edit Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the foreseeable future! (Trick answer.... the page was just protected!) ;) Seriously, I appreciate your effort to calm the waters.--Mantanmoreland 20:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. BTW. I am not an admin, just a friendly editor :) - ArnieP's behaviour is not appropriate and as such it should probably be taken to an WP:RFC. However, my advice was for the short term prevention of this fighting and to calm things down to allow all the editors here to understand the viewpoints of each other. -Localzuk^(talk) 20:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:RFC is for content disputes. This is the correct forum for disruption/harassment, and please note another editor raised this issue here, not myself. Thanks again for your good offices and yes I realize you are just a Good Samaritan.--Mantanmoreland 20:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(outdenting) WP:RFC is for article content, user conduct, and policy proposals and article conventions, so it is an applicable use of that phase of the dispute resolution process. -- Avi 20:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is not the appropriate forum for this behaviour... Just so you know. As stated, RFC is the place to go if you cannot come to some sort of agreement.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arniep has also harassed me. He is a regular poster to Wikipedia Review. He engaged in what he saw as an off-wiki "investigation" into what he thinks is my personal life. He decided he knew who I was in real life, and he started posting what he thought were personal details about me on that website. He then passed what he thinks is my name to Daniel Brandt. I know it was him because he e-mailed to tell me. He said he didn't pass the information to Brandt directly, but did it via a third party, but I have no reason to believe him. However, even if that's true, he's still responsible for it. It doesn't surprise me at all that he is doing this Mantanmoreland. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the Arniep edit that (as he saw it) tried to out someone. An admin with oversight may want to get rid of it entirely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is considerably more than a content dispute, and telling three editors not to edit a page because one of them harasses and makes threats is ignoring the actual problem.

According to WP:BLOCK: "Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely, depending on the severity of the incident, and whether the blocking admin feels the incident was isolated or is likely to be repeated." Arniep has attempted to "out" at least two editors here, and shows no remorse nor desire to amend his ways. He has harrassed me, accusing me (without offering any diffs or examples to support his accusations) of wikistalking. I have had limited contact with him, and every single instance has been him making wild accusations against me while ignoring policies, up to and including replacing a signed message by me with content of his own, leaving my signature. He has never acknowledged any error, and his attitude throughout has been of a bully who attempts to paint himself as the "victim" whenever his actions have been criticised. I see no reason for an Rfc; this user is not suitable for interaction with others. Unless someone makes an incredibly strong case for not indef blocking him for harassment, "outing", and disruption, I will do so.

Background of my interactions with this user: User_talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive03#Vandalism, User_talk:Arniep#KillerChihuahua, User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Archive_3#KillerChihuahua, User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Being_Stalked_by_User - in which Arniep calls a block warning a violation of CIVIL and misrepresents Thatcher131's actions, User talk:KillerChihuahua#Your message.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is "an incredibly strong case for not indef blocking him for harassment", Puppy. You're too late. AnnH ♫ 00:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case what can I say except that, obviously, I support your block. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, in that case it looks like we'd be better off without him. Also, my advice to not edit the page was simply to try and get all editors involved to calm down - as their dispute had rolled over to here - this seems like a pretty standard thing to ask them to do to me, as I have seen other editors and admins ask the same thing.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community patience

Has Arniep exhausted community patience? JoshuaZ 23:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on all the above, yes. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say, definitely. I have had no personal disputes with him, but have warned him a few times. He has a long record of harassing other editors. And it's not as if he didn't know not to post personal details. He has been warned about it before. I've blocked indefinitely. AnnH ♫ 00:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The only reason I didn't request an indefblock when he tried to "out" me is that I try to ignore Wikipedia Review, and I didn't want to pay him any further attention. However, if he's going to continue with the same behavior toward others, especially on-wiki, he needs to go. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we don't need to have patience for this type of thing. Indefinite block is appropriate for intentionally repeatedly violating policies. - Taxman ^Talk 00:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, trolls are not allowed on Wikipedia. If you have tried every attempt to make the user pay attention to warnings, have attempted to resolve dispute to no consensus on his part, and he is still being disruptive, theres no reason not to indef block. But if he is willing to change, give him the oppritunity before calling it quits. semper fi — Moe 00:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has demonstrated repeatedly he has no remorse and no interest in modifying his behavior whatsoever. When applicable policies are given to him, he claims "harassment" or "stalking" or some other wrong is being done to him - and conveniently fails to respond to his own violations. I fail to comprehend in what way the repeated efforts to reach this user have been insufficient. Or are you unaware of how many chances he has already been given? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking hypothetically about any user :) semper fi — Moe 00:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and support the block. In this instance it is important to remember that this Amriep had had zero previous contact with me. I had never even heard of him before. Out of the blue he starts harrassing me for no reason whatsoever except sheer malice.--Mantanmoreland 00:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If anything his already questionable behavior has been only been deteriorating. There's a Spanish proverb that says "Experience is not always the kindest of teachers, but it is surely the best." Unfortunately, in this case, Arniep seems to have learned the wrong lesson. Let's make sure we learn the right one. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is usually unwilling to talk or discourse, Moe, as can be seen from the actions and edit summaries here, here, and here to show a few. -- Avi 00:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, theres no reason to keep him here is there? Support indefblock. semper fi — Moe 00:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:BLOCK quoted by KillerChihuahua above and the evidence presented above by multiple users, I fully support the indefinitely blocking of Arniep. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support as well. Usually the users who are always unwilling to discuss tend to be the most problematic. Khoikhoi 01:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support for this long overdue ban. In addition to today's incident, Ariep has been repeatedly warned about his incivility, intimidation, lack of good faith, backstabbing and conspiracy mongering. Here's an attempt to reason with him a long time ago: Offensive_comments_in_Village_pump_.28policy.29_discussions, Offensive_comments_in_afd_discussions, and here's a more recent one Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive143#Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support it as well... FeloniousMonk 03:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Throw my name in as well. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of a pile-on, I'll just add that Arniep was, I thought, trying to bait Avi on my talk page by deleting a joke Avi made there and insinuating that it was somehow an attack on me by Avi (which it most clearly wasn't). You can see it here. I wasn't that familiar with Arniep, so just let it go. But it all seems part of a pattern now. Support. IronDuke 05:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:Musical Linguist has now blocked Arnie indefinitely following unanimous community consensus. Proto::type 15:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a fight has broken out over whether DXRAW (talk · contribs) has to keep warnings on his talk page; Mikedk9109 (talk · contribs) is of the opinion that the warnings must stay (possible because he himself has been badly treated in this regard in the past). Anyway, I've reverted to DXRAW's warningless version, since I'm of the opinion that he can lose the warnings if he likes so long as he heeds their substance (and I think that this is the current trend of conventional wisdom on the subject), and am hoping to settle this peacefully, but I'd appreciate any help keeping an eye on the situation and/or bopping me on the head if my approach to the situation appears to be making things worse. Thanks, --Robth^Talk 20:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cause of the dispute was almost undoubtedly me. Previously, the administrators who expressed an opinion have been of the consensus that it was inappropriate to remove current warnings from your talk page. In a more recent discussion, a consensus was not reached. I was operating on the prior consensus when I warned Mikedk9109, though he was never blocked for this as far as I can see. He was blocked for removing tags from images without resolving the issues, and for personal attacks. And I believe previously for 3RR violations. Anyway, I certainly appreciate other admins monitoring the situation. This is not really the place to discuss whether or not people should be allowed to remove warnings from their talk page, though. That really is going to require that a specific policy be written (or added to existing policy) and the appropriate discussion take place there. I think we need a firm decision but AN/I isn't the place for it in my opinion. --Yamla 20:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well everything seems to have resolved itself. I agree that figuring out what the best practice is in this regard and then proclaiming it from an appropriate mountaintop would be useful, as it's best to have everyone on the same page. This isn't the place for that, though, so we'll save that for some other time. --Robth^Talk 22:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not such a good idea to revert war on another user's talk page. The more relevant question is whether he heeds the warnings or persists in the behavior that got him warned in the first place. (Radiant) 13:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please review the contributions/article creations of Sir james paul (talk · contribs). My patience is low today, and I don't want to bite a newbie. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious case of repetitive self-promotion; now already reverted. The user has no meaningful contribs otherwise. He's been warned a couple of times and should be blocked if he persists. (Radiant) 13:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User is still at it. Vandalistic edits [41], warned about WP:POINT for tagging as speedy obviously notable bios [42], blanking warnings from talk page [43]. Note user's relatively poor english "If an administator at wikipedia tells you stop doing something then stop. He has the write to block you."[44] (emph added) and apparent total inability to understand a simple logical argument pertaining to standards of notability see extended discussion about WP:WEB on User_talk:ZimZalaBim). This self-proclaimed minister of an internet church looks like a teenager working out their issues on WP. Suggest some blocking action be taken here. Pete.Hurd 21:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Tobias_Conradi#Blocked II ... Tobias Conradi (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has now been put on notice that his next ban may well be indefinite. There is a lot of history here, this user has been discussed here many times in the past. ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please supplement the claims with supporting page diffs and links to the archive files. Durova^Charge! 23:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I'm not claiming anything. If Redvers (the blocking admin) doesn't get a chance to give more information here, I'll see what I can do to help out though. As you know it's fairly non trivial to find multiple incidents in these archives. Tobias's block log speaks volumes though. ++Lar: t/c 00:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This guy equates admins he doesn't like with people who commit "rape, violence, robery, murder, mobbing". Should have been blocked a long time ago... his behavior seems simply awful. --W.marsh 01:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, anytime an admin calls him on his incivility, tells him not to attack folks, or deletes an article he feels he owns, the admin is immediately accused of abuse. He operates at a hair-trigger, ready and willing to strike. He's labeled me as one of the abusive admins because I deleted an article he had created that met WP:CSD A1. He has made comments to the effect that he should be above the policies or they should be modified to his needs because of the number of edits he's made (which apparently number above 10k). I'd really like to find some way to get him onto the right side of the tracks because he's a very productive editor, but I've had poor results trying to work him through his admin issues. A heads up, CBDunkerson (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) has sided with Tobias in the past when he was being abusive, so anyone who tracks CBD's unique admin community interactions may wish to monitor this as well. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THere's certainly a history of not being able to tolerate a difference of opinion: [45], [46], [47] --Merbabu 03:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's passive aggressive and has a persecution complex. He complains about abuse, but refuses to police his own behavior (when he moves lots of pages for example, he claims it's not his responsibility to clean up double redirects - it's the responsibility of the person complaining to him about the moves). He needs to be heartily beaten with a clue stick. Maybe a permablock with an out that says "If you apologize for every troll you've made, you can come back with a clean slate" would work, but I very much doubt he could swallow his faux pride. --Golbez 10:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With this diff [48] he basically confirmed everything I said. The last few days, he's ceased being a worthwhile contributor, he spends all of his time now whining. --Golbez 11:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various incivil and inaccurate statements above aside... the matter at hand: Tobias Conradi got into some content disputes with Evertype. Both were incivil and edit warring. Various people warned both of them about this. Tobias Conradi removed one of those warnings from his talk page and Nandesuka restored it. He removed it again, she restored it again, et cetera... then she protected his talk page. He called this abusive and Naconkantari blocked him for that as WP:NPA.

