Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Steve Westly

Steve Westly is a candidate in the 2006 California Primary Elections, being held today. A user under the name User:Nick Velasquez, obviously somebody opposed to Westly trying to parody the name of his spokeman Nick Velasquez vandalized this article Special:Contributions/Nick_Velasquez three times adding nonsense. I think this user needs to be blocked due to the fact that he is an abusive vandal, trying to impersonate another person, against Wikipedia rules.--Folksong 04:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Chainsaw Massacre: The Horror

Talk about understatement! Doc with his admin powers has been "clearcutting" Wikipedia until all that is left is "the world according to Doc".If you look at his contribs he is close to setting a stalk block delete record. We have a problem. --Dosss 08:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"To whom it may concern: I am leaving (indeed, truthfully, I stopped useful editing some weeks ago) - and I hereby confirm my request that this account be desysopped." --Doc

"I have temporarily blocked your account from editing for disruption. If you are leaving, which is sad, do not disrupt Wikipedia before you go. It's not very nice to those of us who stick around. If you unblock yourself, I guess we can take it as a sign that you aren't quitting Wikipedia after all." - Mark

With 1) CheeseDreams (talk · contribs · block log) 2) -Ril- (talk · contribs · block log) AND 3) Doc glasgow talk all "Blocked" does this maen the 'horror' is over? Is it safe for us to return to Wikipedia? (I do hate conflict and I am not the only one !) --Firmon 07:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sveasoft vandal

A vandal has been using numerous open proxies today to make advertising-POV edits on Sveasoft [1] and WRT54G [2], as well as link spam on Talk:Main Page [3] and good old-fashioned vandalism [4] against the users that try to stop it (that link goes to Last Measure), as well as revealing of what purports to personal information (been deleting those diffs as I come across them, so can't provide them). I've been blocking each open proxy as it comes (they helpfully say "[This IP address] is running an open proxy" on the talk page - as each IP has never had any contributions but the vandal's, I see no reason not to take them at their word), and I've just semi-protected Sveasoft and WRT54G. User:AndrewBourke is clearly the same person. Please be on the look out for more. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Further evidence is at User_talk:62.20.102.130#Ladies_and_Gentlemen_of_the_Jury.... Just follow the links to see the blatant harassment and vandalism from James Ewing. I say this is James because he's been rumored to be real big on harassing disgruntled ex-customers. But what are the odds of a random vandal posting from the subnet he personally owns?

inetnum:   62.20.102.128 - 62.20.102.255 
netname:   SE-SVEASOFT 
descr:     Sveasoft Utveckling AB 
descr:     Wireless ISP 
country:   se 
admin-c:   JE730-RIPE 
tech-c:    JE730-RIPE 
status:    ASSIGNED PA 
mnt-by:    TELIANET-LIR 
source:    RIPE # Filtered 

person:    James Ewing 
address:   Sveasoft AB 
address:   Myrvagen 3 
address:   13463 Ingaro 
address:   se 
phone:     +46702704417 
e-mail:    [email protected]
nic-hdl:   JE730-RIPE 
mnt-by:    TELIANET-LIR 
source:    RIPE # Filtered

An awful coincidence, no? This is why I'm recommending an edit block on 62.20.102.128/25, even though James probably reads text files on "how 2 h4x0r" by (ab)using open proxies. --Tokachu 19:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If Sveasoft owns the subnet, block the whole damn thing. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 17:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia;

This message is to inform you of multiple DMCA copyright violations located at the pages DD-WRT, Sveasoft and WRT54G. Copies of our copyrighted software are distributed through links at those pages without authroization by Sveasoft Inc. Email requests to the wikipedia.org administrators remain unanswered and requests to remove this material to the web site administrators have not received any response or action. I request that these URL links and the offending material on the Wikipedia pages be removed immediately.

The pages are also used to disseminate information on where to obtain our copyrighted software from other web sites and is a distribution center used to promote unlawful use of our copyrighted material.

I also request that any libelous and slanderous "facts" about Sveasoft be removed from Wikipedia immediately or I will persue legal action against Wikipedia.

I state under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct and that I am the CEO of Sveasoft Inc. and have the right to enforce copyright violations for the company.