Frankly... edit warring to keep warnings on someone's talk page is harassment. I've held that position for a long time and I'm not alone in it. Protecting a page you have been involved in editing is one of the few things admins are specifically told not to do. Protecting user talk pages specifically is generally discouraged as it cuts off communication and thus is only supposed to be used in the most extreme cases of vandalism / profanity / releasing personal info / et cetera. Thus, protecting a user talk page you have been edit warring on to enforce display of a message you know the user doesn't want to have there is, at best, a 'very bad idea' <tm>. Tobias Conradi calling it 'abusive' was certainly incivil, but within the realm of semantically feasible descriptions. Blocking him for a week over that seems to me excessive.

Put Tobias Conradi in opposition with any other user who also trends towards being obstinate and incivil in disagreement and you have a problem. That's a valid issue which needs to be addressed, if possible. The fact that some of those other users are admins is also rather a problem, and vilifying Tobias for complaining (vociferously) about improprieties doesn't make them any less improper. --CBD 12:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression, perhaps wrongly, that the NPA block was related to this which although not the diff listed in the block log was the statement which was visible on the users page at the time the block was placed. --pgk 13:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that'd fit the bill. I'd looked at the diff in the block summary, but it does seem likely Naconkantari meant the entire string and just didn't notice that part of it was added in the subsequent edit you linked. --CBD 15:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to my summary above - Tobias did not actually remove the warning again after Nandesuka restored it. What he did was move it up on the page to a section with another warning he had been told to keep displayed. Thus the 'lie' he referred to was Nandesuka's statement that she was protecting the page because he had deleted the text again... he hadn't. Though he now acknowledges that she could have just missed the relocation (which seems likely). --CBD 22:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias has a talent for making enemies on Wikipedia; if you went back though his edit history I'm sure you'd find many many examples. This is a comment left on my talk page after an episode I (and a number of other editors) had with Tobias (MichaelJLowe 13:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I can't think of another user who has not yet been banned who is so consistently disruptive to both community and project. I dislike witchhunts but when and if you decide to file on this user, please ask for my help. John Reid 07:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for Tobias Conradi

I think that this user's penchant for clearly unreasonable behavior and wikilawyering make a community ban a reasonable option. Just as the latest example, he lists pgk's response to his unblock request as an example of "admin abuse." As an experiment, when dealing with his latest 3RR violation, I deliberately did not block him, but approached him informing him of the violation, and asking him to change his editing pattern. His response was to characterize it as a "threat", immediately remove the warning (and I disagree with CBD about this being acceptable), and add me to his List Of Enemies. Someone who can't distinguish between "civil interaction and disagreement" and "abuse" is not going to be able to participate meaningfully in an arbitration case. I'd therefore like to propose a community ban in this case. Thoughts? Nandesuka 14:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He clearly has no respect for the rules or the other users here, and has had far too many opportunities to change his ways. Support. --InShaneee 16:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never interacted w/ Tobias but after checking all the above i still see that it would be very appropriate to place them on probation. An indefinite block would be harsh to an established editor who joined wikipedia in 2003 (be them a pain in the ass or an angel). -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn on this. On one hand, he often makes useful edits and he's very productive. On the other hand, we're all volunteers here and quite frankly, he's shitting all over a bunch of people who really don't have to be here, and that's just poor chess. This is not a job, and we're not paid to put up with abuse. As he has shown no interest in speaking civilly with people he disagrees with and responds to just about everything that isn't glowing praise with baseless accusations, I think an RfC is entirely appropriate, and perhaps a ban is a proper possible consequence of the RfC. AN/I probably isn't the right venue for determining this editor's future, though. I don't really have the time right now to put together a representative case, but I'd be willing to assist. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a coincidence on the unblock request thing, given it was posted about an hour before my comment above and about a month after the incident. I can't say any run in's I've had with this user particularly stand out in my mind. Looking a few diffs beyond that one I see this which seems to back up some of the sentiments above, agreeing with a blocking admin when it's against his view point is somehow "mobbing". He was clearly entitled to query my reasoning behing denying the unblock later something which my talk page clearly shows he hasn't (Though given there is a subjective nature to disruption It's also more than possible he still wouldn't be happy with the response, nor would I perceive an endless debate to be useful). Being frustrated at a denied unblock is understandable, but to my mind maintaining such lists a month after the event without seeking any input seems pretty unhealthy and certainly seems to require some action, if this can be getting to (and resolving) the root cause or an outright ban is debatable, though some of the comments above seem to suggest the former is unlikely to be attainable. --pgk 17:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't investigated this situation at all, but by coincidence, on MfD right now is a page in this editor's userspace compiling some of his more unpleasant interactions with admins. He seems to have compiled it to assist him in some contemplated (but never pursued) RfC or whatever, but as an outsider it primarily reflects the difficulty of dealing with this user. See WP:MfD#User:Tobias_Conradi.2F2006_summer_admin_incidents.

Please note that I'm posting this link because it might be relevant for someone following up on this thread. I hesitated before doing so because it might be viewed as publicizing some of the personal attacks made by this user. If this is a concern to any of the admins named on the page, please feel free to revert this edit. Newyorkbrad 17:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed make the comment cited above. I can't recall the ugly details of my interaction with Mr. Conradi but I can't get the taste out of my mouth, either. I would really prefer not to dredge up what went on between us but I will do so if it will help put a lid on this.

It is not clear to me that a community ban will be effective, however. This editor has all the makings of somebody who will not stay gone. If we throw him out hot, I fear he will be back -- and back and back and back. Diplomacy is called for but has already been attempted and has failed. I will make another effort but really, I don't know what else to do. John Reid ° 17:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of a ban, this would make a good case for a probation period John. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If probation were attempted, I'd suggest monitoring closely. I suspect, based on past interactions with him, that he would categorize the probation as an attack of some sort and as more evidence of cabalism. A user operating under those assumptions would likely disregard it, go out in a blaze of glory, or simply switch to a new account. The only way I could see any administrative intervention working with this user is if CBDunkerson (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) was the implementer. He is the only admin Tobias seems to interact civilly with, though I suspect this is because of CBD's historical enablement of Tobias's indiscretions. This brings with it its own set of challenges, of course, but should be considered. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they would be monitored especially that their case concerns a dozen of admins. I would also support CBDunkerson to be their mentor though not responsible of their acts. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a mentorship, in the context of a probation, then? I honestly don't think CBD is the right person though, I'd pick someone (on Tobias's enemies list, frankly) that has a widely held reputation as reasonable but firm, and who doesn't have the reputation of being a coddler, and put it to Tobias "either you let this person mentor you, and take their input and advice on board, nicely, and without arguing, or... you're gone...". ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I have "a widely held reputation as reasonable but firm" (some people seem to think I'm block happy and others think I'm a "softie") but ff at least one other admin is willing to do it with me, I'd be willing give it a try. JoshuaZ 21:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am admittedly a 'softie' in that I think alot of blocks do more harm than good. I wouldn't object to some reasonable person trying to mentor him, but I definitely think it ought not to be one of the admins who has engaged in personal attacks or harassment against him. Chairboy's insinuations about 'enabling' abuse by Tobias are a curious way of describing my objections to the abusive treatment he has been given. I've been 'mentoring' Tobias to avoid incivility consistently, but it is difficult when various users falsely accuse him of vandalism, say he knows nothing, et cetera... and then he gets blocked for any incivility in return. Theoretically, I could block the other people violating policy... but as we've already established I'm not a big fan of blocks unless they are really needed. --CBD 22:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, CBD, I think it specifically OUGHT to be one of the people on his list. If he can't learn to get along with people he misjudged, he's just not going to make it here. Pick whoever on that list is considered the most reasonable. ++Lar: t/c 22:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which admins, exactly, have been "harassing" Tobias? That's a serious accusation, and one that shouldn't be bandied about just for laughs. Nandesuka 00:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CBD, from an outside perspective, you do appear to be enabling Tobias's poor conduct. I appreciate that you've attempted to mentor Tobias, but it appears that it's failed. I completely agree with Lar's statement above. If Tobias can't get along with someone that he disagrees with, Wikipedia isn't the place for him. SuperMachine 01:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah. Seriously folks, the idea that the proper person to mentor Tobias Conradi is one of those who has called him "a ridiculous petulant child", "almost pathological", "utterly ignorant", et cetera seems like a less than feasible plan. Oughtn't his mentor on civility be someone who can abide by it themself? If not being able to get along with people who violate Wikipedia's behavioural standards is a bannable offense then half the admin-corps would have to go. :] As to politely suggesting that Tobias be civil "not working"... I assure you that it works considerably better than the alternative, and is not itself a policy violation. --CBD 02:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only a person previously uninvolved could be a mentor in the case. Neither CBD nor any of the admins who have blocked him should do it. Anyone who has previously tangled or wrangled or enabled or whatever him already has an opinion, and he of them. A completely neutral party should be found. pschemp | talk 03:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming such could be found, sure. But I still think someone on his list (that we agree isn't really deserving of being there) is a good choice. For instance I don't think I ever used "a ridiculous petulant child", "almost pathological", "utterly ignorant" in my dealings, and, frankly, I don't buy the incivility charge that CBD is so fast to play loose with when he characterises EVERYONE on that list... my point being that there are those on there who clearly don't belong in any such category. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am not an administrator, I would be happy to act as a mentor in this case. KazakhPol 04:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know that there are any uninvolved parties anymore. The joke here is that if we took this to ArbCom, maybe all of the arbitrators would have to recuse. I don't know.

I've certainly had my doubts about this editor but I'm working with him now. Give us a chance. John Reid ° 09:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha - yes I saw that. Nice effort. It seems to have calmed down. "I will think about it" --Merbabu 09:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine now that eveybody agrees about Toabias having a mentor. But does it matter who this mentor would be? IMHO, it doesn't because being soft or tough, a mentor is a counselor. I just don't think that this person should be on the list of Tobias' adversaries. The important is that the mentor should be trusted on his voluntary job. True, we don't have to ask Tobias for his view about this because of the circumnstances but we should be neutral (let's remind ourselves that our concern is neutrality). Nothing more, nothing less. I suggest then to go further and settle this issue for now. Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does matter who it is. It should be neither anyone on his enemy list or CBD (or anyone involved in prior disputes, on either side.) As long as its a previously uninvolved person (doesn't matter if they are an admin or not), that's fine. pschemp | talk 15:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant just the same pschemp. The mentor has to be a neutral party (i.e. someone who never interacted w/ him maybe?) -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully we still have a few uninvolved's left... this time. But I say let John Reid give it a try, and John, a) thanks for taking it on and b) don't hesitate to holler for help if you need it. ... best of luck! ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider blocking SSS108 (talk · contribs) for repeated disruption related to Sathya Sai Baba. User began editwar by disputing references to Salon.Com in article, which led to a warning from user:Jossi (admin). User:SSS108 has continued to remove disputed references without gaining consensus among editors, leading to an RFA on the subject. Even after comment was obtained by ArbCom member (Fred Bauder), User:SSS108 refused to accept ArbCom decision on superficial grounds to the annoyance of several editors and admins involved in this dispute, for violating WP:POINT and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND.
User:SSS108 has been causing great disruption at Talk:Salon.Com by repeating invalid arguments and continually misrepresenting arguments of other editors, leading to great frustration and annoyance in a gross violation of WP:POINT. User has also been accused of partiality and bias in relation to Sathya Sai Baba, as article was subject of previous ArbCom dispute where User declared himself as an "advocate" of article's subject. User has also been observed to be involved in long and tedious disputes of Wikipedia policies in support of article's subject, removing controversial material on superficial grounds. User continues to repeat invalid arguments and disrupt. Request is made for 48-hour block or longer to allow for a cool-off period. -- Ekantik 05:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came into the dispute only a few days ago as an uninvolved admin trying to sort things out. Since becoming involved my impression closely matches the above. This seems to meet the new guidelines on tendentious editing. A block might be in order. JoshuaZ 04:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting protection from anon IP on Universal Image Format. 3RR block on 84.73.254.103 (talk · contribs · logs). Unfortunately, the IP has now changed to 85.214.29.174 (talk · contribs · logs) and sometimes 61.155.107.33 (talk · contribs · logs). All have the same nonsense summary and refuse to discuss on the talk page (see history). — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to that is simply semi-protecting the article. I've just done that. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last few days the Georgi Parvanov article has been having some very POV external links to self published websites added by several different accounts whom I suspect are the same user. Initially an IP 207.181.10.71 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log), and more recently two user accounts Petervonpauer (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and Petervonpower (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) All edits by each account have been n regard to links to these websites. Although messages have been left by several editors regarding the links none of the accounts have responsded. Diffs [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59].

If these accounts are all the same user they have broken 3RR (though they have not been warned specifically for that), but more importantly these, links seem to be well out of keeping with our NPOV and BLP guidelines. The editors watching the articles and reverting generally seem to be in different time zones so the links stay on for hours at a time. Could an admin take a look at this? Or advise me if I need to take it to check user first, or take some other action. Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 14:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for spotting this. The account User:Petervonpauer has already been blocked for a substantial and appropriate length of time. I have warned both the IP and the sockpuppet account User:Petervonpower that they may not be used to evade that block, since they are clear and obvious sockpuppets. If any account or IP is used to evade the block on User:Petervonpauer it will be blocked on sight. I will watchlist the Georgi Parvanov article - feel free to contact me directly if the user appears again under any account or IP. Gwernol 15:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that [[User:James James]] had been renamed to User:Rose Garden at around February. There's a new User:James James who joined Wikipedia in August, who's now vandalising Wikipedia.

• History for User:James James
• Logs for User:James James
• Contributions of User:James James

I posted about him at WP:HD and was told that it might be worth mentioning here. Could there be a problem with User:James James, related to hijacking? --Kjoonlee 15:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of User:Rose_Garden's signatures on talk pages still link to User:James_James, so I'm a bit worried. --Kjoonlee 15:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the lack of any useful edits, I've gone ahead an blocked the new James James and restored the user and talk page redirects to User:Rose Garden. Thanks, Kjoonlee. ×Meegs 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is why it's always a good idea to, after a username change, re-create the old account name to prevent impersonation. ~ crazytales_{-My talk-}^{-Your talk-} 00:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:NisarKand has - once again - used racist and insulting remarks against an entire nationality/ethnic group.

He has been vandalizing various articles concerning Afghanistan (such as Afghanistan, Herat, Farsiwan, Kandahar, etc.), pushing for an unsourced and biased Pashtun-nationalistic POV, partly extremely insulting against national Iranians or Afghanistan's Tajiks.