Sveasoft Inc. contact information:

US Office

Sveasoft Inc.
801 Bristol Ave.
Stockton, CA 95204
USA

European Office

Myrvagen 3
SE-134-63 Ingaro
Sweden

Tel: 011-468-570-29471

--James Ewing 03:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

James has started his open proxy assault on Wikipedia yet again. I'm surprised he didn't start it right after the Sveasoft article was unprotected. --Tokachu 20:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Merecat

User:Merecat has remained blocked for 15 days, by an Admin (User:Katefan0) who has retired from Wikipedia. Could a new Admin take a look and please release the block so that Merecat can communicate on Wikipedia? I miss my friend Merecat, and hope that you will conclude the matter and consider his blocked period as "time-served." Cheers. Morton devonshire 01:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The checkuser evidence looks pretty convincing that Merecat is a sockpuppet of Rex071404, who was blocked for sockpuppeting in order to avoid ArbCom sanctions. I would support keeping the block. Ral315 (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, and don't know whether he is or isn't a sock -- I'll take your word for it. My question is different: assuming that he is a sock, he's been blocked for more than 15 days, isn't that an appropriate period of punishment for his violation? Morton devonshire 02:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No, sockpuppets of blocked users are blocked indefinately. You're not allowed to use sockpuppet accounts in order to evade a block. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Essjay. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear from the above discussion who is the sock and who is the original user. Is there a non-sock user who has been blocked for the length of their dictated time? -lethe ^{talk +} 08:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rex071404 and User:Merecat are both indef blocked as sockpuppets of each other. That's kind of silly, I would think. Rex071404 is a user with a long history, however I cannot find any ArbCom decisions banning him from Wikipedia after October 2005. Anyone familiar with this matter? Conscious 09:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

See this and this for more information (not about the banning). -- Kjkolb 10:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Rex was blocked by Cyde as a sockpuppet of Merecat. If I understand the situation correctly, Rex (the master account) should be unblocked and allowed to edit as long as he obeys the restrictions of his Arbcom case. Thatcher131 12:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I second this, someone obviously made a mistake in stating rex was a sockpuppet of merecat when rex was the earlier created account. It seems as though Rex should be unbanned if he is, since they cannot be sockpuppets of eachother. --zero faults talk 17:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Defending another user is of course very friendly and commendable, however the editors campaigning for an unblock fail to acknowledge that Merecat/Rex was blocked for disruptive editing also. The fact that numerous IP addresses (sockpuppets?) have appeared that 1 ask to unblock Merecat/Rex, 2 use uncivil language, 3 one of which has filed two bogus RFCU against opponents of Merecat/Rex, makes me anxious about allowing this user back without sufficient remedies, i.e. ArbCom. Further, I would like to point out that the recent RfAr against this user was rejected on the grounds of him already being blocked. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nescio is a likely troll or provocateur. He has previously been caught red handed using sockpuppets and trying to blame his sockpuppet edits on others see this [5]

Considering you asked for a Checkuser on two users who simply disagreed with your views I think your above comment is at odds with your own actions. "Keep it NPOV" is not really a valid reason to call for a checkuser is it now? the users you are asking for the checkuser on do have one thing in common, they have opposed you and Mr. Tibbs opinion ... --zero faults talk 17:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I ask this uninvolved -yet mysteriously interested, knowledgable, and now using Merecat in his sig(?!)- user to retract the false assertion that I filed a checkuser. Thank you. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So you are telling the admins to remove this Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#User:Rex071404.2FUser:Merecat since someone falsely filed this under your name? You are not listed there adding 2 more ip's to the check user? IP that are in two different states? --zero faults ^|sockpuppet| 23:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Mr. Tibbs (talk · contribs) filed the request I hardly am capable of retracting it. You however, still need to retract the false allegation against me! As to the IP, if you look at the Rex/Texan categories you will find that these new IP addresses are comparable to the already known socks.Thank you for retracting. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Under what comparison guidelines? ahh yes there support for merecat. Also you get no apologies, you obviously added on 2 IP's therefore initiating a RFCU against them. Thank you Nescio for accusing me of also being merecat and proving how horribly misguided these RFCU's are and this attacking on anyone who supports rex/merecat. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you even looked at ALL the IP's involved? Second, you misrepresent the facts. The IP filed RFCU against me, and it was editing in a similar fashion as your hero. Therefore I deduced this is in line with known behaviour and makes it likely the IP's are socks too. Another misrepresentation is that I never accused you of anything. I did however observe that your obsessive defense of a known disruptive sock (whom you do not know!?), your use of Merecat/sockpuppet in your sig, and the continuous attacks against opponents of your hero is at best an unfortunate route to take. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the IP's you have accused, now present your evidence, how do the two you filed RFCU against connect? How does the above link conform to merecat? They are on different ISP's, different states. As for you accusing me:

"You are very good. Misrepresenting the facts, leaving out relevant information. Indeed a worhty sockpuppet. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 00:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)"

"Smoke and mirrors Merecat.:) (In case you missed it, this is a joke)"