Here are a few examples of his comments:

• "... I mostly see light skinned people among Pashtuns, while the Persians are mostly dark. We Pashtuns are well known to the entire world that throughout the entire recorded history, we always fought invaders and defeated them. This is perhaps the biggest reason to believe that Pashtuns remained pure for a very long time. ..." [60]

• "... Afghanistan was called "Aryana" (Land of the Aryans) [...] Only Iranians assume or think they are the true Aryans...this is 1000% false. Afghanistan was always the center of Aryans [...] Aryans were those that lived in Afghanistan 1,000s of years ago. [...] Tajik is someone that has Turkish father and Persian mother...or sometimes vice versa. I am making it clear so English people can clearly understand all this. [...] Learn to live with it...if not...then take a hike to Tajikistan or Iran. ..." [61]

• "... I know why you hate us Pashtuns ... because we are very popular and Iranians are not. Here are some examples: [...] Pashtun invented nuclear bomb [...] Pashtun went to space in 1988, a Pashtun (Ashraf Ghani) just almost made it to become head of the United Nations, replacing Kofi Annan, but dropped out of the race. US Ambassador to Iraq is Pashtun through his father, Pakistan's top cricket player of all time was Pashtun, Pashtuns were the first people to go to Australia in 1800s and start trade business there (check www.AfghanExpress.com), UAE's top Afghan business men are Pashtuns, most of the top business men in Pakistan are Pashtuns, the Interior minister of Pakistan is Pashtun...I can go on for hours and name show how productive Pashtuns are in the world. But on the other hand, look at Iranians....Iran's leader calls on whiping out Israel, making blank threats because he doesn't even have the weapons, giving to the world a very bad image of Iran and its people. However, it's natural for people to experiance jealousy some times but people must not take that serious. [...] Pashtuns are naturally gifted with knowledge and wizdoms from Allah (GOD). At the same time, Pashtuns believe that all people of the world are equal, regardless of their religion, color, race, or ethnic backgrounds...that includes Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Athiests and etc. GOD created all these different people for a special reason that only he alone understands. This is just my lecture for Iranians and those that think like Iranians. ..." [62]

These are just a few examples, not to mention his countless efforts to falsefy facts, to reject and insult authoritative sources written by leading scholars (Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica, etc.)

However, for most of the time, I tolerated these comments and only once reported him to admin User:Khoikhoi who protected the article Afghanistan.

After that, NisarKand started to take on the articles Herat and Kandahar, flooding the sites with wrong information and unsourced POV.

However, his most recent comment forced me to report him once again to admins, this time directly because of racism and name-calling:

• "... Finally, when Emperor Babur stated in his 1525 AD memoires about calling Tajiks "Sarts"....Perhaps he meant to call them "Rats" ..." [63]

Admins need to react!

This user is not only flooding Wikipedia with POV and racist remarks, but also with politically inacceptable statments, such as taking pride in the actions of the Taliban:

• "... The Taliban were in fact Pashtuns and defeated the Tajiks after they assassinated Ahmad Shah Massoud on September 9, 2001. This is history and has nothing to do with my own nationalistic views. ..." [64]

Just warning NisarKand is not enough ... because he was warned before!

Tājik 17:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think just by what Tajik posted above, its clear that Nisarkhand is not only a POV pusher, but not a decent contributer. Just the amount of POV in the above comments alone is enough to show his disruptive editing.Khosrow II 17:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A clear case for blocking - not just a racist, but clearly delusional too. Sikandarji 18:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Afghan articles may have had a little unavoidable bias to begin with. How many Pashtuns have contributed? But that said, NisarKand is his own worst enemy. I think you should act toward people on wikipedia and you would in "real life". Going around insulting people whom you disagree is not going to get you anywhere and the some goes here. So, if he posts another insult (probably as likely as the sun rising) he should be banned. --MarsRover 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has already done so ... even in this board. His last racist comment was deleted by an admin: [65] Tājik 22:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I advise for the administrator to follow User:Tajik's history...there you'll find that User:Tajik is going to articles of other ethnic groups and purposly removing sourced information. If you look at my history, you will not see me visiting any articles of people from other ethnics...none at all. This clearly means I don't bother people from other ethnics or countries. This User:Tajik loves spreading false information and reverting other people's hard work...all he does is revert pages without any such discussion on talk. This clearly makes people who are not Tajiks very angry. In other words User:Tajik is going around to stir trouble with people from other ethnics. There are too many incidents of this and I am not going to post all of them...User:Tajik's history on Wikipedia is self revealing evidence. Now he brings his fellow friends here to help testify for him...and I never even talked with User:Sikandarji before. I request User:Tajik be banned permanently, he is not here to help Wikipedia in any way. User:NisarKand November 14, 2006

You have got it all wrong! This is an encyclopedia where anyone can contribute to any article as long as they are neutral and factual. Your comments above show that you consider this to be an ethnic conflict! Sorry to inform you that your clan-mentality has no place here. Tajik is a very knowledgeable contributer to Wikipedia, as he has proven it several times. Arash the Bowman 11:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about "ethnicities", and it is certainly not about "only a member of ethnicity X is allowed to write about his people". This is about vandalism and racism.

YOU are the one who is deleting sourced information, and claiming that great scholarly works such as the Encyclopaedia Iranica or Encyclopaedia of Islam or "false" or "not realiable" (just ask Sikandarji who is a specialist on this issue and an academic in Oxford!).

Leaving this aside, NOTHING you say does justify your racist remarks. You have directly insulted other peoples with racist comments, and you are pushing for unsourced POV (like your claims about Pashtuns being the first humans in Australia, the ones who have invented nuclear technology, etc).

Because of your POV the article Afghanistan has been protected. And now you have started to mess up the article Herat. Your POV is not the biggest problem, because it will always be reverted and opoosed with realible scholarly sources.

However, your recent racist remarks (not to mention your previous racist insults against Iranians) are way out of control. Racists like you should be permanently banned - not because of your POVish behaviour, but because of your continued racist comments!

Tājik 19:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My advise to User:Tajik is simply to leave articles about Pashtuns and articles related to Pashtuns alone. As you are an ethnic Tajik and you do not know anything about ethnic Pashtuns. In other words, you are not helpful in making people understand Pashtuns and their history. I suggest you focus more on your own ethnic group and help people understand about your own people (the Tajiks). I came to make articles that relate to Afghanistan and Pashtuns more professional, while you are removing my hard work. This is vandalism and a cruel thing to be doing. It's not helping anyone. If I ever leave, eventually other Pashtuns will make their way here and edit the articles with the same information I include in them. The reason is that all Pashtuns know very well about Afghanistan and their history. You are unaware about Afghanistan's history that you clearly stated in the NAME section on Afghanistan...Afghanistan's "FIRST" constitution was written in 1964. This is an obvious lie because Afghanistan had constitutions way before 1964. I provided to you the one which was written in 1923...HERE ----> Afghanistan's constitution of 1923 You purposly ignored my findings and until this day left the false statement that you made in the NAME section of Afghanistan. This clearly means that you are here putting false information everywhere. This is just one of your false statements I came across...and there are many. It is not User:NisarKand doing anything bad on Wikipedia....it is User:Tajik who is destroying Afghanistan's and other articles.

I proved to everyone I am not racist. I don't go visit articles about other ethnics, to an average reader...that's 100% clear evidence that I'm not racist. Now you just called me racist about 5 times or so...this means you are Racist for keep calling me racist. If you right now say to me "Hey man I'm sorry about everything...let's be friends" then that will show you are not racist. However, if you failed to do this then you are obviously a true racist. As for me...I am not a racist just because I call my self King. User:NisarKand November 14, 2003

NisarKand, your comments are totally meaningless and against the policy of Wikipedia. You claim ownership for certain articles, and then start to mess those articles up with unsourced POV. You claim that "Pashtuns were the first people in Australia", that is wrong anyway. You claim that "Pashtuns made it to space", which is also wrong: only ONE single Pashtun was INVITED by the Soviet government to the MIR - it was not an achievement of the Pashtuns, it was Soviet propaganda at the end of the Afghan-Soviet war. You claim that "Pashtuns invented nuclear technology" ... this is totally hillarious, because Qader Khan is a) not acting in the name of Pashtuns and b) Pakistan stole the technology from India! You claim that "Bollywood stars are proud Pashtuns", while all of them do not even consider themselvs Pashtuns (Shahrukh Khan, whose father was a Pashtun civil rights activist, does not even understand Pashto!) - at the same time, you state that "Tajiks should not consider themselvs Persians, because ancestry is not important".

You have not provided ONE SINGLE scholarly source for your claims, while - at the same time - you are constantly deleting scholarly sources, only because you do not like the message.

However, none of this is important anymore. You claim not to be a racist, while your quotes above clearly prove that you are a racist. This is not only my opinion, as you can see above.

You should be permanently banned from Wikipedia.

And, btw: I did not say "first constitution", but the "first NATIONAL constitution", because - unlike the earlier constitutions - the 1964 constitution was not simply dictated by the king or one of his advisers.

Tājik 20:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the information regarding the "first Pashtuns" to Australia Click Here!