Located User_talk:Zer0faults#Merecat, the final one was obviously not a joke. Perhaps you feel you can be offensive to someone and just add "this is a joke" to the end of the sentence, after just two lines up calling them a sockpuppet. So what links these users that are not on the same ISP, not in the same state? other then there support for merecat, which I also support and now have been accused by Ryan Freisling of being merecat also. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the real situation here is that Rex was banned and the ban has since been extended for his sockpuppeting as Merecat in an attempt to evade the ban. Merecat's edits have been highly tendentious and POV peddling. He has been insulting to other editors and made personal attacks. Regardless he does not seem to be modifying his behavior in response to the previous bans, they should continue until there is a likelihood that he will. --Gorgonzilla 13:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So how long is this ban? You say he doesn't seem to be modifying his behavior, but I do not see proof of that. Both merecat and rex cant be sockpuppets of eachother so one of them should have time limit to when they can return. Seeing as it seems rex would be the official user, when is his ban up? As for his POV peddling if you look at the articles he edits, everyone is POV peddling. For instance in the Iraq war article users are insisting only WMD's get mentioned and no other reason for going to war, undue weight? Anyway I think if Rex is banned then there should be a duration taht was issued or extended to, so what was that duration? --zero faults talk 16:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've instead blocked Rex indefinitely again, this time under a more accurate reasoning- for sockpuppeting to evade an ArbCom ban, and general disruption. If any administrator disagrees, let me know, and I'll unblock, but Rex has been disruptive for a long time, and I don't feel his continued presence will in any way help build the encyclopedia. Ral315 (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that Rex071404 and Merecat are banned forever from editing Wikipedia? Morton devonshire 18:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It means just that. Don't forget they're the same person. Conscious 18:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can appeal a community ban to ArbCom. Thatcher131 19:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm definetely not a fan of Rex, especially since his recent sockpuppet activities when he could have simply come back as himself. But I do believe Zero is right, you can't simply say well he's sockpuppeting again, therefore indefinite block. Violating a previous arbcom decision does not earn you an indefinite ban from Wikipedia. At the very least, if we're going to extend Rex's ban, there should be an arbcom decision that mandates it and a time limit should be set on the ban, otherwise that's just irresponsible blocking. --kizzle 19:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, for those of you who are not aware of the history, here's some details: Rex joined in July 04 to conteract extreme pro-Kerry bias at John Kerry. Now, while Rex was more or less a sh*t there several times, the ArbCom cases involved found that multiple editors - not just Rex, wee caught up in the heat of the campaign and injected campaign bias into the JK article, both pro and con. Off an on since joining, Rex got in some SNAFUs for heaping insults and 3RR and also for obstructing the prgress of the (pro-Kerry) consesnsus at that article. As it stands, there are several things still in place against Rex. a) Do not edit John Kerry b) Cite all controversial edits to a reliable source and c) If "disruptive" can be banned from an article by any admin. As for violations of these, there are specific remedies in place, noe of which include a permanent ban. So let's assume for a minute that Merecat is Rex, what did this mean? It mean that that Rex, disguised as Merecat was able to successfully edit John Kerry with no problems. Ah, then it would follow that the oppossion to Rex's edits, att least at this point is ad-hominem in that an edit by Rex071404 would be opposed, but the samee edit by another name or IP is fine. Now regarding User:Neutral aribiter and User:Wombdpsw, I see no evidence that they are "disruptive" or have "failed to cite controversial edits" or "have edited John Kerry. This being true, there is no acceptable basis that a check user ought to be run against either of them, for at worst, they would be alternate accounts (which is allowed - see here). Of course, the argument can be made "rex has exhausted community patience", but that does not hold water because Merecat (who is said to be Rex) had consensus on his side at the RfC (see here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat). Also the argument can be made that Rex evaded/sockpuppeted with Merecat, so he should be banned. PErhaps, but there are specified sanctions already in place by ArbCom which, if a penalty is applied to Rex, must be what's applied. Ad Hoc, shoot-from the-hip sanctions against Rex in the form of a permenant block is bust unsupportedable by process and flat out wrong. But let's suppose for a minute that Rex ends up permanently barred. I suggest to you that this is precisely what some editors here seek, but not for the reasons stated. Rather, the benefit of a perma-block on Rex is that for any editor who is later objected to by the known POV pushers like User:Keven Baas (see proof of that here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kevin Baas) and his allies such as User:Nescio himself currently blocked for 3rr violation at Haditha incident (Kevin and Nescio both advanced the failed Rfc against Merecat), these two and their like minded cohorts can simply say "REX" and seek to do a check user against anyone - based on minor editing vagaries. Frankly, what the Rex banners actually seek is a license to witch hunt against anyone, based on the "Rex" name alone. Now for all of you who are saying Rex=bad. I am wondering if you have even studies the edits of each account / IP being accused. The edits being made are not troll-bait and the editors making them are not being tendentious - no more so than editors such as User:Mr. Tibbs or User:Nescio. As it stands now, the wiki