Here is the information about the "first Pashtun" to invent nuclear bomb Abdul Qadeer Khan

For the 1,000s times again and again...a person who speaks Pashto language is not automatically considered Pashtun....as almost all Tajiks in Afghanistan can speak Pashto...that does not mean they are Pashtuns. You are still not learning this after I repeatidly told you and explained this to you. You have to have family backgrounds who were Pashtuns. That's the ONLY way to be considered a Pashtun. It is these kinds of misunderstanding you have about Pashtuns...and you are trying to make people think like you. YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG for thinking this way. go back to school and this time try to learn something.

I am not afraid of being banned from Wikipedia. I didn't plan on staying here for long. I work for the U.S. government, stationed in Afghanistan and I am a very busy guy. However, I can't reveal nothing else. I guess I've done my work on Wikipedia, regarding Afghanistan's article. I think I stated before that Wikipedia is for unemployed losers, and I'm not one of those. I am happy and excited that my work counts in the real world...because I make serious differences in the lives of poor people in Afghanistan. This Wikipedia or any other media tool is not my friend. I am now hoping to be banned from this sick site very soon:) User:NisarKand November 14, 2006

Well, then everything is fine. For your information: Qadir Khan has acted in the name of Pakistan, not in the name of Pashtuns, the same way Pierre Omidyar - the founder of eBay - is not acting in the name of Persians! The "Ghans" were not the first people in Australia, they were "subjects of her majesty, the Queen" - Pashtun workers from British raj who were deported as semi-slave workers to Australia by the British rulers. It is not a subject of pride - in fact, it is very sad! Another group of Pashtuns lives in Guyana, known as the "Afghans of Guyana". They were brought to South America to work on the fields, the same way once Africans were brought to America to work for their masters. Again, it is not a subject of pride, but the sad story of thousends of people who became victims of European colonialism.

As for the rest: have fun in Afghanistan. I am sure that noone will miss you here. And, yeah: you are still a racist because you called an entire ethnic group "rats".

Tājik 20:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Wikipedia complaints department. Dispute resolution is that way (points to WP:DR). Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 21:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, guys, try giving your arguments on the talk page, or take it to Dispute Resolution. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked this user on his own request above, "I am now hoping to be banned from this sick site very soon." We don't need his comments, and I prefer to take him at his word. --Golbez 03:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Music portal page has been vandalized. All it's left of it is "Bold text MUSIC IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE AND IT ROX MY SOX!! MUSIC ROCKS". It needs to be restored. Askorahn 20:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it has been fixed. See WP:VAND for ways you can help with fighting vandalism! Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 21:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need help on this. I don't understand what I did wrong. User:Charlesknight removed my comments on the policy section of the village pump. I was trying to make a point that either an article that violated policy should be deleted or policy should be rewritten to reflect actual practice. Mr Spunky Toffee 01:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where you have discussed this with the User in question before coming here. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He removed your comments because they looked to be vote soliciting at the pump. Direct solicitation, while I don't know of a policy against it, is often frowned upon. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPAM#Canvassing. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

em... I haven't removed any comments... --Charlesknight 09:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I'm the actual culprit, as Charles points out above. I removed the section because it was primarily a solicitation for an AfD vote, and not a policy discussion at all, and thus irrelevant to the policy village pump page. Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." Daniel Bryant's link above is also relevant. -- SCZenz 09:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Spunky Toffee is this allowable?--Light current 01:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever people mention a username they don't like, perhaps we should require they state why it's objectionable. --Golbez 01:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be offensive to some people. Spunk--Light current 02:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Spunk is: * a term for courage or enthusiasm" How offensive! --Golbez 03:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amongst other things. And how does it relate to toffee?--Light current 03:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and a name such as Pussycat could be offensive to some people. To others, it's what you call a cute little kitten. Should it be banned? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im only asking peoples opinions. I dont want to start an international incident!--Light current 03:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but please, give a reason in the future. --Golbez 03:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the reason would be obvious. But it looks like it wasnt! 8-)--Light current 03:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno as a rule of thumb I'd say, if you have to ask then it's borderline enough to let go (at worst). If the user goes on to do something they shouldn't it'll be picked up quickly enough anyway --pgk 07:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, spunky toffee would take some effort to see the smut in it. I think blockable names are the ones where it takes effort to find the non-offensive meaning. We don't want to get to Beavis and Butthead land, where we start saying, "He said 'hard.' huh-huh-huh." Geogre 11:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I got away with RandyWang for quite a while, and only got a single oppose for the name at RfA. Is this so much worse? :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 13:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK Well those who want more background and reasons are welcome to look at my talk page wher it has been discussed at some length 8-)--Light current 14:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR report is here, but nobody has gotten to it. —Hanuman Das 01:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shen420 (talk · contribs) has been trolling my talk page. The user is upset that his or her article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ufc-pride. S/he has been flaming discussion with User:Fethers over it (Fethers nominated it for deletion). After it was deleted and closed, the flaming between the two and User:Brettybabe still continued on their talk pages and User talk:pgk. I left the three users the same message [66] suggesting they let bygones be bygones and move on. Shen420 took offense to this [67]. After I tried to engage him/her in civil discussion, s/he continuing ranting and raving. Now the user will not stop posting to my talk page, claiming that everytime I remove such trolling I'm just trying to hide the truth about what I am. How it proves what I am is beyond me, but I'm looking for someone to take a glance at this situation and try to communicate with this user. i'd really appreciate it, Metros232 02:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homeontherange has e-mailed an editor asking him to edit for Homey by proxy. An editor on Talk:Animal liberation movement received an e-mail on November 11 from someone calling himself Roncey Valley/Nick Cockburn. The e-mailer told the editor that I had removed Homey's "the animal rights movement is fascist and anti-Semitic" edits (which Homey had added to various articles as User:Farnsworth J and User:Farnsworth J.), and asked the user to restore them, saying "I can't get involved publicly (so please do not respond on my talk page) but could you look at the page and see about either restoring the stuff she removed or moving it to another article like Animal welfare?" [68]

"Nick Cockburn" is Homeontherange. I know this because I've received e-mails from Nick Cockburn before, repeating very unpleasant, supposedly personal, material that was being published about me on Wikipedia Review and on an attack site run by WordBomb. There's no question that the e-mails came from Homeontherange. I won't repeat the evidence here for obvious reasons, but I've forwarded it to a number of admins who've been dealing with this situation.

The person set up an account on November 11 as User:Roncey Valley in order to be able to use the Wikipedia e-mail system. [69]

I'm posting about this here in case anyone else receives e-mails from "Nick Cockburn" or User:Roncey Valley. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might interest the admins: [70], [71]. And is it possible to make a sock puppet check while at it? --Striver 11:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant "sock" so I changed that...if you want to get a sockpuppet check, take your evidence to WP:RFCU. Otherwise, looks like NotAWeasel (talk · contribs) needs to be blocked for violating WP:NPA--MONGO 11:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked for 48 hours for attacks and other issues.--MONGO 11:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I think we are not very sure who is its sockpupetteer. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 15:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to message the person and ask them to cool it. I think 48 hours is excessive as per our blocking policy, though, especially since neither the NPA or guidelines actually list a time other than the "cool down block" time for this, and it looks like the user just got a bit hotheaded. I'd ask that you treat users with respect perhaps. RunedChozo 17:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very special...so this edit summary along with the rest of nonsense was to be tolerated...I think not...and he should be happy I didn't make his block for even longer.--MONGO 23:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been sent here by the Mediation Comitee (see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/PAIN case mishandling), so guess it's the proper place to be.

Reference: diff of the case at its removal

Controversy to be solved: There were three contradictory resolutions by different administrators:

• Shell Kinney warned me (in my user talk) for personal attacks for using the descriptive and relevant terms "nazi" and "racist". She did not mention the warn in the case. The warn read:

Calling another editor a nazi, regardless of whether you think it is true, is completely unacceptable. If you continue, you may be blocked for personal attacks. Please find a more civil way to discuss your concerns about the article. Shell babelfish 19:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Durova stated that:

Administrator blows referee whistle - This is not the place to debate ideology. Per the instructions at the top of this noticeboard, page diffs are required for reports here - not unsupported allegations or links to Wikipedia discussions. I did a search on Yahoo and did find Nazi websites that use "Thulean" and "Thule" in their titles, so - strong as the statement from Sugaar was - it appears to be fact-based and valid. There are two sides to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA that apply to this particular discussion: first, standards of civility at Wikipedia do not depend on what ideology an editor holds; second, discourse on certain sensitive topics may require the judicious use of terms that would otherwise be eschewed as hot button and inflammatory (such as when the topic at hand actually is Nazism and racism). This noticeboard cannot mediate a content dispute. It can evaluate and take appropriate actions in response to personal attacks. DurovaCharge! 23:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(bold type is mine to emphasize the contradictions with Shell Kenney's warn).

• Luna Santin stated:

*PAIN is not a dispute resolution forum. Not to be too harsh, but we need to keep things here neat, orderly, and to a pretty narrow subject material. I'm interested in personal attacks; I'll keep an eye on this for the time being, but I'd encourage all of you to just try to settle down a bit and resolve your differences through the usual dispute resolution process instead of trying to get each other blocked. If attacks continue or escalate, please provide diffs to support any reports made here. Thanks in advance. Luna Santin 09:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

(a no relevance resolution).

Furthermore I've been reading WP:PA and WP:CIV (offcial policies) and neither of them seem to justify the interpretation of Shell Kenney at all. Only WP:EQ (a guideline) seems somehow to support her reasoning (but not very clearly).

Additionally I feel that her promt archive of the case without a clear resolution was also wrong.

Context: Not sure how relevant this may be. But it's surely necessary to mention that this is part of a much complex contrversy surrounding the White people article, an entry that (sadly) has been subject to constant POV attacks and vandalizing by people of clear white supremacist ideology. It was only in this context that my remarks were made and the affected user, never willing to discuss my perceptions on his motivations, started victimizing himself and wikilawyering on all this. Right now the article is under full protection.

It's also maybe convenient to notice that another user (User:LSLM) was also treted this same way by the same administrator, with even harshest warns for simmilar alleged faults (again not supported by PA or CIV policies).

Request: that the case is reviewed according to PA and CIV policies, giving a clear resolution, and that, if my point is accepted, the warn is offcially removed.

--Sugaar 11:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone a Nazi is a personal attack. Period. No 'ifs', nor 'buts'. "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Calling someone a Nazi is commenting on the contributor. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote the relevant WP:PA paragraph that implies that? I can see it nowhere.

"Nazi" is mainly a shorthand for "neonazi", which is a real ideology, equivalent to "white supremacist" and other tags. It was fully relevant for the discussion, as after all it was about his POV modifications (POV-pushing) of the article.

I am sure that other ideologies such as conservatism, liberalism, socialism, anarchism, etc. do not have the same protection. Why this difference?

Also, just for the purpose of clarification: if "nazi" is considered a PA (what I think is wrong according to WP:PA), is it the same with "racist", "neonazi", "white supremacist", etc.? Is it the same with "conservatist", "liberal", "socialist", "communist", "anarchist",

"rightist", "leftist", etc.? Why or why not? --Sugaar 12:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes a judgement of the individual. Any of those above tags might be a personal attack, or might not be, depending on the manner in which it was intended and in which it was taken. If that tag was used to pass judgement on the other user, it constitutes a personal attack. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 13:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to say, specially for me who was the one making those comments. I can only say that all them were relevant to the discussion (a new user, mass-editing a page with a large history of the same kind of attacks, with clearly that POV) and, later, the "aggraviated" user came to my user talk to push the issue further. Being my reply on my own user-talk page used as main evidence in the case, if I understood correctly. It's all still there if you want to check.

The ideological matter is clearly relevant to the discussion and, informally, I was reprobated also (by the same admin) for using the terms in abstract: as descriptive of the ideology being POV-pushed. Much of the same happened to LSLM, who was severely warned, I think (none of the warns is sufficiently clear), for explaining in the dicussion page what Nazi Nordicism was and is, again relevant to the discussion. --Sugaar 14:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sugaar - I don't see a conflict to resolve. You probably should have been more careful in your choice of terms, you're obviously bright enough to see that, and nobody other than yourself seems to want to pursue this - what, exactly, do you need resolving? Proto::type 14:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where on WP:PA (or whatever relevant policy) says that that is wrong (I don't see it anywhere).

If a case can be archived with no clear resolution, as was this case (three contradicting ones).

If abstract description of an ideology as relevant to content dispute (as LSLM did before he was severely warned, apparently) is also a fault and why.

Thanks, --Sugaar 14:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Sugaar, what do you want to happen? You were asked not to call anyone a Nazi (or a nazi). You were not blocked for this, you were asked, politely, not to do it again. Thulean acting like a child was not helpful either, but this is not relevant. Instead of accepting that you were wrong to call someone a nazi, or accepting that you will not from now on, you are quoting a bunch of policies. Please, you are making yourself look worse. Accept that you were not right, don't call anyone a nazi again, and move on. Proto::type 14:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be thorough and to remove any doubt, I figured it might be prudent to cite the precise policy sections - all from WP:NPA...

• There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors.
• Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.
• Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.

The primary characteristic that defines a personal attck, and thus the primary reason that "User:X is a nazi/liberal/left/commie/etc" is a personal attack, is because it is a comment on the contributor rather than on that persons contributions.

It's worth noting by the way that PAIN cases are not held on the board for debates and disputes between either users or administratrs - that's what "user talk" is for. Pain cases are typically routinely archived (or rather, removed from the page to be found only through oldid's) soon after they have been dealt with by an administrator. There was no imprper action in your case with regards to that - just standard procedure. The WP:NPA policy is pretty specific about what is and what isn't a personal attack, and so arbocom or RFC style cases are not required.

As to the three opposing admin interpretations, I don't really see that they are each mutually exclusive. All three note a problem, two of them note strong statements made by yourself, and while one of those (Durova's) wasn't a clear ruling one way or the other, Shell's was a firm ruling. From that perspective, what's happened is that al three administrators have noted a problem, two of them have gone as far as to say that your behaviour was at least marginal, and one of those has gone as far as issuing a warnig in accordance with the exact spirit and intent of WP:NPA Crimsone 14:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quotes, I could not find the third one where says: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. But now I did. I was a little disappointed that nothing of this was clear in the hearing nor the resolution. But still I see how can my comments be understood as PAs. So far nobody had been clear enough.

I am concerned nevertheless that what I said in my user own talk was used to build up the case against me. I guess there's no specific rule that says otherwise but truly it makes me feel less confident about freely speaking or even engaging in communication at all with certain people. This does not favor free discussion, specially when things get hot.

As per the contraditing resolutions, I do find some fault in that: there is doubt on which one is the valid one. If one says my comments are valid (or somewhat valid), the other says the case has no relevance and the third warns me, there is a clear conflict of resolutions. I don't know how you manage this, but typically that should mean either discussion among the contradicting administrators to get a unique ruling or the lesser penalty for the alleged infractor, in this case me. Shell's ruling wasn't even in the case: only in my talk page. This is one of my concerns. Though guess I'm powerless to push it further.

I am concerned about the warn indeed. Not so much for how much can it weight against me in possible future cases, maybe against the same person or a very simmilar character, but specially because it served this user as means to campaing to drive away contributors (see WP:DE) and POV-push the article.

This is all I have to say. --Sugaar 20:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Memphis Improvisational Theatre (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

I've nominated this one for deletion (AFD here). Looks like it needs to be deleted due to total lack of third-party sources. In the meantime, there's been an ongoing revert war on the article and sniping back and forth on the Talk Page and editors' Talk pages. Should somebody address this, or should we just wait for the AFD to conclude? Fan-1967 16:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warn the users with civility and NPA warnings. Report the reverters at WP:AN3RR. ~ crazytales_{-My talk-}^{-Your talk-} 00:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask administrators for help at the article Pop art. The sections about Origin of the term "pop art" and Pop art in Britain were edited by an editor, Ottex, whos main indent seems to be to establish John McHale as the main artist of pop art. This includes an attempts to change the attribution of Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing? from Richard Hamilton to McHale based on original resarch by McHale's son, which as far as I can see was not published by reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I and other editors have removed some of this edits per BLP concerns. Now Rory55 has posted this messages to my talk page asking for adminisrativ intervention. As his last message mentions legal actions and Ottex keeps on inserting content violating WP:BLP I also think an administrative intervention may be necessary here. The same applys to the article about John McHale (artist). Thank you. --VirtualDelight 16:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

I second this. It was posted over at the BLP noticeboard last week, which is when I stubbed the "So Appealling" article after Ottex had a rather long statement regarding McHale, and later a message to editors about apparent censorship of the position. I can't find anything about this attribution issue, but I'm notoriously bad at Google, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Benzamin's article move methology features a creative interpretation of the the GFDL. So far I found the following, I think this is all of them:

• [72] to [73]
• [74] to [75]
• [76] to [77] (which I've undone before inspecting his contributions closer)
• [78] to [79]
• [80] to [81]
• [82] to [83]
• [84] to [85]
• [86] to [87]

The problem here is that according to my very favourite policy, WP:UE, the new titles are correct, so while the move method is not, I can't just revert him, instead there's a lot of admin bitchwork. --user:Qviri 04:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the first one listed, but then I got to thinking, should these really be in English? Are they really best known to English speakers under the English translated title? Fucking Åmål for example, has an English distribution title, but it's rarely referred to as that by English speakers. (and technically there's a whole page for requesting history merges, WP:SPLICE).--W.marsh 16:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out SPLICE, I shall use it from now on. With regards to titles, this is the first time I heard the English titles (maybe with the exception of Mr. Wołodyjowski). Further, a lot of these, especially by Bareja, feature lots of references that anyone not well-immersed in the Polish culture wouldn't get (thus wouldn't find the movie funny and watch it in the first place...), and someone who is immersed would use the Polish title. I'm obviously biased here as a Pole.