president for a long time editor who is being hounded off was set by User:Michael. Based on that, there is simply no reason that User:Rex071404 should be denied the opportunity to transition to User:Merecat. But what's the point anyway - look at the edit history of User:Wombdpsw and see how User:Gongonzilla is now opposing him based on unconfirmed allegations of "sockpuppet". It's as if some editors prefer to turn off their ability to think critically and instead prefer to revert and oppsed based on user name alone. This being the case, I fail to see how a rational person would not changed account names regularly. To sum up, from where I see, it would appear that the complainst against Merecat's edits are basically groundless and Merecat was basicaly a good, albeit somewhat dogmatic editor. No reasonable person here can honestly say that Merecat was naywhere near as bad as Rex was. And there is simply no honest basis for inquiring against any of these newly accused editors. Have they been doing 3RR? Have they been calling names? None of them have done anything wrong. This "Rex" witch-hunting is nothing more that out-of-process ad hoc pig- piling. It's not intellectually honsest and it will not accomplish the goal of making the articles on the wiki better. Take a look at User:Rex071404's talk page history and pull up the contribution list of of a few of those who keep reverting the unblock requests posted there. For example see this. Does this user ever make any article edits? It seems that all he does is boss others around and talk to people. A comment pool (which is what the wiki is) will eventualy coagulate if a proper ratio of article edits to bossing is not maintained. When you have too many chiefs and not enough indians, nothing gets done. Take a look at the article White Cracker. Rex started that article and it has grown to be a valuable entry. Take a look at Yttrium aluminium garnet. Merecat started that article and it has grown to be a fine article too. What the "POPs" (political article police) around here don't understand is that people are naturally drawn to chime in on controversy. The controversial articles on the wiki are the "bait" which attract and retain editors. If you keep chasing ediors aaway from them, you will contribute to diminshing your compounding ratios. Oh well, ban away of you must, but don't fool ypurselves into thinking that you will achieve NPOV by chasing away only those who disagree with you. And if that's not what you are doing, then why are editors such as User:Prometheuspan allowed to run amok? I suggest that it's because he pushes a POV that many liberal editors agree with and for that reason, no matter how terrible he behaves (like recently calling wikipedia "evil" on Jimbo's talk page), it's all overlooked. Same too for User:Nescio and User:Kevin Baas. Regards, 69.46.20.59 20:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming that this IP editor is also Rex/Merecat, or that Rex/Merecat is reading this debate, I would offer the following advice. Admit to switching accounts, apologize for the talk page spamming that got Merecat banned in the first place (and also outed him as the Anon Texan), and agree to use only one account in the future and to abide by the last ArbCom ruling. Under those circumstances, it shouldn't matter which account he chooses to use. If no sympathetic admin will unblock at that point, appeal the community ban to Arbcom following the example of Saladin1970, Thatcher131 21:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What about the fact that there is no true "anon texan" user account and that acount was used fraudulently by certain liberal editors as a tracking device? Why do some editors get to make up sockpuppets, but others get blocked for socks and/or alternate accounts? Merecat did not create the User:Anon Texan account and neither did Rex. That account is a fraud and it enabled a FALSE check user to be run against Merecat. All the checkuser evidence against Merecat should be trown out as being unetheically obtained on an non-valid basis. What about all the false allegations about User:CantStandYa/User:Shran? Perhaps if people had just left the anonymous editor from Texas alone, Merecat not have come to life. Merecat's edit history shows him to have been idle form many months and only came to life with the IP editos from Dallas ISP were being hassled by POV warriors who made of the phony "Anon Texan" name. Thatcher, you yousrself have said that anon IP editor was not transgressing, so why should people be allowed to hassle him? There is no rule that says you have to log in to edit and frankly based on what happened to Merecat, why bother? There is a lot of finger pointing that could go around here and not all of it is on Merecat. And everyone nees to stop sayig "Rex!" "Rex!" all the time. If User:Rex071404 had wanted to keep using that account, he would have been doing so since long ago. That fact that he's basically left that account as dead, should make clear that Rex is gone and will never edit under that name again. 69.46.20.59 22:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet somehow he keeps coming back using IPs and sockpuppet accounts. --kizzle 22:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Also User:Wombdpsw has been identified as a notorious vandal User:Merecat and User:Rex071404. He's been blocked indefinitely. (see userpages or clerk's report) -- ActiveSelective 06:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Merecat was guilty of a long list of personal attacks against nescio, guilty of stacking the RFC by means of invitation, guilty of deleting materials posted to the talk page to game the system towards drama, guilty of obstructionism and straw man arguments for the purpose of obstructionism, used sock puppets to double vote, used sock puppets to stack votes by invitation, and under no circumstances and for no reason should be allowed in any guise or incarnation to do anything other than browse wikipedia. Merecat is a flat out pov warrior, and has no redeeming quality worth the stress that merecat causes. Morton and Zero are both POV warriors, and Zero is suspiciously running around with "Merecat" in his sig for a brief while; Is Zero another Sock puppet? Even if no, this is a plea by the Republican POV warrior camp to get their guy back so that they can go wreak more havoc.