I think that we should do a merge (on pages needing one, that is; Man - Woman Wanted obviously doesn't) and then let the naming get decided by a WP:RM. --user:Qviri 18:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neem Karoli Baba was given an AfD tag by a very new editor (18th edit). The tag was removed by another editor, and then replaced by the tagger. This appears to be an abuse of the deletion process, since the subject has several books written about him, and is extremely well known in the yoga community in the U.S. and in India. Can an admin speedy keep this? It seems that just having the tag stay on the article longer than neccessary is inappropriate. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neem_Karoli_Baba Thanks, ॐ Priyanath 18:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep the tag and go vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neem Karoli Baba. W/ a few speedy keep votes it would be archived and speedy kept by an admin and then back to work as usual again. The thing is that we can't speedy keep it after a couple of minutes especially when the nominator got a valid concern. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - there are now five speedy keeps, two keeps, and no 'deletes'. Others also feel that this is a bad faith nomination. I'll be patient.... ॐ Priyanath 19:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where shall we start with the editor and his short but eventful career -

Maybe his charming and pleasant userpage. Here he is again making useful comments to users in disputes with other editors.

But don't worry it's not all userspace stuff, here he is trying to speedy delete a stub about a City because it's a waste of space, restoring vandalism in the process and then trying to recreate a article that was deleted yesterday.

Hey but he did create an article, well by create I mean straight copy it from the internet - but don't worry it's ok because I should get a life

--Charlesknight 19:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has now had his earlier indefinite block reinstated due to continued personal attacks despite warnings. Gwernol 20:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evading his block here --Charlesknight 09:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elysianfields is repeatedly removing warnings from his talk page. I reverted him, and he switched it back. Someone else reverted him, and he left a mildly rude message on my userpage. I think I should just let it drop so as not to be a bully, but if there's some standard way of dealing with this, I don't know about it. Thought I'd mention it here even though my suspicion is that nothing needs to be done. --Masamage 22:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your suspicion is correct. Nothing needs to be done. If he vandalizes Wikipedia, warn him. If he is nothing but a vandal account, he will surely be blocked eventually. semper fi — Moe 23:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beit_Hanoun_November_2006_incident; users Burgas00 and Striver (to name just two of them) have been trying to POV this article. When they failed shortly after its creation, user Striver created a POV fork at Israeli_shelling_of_Beit_Hanoun which has been up for deletion. Burgas00 has now created a bad faith AFD trying to get the original article deleted in order to protect his friend's blatant POV fork. Can we get an admin to speedy keep please? RunedChozo 22:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. As an uninvolved party (with no POV on any Middle East conflicts whatsoever), I find edits such as [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] to be "canvassing", and an attempt to create a possibly-false sense of concensus. Let some more opinions from those who weren't solicited come in. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, forking is not the answer. Speedy kept, see my closing statement for details. El_C 23:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out an abuse of the process is not "canvassing." RunedChozo 23:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly unacceptable to send mass talk messages to editors that expressed only a particular viewpoint on the previous debate, such as only "Keep" voters or only "Delete" voters is. That's what you did, judging by the other AfD and the opinions of those who you spammed had. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BUT, this was not a "re-consideration of a previous debate", this was a bad-faith nomination by someone who didn't like that his friend's POV fork was up for deletion and nominated the original for deletion out of spite. RunedChozo 23:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still canvassing. However, the debate was closed (I'm still seeing what other people on IRC think of the close, some are indicating DRV, although I'm not too sure I want to), so lets just move on. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the users contacted, I was otherwise uninvolved other than a recent vote on the PoV fork. However, I could not fault the reasoning and it was a bad faith nomination, as the admins have agreed.--Rosicrucian 00:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, the more people dispute the close on IRC, the more likely the decision was correct! ;) /IRC wave El_C 08:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too true! That's why I'm letting it slide - because I now agree with the close. I apologise for my hasty conclusions, which were misguided (as I've found out from some background reading). Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "I'm still seeing what other people on IRC think of the close" is that where these things are now decided? Giano 08:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I was just seeing if my view of the incident was marginalised, before I wentto DRV. Thankfully, I realised it was a misguided view, and so I didn't make a fool of myself by sending it to DRV. In the end, it would have been the community who decided what to do with the article; my intention was to see if there was just cause to send it through that process. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure that pasting user pages on the talk pages of articles is a no-no. A user placed an advertisement for his religious group on the Talk:Ebionites page. Directly, below this, there is a VfD for an article about the same group that was speedily deleted and page protected. The user is taking the opportunity to protest the deletion, which is ok, but we have procedures to do this, rather than using another article to make your point. Please remove all this stuff so that we can stick to topics relevant to the current article. Thanks. Ovadyah 23:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. It was a WP:POINT action to start with; throw in the "complete with ... one admin that may had been duped by Ovadyah", and the fact that it is not actively discussing the article in question (as stated at the top: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ebionites article"), and it was a sitting duck for removal. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user vandalized Micropachycephalosaurus, and then from another IP vandalized it again three minutes later, in the hopes the first vandalism wouldn't be caught. I'm normally quite lenient with blocks, and do normally start out very small (24 hours), but since this IP has never been used before to edit Wikipedia it doesn't appear a long block will do much harm, and may do some good. Review appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a month on each is excessive. Both the edits were obvious vandalism - they would only not be caught if the reverter wasn't paying attention. (I've seen vandals make a vandalistic edit, then make a minor non-vandal edit to hide it from the 'last diff' link, but that wasn't the case here). The IPs could be dynamic - as those were the only edits, I think the blocks should be shortened to ~24 hours. They can be lengthened if the vandalism is resumed. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and thanks for the advice. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 24.91 looks like an open proxy or zombie per [97] so I indef'ed it. It was well-planned vandalism. The other one looks like its probably ok, although it does not have an RDNS entry, which makes me suspicious. Thatcher131 03:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it looks like the blacklists have entire Comcast ranges because Comcast doesn't seem to give a damn about its customers spamming, but nothing indicates this particular IP is an open proxy. Reset to 24 hours. Thatcher131 03:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I'll be watching for mischief from these two. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an editor whose username is Escriva, the name of Opus Dei's founder. Lafem 03:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody else has that surname? Anywhere? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just "Escriva" it's probably fair game.--Rosicrucian 04:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any possibility of confusing the editor with Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen any User:Bush nor User:Blair. Anyway, I leave it to your good judgement. Lafem 10:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is User:Arbustoo; "arbusto" is "bush" in Spanish. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:MelanieSmith is vandalizing Melanie Smith. Can someone do whatever is appropriate here? (block, or WP:AGF and confirm that this user is not the melanie smith.) --nkayesmith 04:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a notice on this user's page saying that this user is not the Melanie Smith of Melanie Smith? Or not? --nkayesmith 06:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This person appears to be genuinely confused, I think the recent note posted on their talk page ought to be sufficient. Since Smith is the most common family name in the United States (according to us ;-)) I don't think a username block is warranted, and continue to assume good faith until there is reason to do otherwise. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:U#Inappropriate_usernames specifically includes "Names of well-known living or recently deceased people". As such, I think this should be a block, with permission to change to another name if she's so inclined, or permission to keep it if she's willing to verify her identity. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits must not be taken as a yardstick in Asian related AfD's. Newspapers of Vernacular Languages may have millions of readership. For example, in India every state has its own language. There are more than 20 widely speaking native languages in India. But the news reports from the newspapers of such languages are not available in google search.Take the case of Malayala Manorama Newspaper. Currently this Malayalam language newspaper has a readership of over 9 million, with a circulation base of over 1.4 million copies according to Audit Beureu of Circulations. Manorama is one of the India's largest selling and most widely read news paper. There are more than 50 such newspapers in India. News reports from such dailies are not available in google eventhough it have millions of readership. But news reports from English dailies with 1000 or 2000 copies are available in google search. It is really misleading...Isn't it...? In this context of notability tests based on google hits may be a worthless, foolish effort. In such circumstances we must consider the words of native wikipedians with more importance. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 05:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, may I ask how this "requires administrator intervention"? I think it'd be better suited to WP:VP, more specifically WP:VPP, rather than here. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/FYI ??? WAS 4.250 06:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been taken there. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miltopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an ED trolling account...editor has been stalking my edits and making comments for sometime now. On his fifth edit, in response to a comment left by User:Guinnog on User talk:Alexjohnc3 regarding that I didn't need to hear anymore about encyclopedia dramatica, Miltopia responds, "Yeah, it'll just make him go apeshit again.". Followed that up here, "Serious business" is a popular theme on encyclopedia dramatica. Let's not be going around allowing wikistalking to go unpunished. This editor showed up, out of the blue on an article I have been working on at Dysgenics [98], then soon comes to an article I just got through creating [99] and well, look at the other stuff, like [100], claims he is trying to avoid me, completely out of the blue comment here, [101], [102], [103]. I blocked this editor indefinitely and for good reasons. My block was overturned by User:Gentgeen without one word beforehand to me asking why I did the block. I can understand a shortening of the block, but when admins are going around wheel warring with each other over whether it is sound to block an obvious trolling account, then this place is going down the tubes! Stop reverting each others actions! At least have the assumption of good faith that, just maybe, it would be both courteous and professional, to inquire why an admin did something. See: [104]--MONGO 10:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Along the same lines of what I mentioned at User talk:Miltopia, I for one am not yet convinced that the user should be summarily and indefinitely blocked, essentially without review, because the same person is victim, judge, and executioner. I do apologize for having unblocked without first discussing it with you, MONGO; if it's any consolation, there was a lengthy discussion on IRC involving a number of people, and a very speedy request for checkuser was put through to help look into matters. I am not yet convinced that this user is a simple, blatant troll, and so more than anything, I just want a few more eyes to look at this. If consensus is that I should not have unblocked, or if this user continues to do anything even resembling stalking MONGO, I'll happily apologize and recant. Luna Santin 10:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't rollback my block. Folks around here need to look at the diffs. He's never encountered User:Konstable before, but is now recommending desysopping over at arbcom....?[105]--MONGO 10:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His current userpage is linking all junk that goes to the Wikipedia:Sandbox onto his userpage due to his misuse of the template [106].--MONGO 11:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another reason why admin business should be done on-Wiki, rather than on IRC. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The account looks quite fishy to me — not at all like a genuine newbie. He registered in July and made one edit, but the account really came to life on 30 October. So, for the purpose of Wikipedia experience, it's two weeks old. Yet he's taking part in deletion reviews, AfDs, and even an arbitration case that he is not personally involved in — and is doing so with extraordinary confidence. Complaining about being stalked while following his alleged "stalker" around and showing up on articles he has edited does not add to his credibility. Also, his edit to his own talk page on 7 November seems to be an simply a way of "getting round" the prohibition on linking to a website that attacks Wikipedians. AnnH ♫ 13:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come across this user while on speedy deletion patrol, and I'm amazed by the amount of flak he/she's getting just because he happens to edit a website critical of wikipedia. Mongo, although I've often (quite rightly) been criticised for biting, I'm astounded by the way you're treating this, and other, users. Looking at the diffs you provide, I see you've made a threat of blocking a user who tried to defend him, just because he linked to the "don't be a dick" Meta page? You've then been incredibly rude to both Gentgeen and Luna when they didn't agree with your arbitrary block. I'm sorry, but although Miltopia does look slightly fishy, your actions are blatantly agressive. yandman 13:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and I'll remember it.--MONGO 14:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now you're threatening me? However much your page on ED annoys you, you really shouldn't let it cloud your judgement. yandman 14:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not threaten you. I don't care about what some little children write about MONGO on that other website...they can write whatever their little adolescent minds desire. What I do care about is when an one of them comes here to stalk my edits and activities for the sake of harassment. Get a clue.--MONGO 14:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the user has been informed that his unblock is conditional on active attempts to avoid MONGO at all costs, correct? JBKramer 14:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my knowledge...Admins shouldn't be reverting other admin actions on a whim...Geenteen didn't bother to say a word to me until after he did the unblock. It rarely happens to me, but I am sick and tired of watching admins going around reverting other admin actions.--MONGO 14:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a common sense condition, and I've just now notified Miltopia of it. Being a common sense condition, I don't think it quite applies indefinitely -- should they happen to run into each other a month or two from now, say, and play nice with each other, I don't really think there's a problem. But over the next few days, especially, the more distance between them, probably the better. Luna Santin 15:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Not gonna get into this, 'taint my style, but I'm not at all a wiki newbie. Recent changes are kinda my thing. And I'm familiar with Wikipedia, it comes up at ED. Plus a friend of mine got banned :-( Anyway, my edits aren't problematic so I won't be sticking around this thread, y'all can choose to calm down now if you wish, but if anyone has any specific questions they can go to my talk page. Sayonara, Miltopia 14:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we treat this as an acknoledgement that you understand your unblock is conditional on your active attempts to avoid MNOGO? JBKramer 14:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he resumes what he was last up to when he started messing around, I'll block him again...it's that simple. The trolls can do whatever they want on that childrens website, but I won't put up with it here for one minute.--MONGO 14:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straight forward trolling I think. Looks to be a repeat of that nonsense RFC that was started on Sarah Ewart last week,. --Charlesknight 11:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah looks to be a sockpuppet express - history has two editors - both new users, both just making edits to that RFC. --Charlesknight 11:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted. Someone else seems to have blocked the users and rolled back the changes to the RFC page. Morwen - Talk 11:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Molobo he uses his discussions site for political statements of dubious nature. like germans and russians formning anti-polish alliances, or alleged insults against poles by the city of new york. I cant really imagine that political activism was the intention of the user pages--Tresckow 13:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the contribution history of this user, who has created multiple nn joke articles. Perhaps a warning or block is in order. Amists ^{talk • contribs} 13:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trubbles and User:Drubbles have both appeared, claiming to be bots operated by User:Marudubshinki. I indeffed one and User:Gwernol the other. I left a message on Maru's talk page; if I remember correctly, he got into trouble before for running unauthorised bots. I wondered if this was someone trying to get him into more trouble? His user page claims that he has left the project and he has made no edits under that account for a month. I'd be grateful for some second opinions on the matter. Thanks. --Guinnog 13:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on blocking Trubbles. Gwernol's just blocked the other. I wouldn't worry if they belonged to someone. They are just spammers, be them bots or not. -- Szvest ····> ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 14:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki Maru was desyopped and may be blocked for using bots. However, Maru's problem was repeatedly running unapproved bots and self-unblocking; his bot edits were generally useful (interwiki links, fixing redirects, etc). In fact, there have been one or two anonymous bots since he "left" that I think were him. But this looks like someone flying a false flag. Thatcher131 14:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thatcher on this, looking back at Maru's history it doesn't seem like his pattern of bot behavior. These accounts were outright spammers, I'm not even convinced they were bots. Probably some spammer out to try and hide his tracks and failing, as they usually do. We should all probably stay alert for more in the next few days. Gwernol 14:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could be some troll who didn't get the memo trying to create a theme, like those "automated bot run by Jason Gastrich" vandals a while ago. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these accounts have anything to do with Marudubshinki other than trying to get him in trouble joe job style, and have denied their unblock requests and protected their talk pages. I think it is just some random troll, nothing to see here, move along. Kusma (討論) 14:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:MawiWorld was blocked a bit ago. User:KarotWorld began posting very similar content shortly thereafter. Suggest a possible IP block might be in order. Waitak 13:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same fate for the second! Szvest ····> ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 14:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can't do direct blocks on accounts' IPs because only checkuser can find them out, and that would only be justified if the vandalism became much more difficult to deal with. There's still the autoblocker but it's not 100% dependable. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon user is going around blanking talk pages, removing unsorced info, and generally being a pain on Detroit related articles edit history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isotope23 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Blanking talk pages is annoying, but why not warn him before bringing him here? And removing unsourced info is a good thing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, Sorry that should have said "sourced" info... yes, removing unsourced info isn't much of a problem is it.

I've run into this person before (I'm presuming it is User:Mitchellandness1 editing from his IP based on the edits and the IP address) and a warning isn't going to do any good. He vacillates between fairly useful edits and complete POV or template removal edits. Regardless, he appears to be done for the day, so it appears no action is required.--Isotope23 15:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Hellmouth (Buffy episode) is an article presently on WP:DRV. About eight months ago, it had a few paragraphs added which were a copyvio. Hence, the article was recently deleted. I've undeleted all revisions prior to the insertion of this copyvio. While the article is now back, the editors have lost eight months of work on it, most of which was unrelated to the copyvio. Given the GFDL, is there a better way of handling this? (Radiant) 15:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One very tedious method would be to take each diff in turn (not counting reverted edits as they don't contribute to the final state of the article), edit out each one, and use it to reconstruct the entire edit history minus copyvio on the talk page, starting with the most recent revision and a history on the talk page (which is permitted by GFDL). If there were a lot of revisions it would be a pain to do by hand, though. --ais523 15:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• 82 edits total. I don't think I'll be doing that by hand. (Radiant) 16:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  How much was the copyvio section edited? If it kept consistent wording, a simple solution would be to use Special:Export to dump the history, find-and-replace to remove the copyvio, then to place the copyvioless history on a Talk subpage. --ais523 16:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This diff shows a sockpuppet revealing himself by editing one account's comments while logged into another account. 70.85.195.230 16:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]