Merecat has done more than enough to warrant permenent banning, and the RFC against merecat only failed because it was unfair, illogical, and allowed to become an ad hominem and straw man festival. That RFC is a disgusting proof that these characters are in on a pov game with merecat, and that Wikipedia needs better rules to protect itself from pov warrior trolls.Prometheuspan 22:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I found another IP sock 66.98.138.80 (talk · contribs) Same M.O., same articles, same harassing of Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) and same ISP (Everyone's Internet). --waffle iron ^talk 04:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"We will drive you off Wikipedia"

I have indef-blocked User:WVTF for edits like this to users' pages and this little diatribe on his/her own page. Feel free to review... RadioKirk talk to me 22:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone mentioned, I don't recall where, something along the lines of Wikipedianism is emerging as a religion (italicized owing to this being a paraphrase). If this user was serious, here's a disturbing symptom of that. I think the indef-block was well earned by this user. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This user definitely merited this block. Alethiophile 21:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Haizum (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely.

I've received emails regarding his block, rather that I had violated policy by blocking him. In his first email, he threatened arbitration at me for the single reason I had reverted a disputed tag on Laura Ingraham, which disupted the subject's official website, and protected and blocked him for civility and warring.

He then attacked my nationality of being British, and suggested I added another 24 hours on his block (which I did).

His third email was about the protection policy, and why I had not enforced it properly, ending in the words "you failed. you failed. you failed.". The email took a jab at my age as well.

The fourth email was short, but accused me of being a fascist and abusive.

Per this, he's been blocked indefinitely. Please leave feedback about this. Will (^E_@) T 22:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest i am uncomfortable with this. If a user sends abusive emails to you just killfile them. If they complain that you have not followed proper procedures then put yourself up for review here to see what other admins think. An indefinate block for critisizing an admin seems OTT. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism is ok. When it goes to calling me fascist, that's not OK. Will (^E_@) T 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

He's upset! you blocked him after all. Grow a thicker skin and start using filters on your email. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Block shortened down to 8 days. User talk:Haizum#Wiki Fascism is seriously tempting me to lengthen it again Will (^E_@) T 00:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that User:Haizum may be provoking a fight, but let's not be easily provoked. Also, blocking a user in response to an attack on yourself is often a bad idea. It'd be better to come here and ask someone else to apply a block for NPA. -Will Beback 01:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If I am out of line posting here, please accept my apologies and remove my comments. I would like to say that I did not directly call Sceptre a fascist, rather, I called actions taken against me (both verbal and administrative) fascistic. That is not a personal attack, it is my harmless opinion. I admit to citing Sceptre's nationality and age, and although I'm not saying it was the right thing to do, it was a direct result of the frustation caused by administrative actions that I thought were against policy and POV. The following is a part of an email sent to Sceptre that received and overbearing response (IMO). I first cite Wikipedia policy, then I explain how I believe this policy was ignored:

1."These abilities are only to be used in limited circumstances as protected pages are considered harmful."

2."Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism."

3."If a page is protected because of an edit war, please do not ask for it to be protected in some other version than it currently is. A protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Instead, go to the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute."

1. You protected a page because of a Dispute tag. 99% of the disputed section was left unchanged, yet you claim I was warring...for ADDING material.

2. You edited the page the way you wanted to see it before you protected it. I will make sure this is burned into your record. (harsh language, yes, but something that should be reported nevertheless -Haizum 6/6/06)

3. You made no attempt to resolve the dispute. You protected the page in its POV form after DELIBERATELY removing the Dispute tag.

For this, and saying that he failed (IMO) I was blocked indefinitely; it is admitted above. I don't care if the block was lowered, I feel the application of an indefinite block for that almost entirely cogent email is highly irresponsible especially because it made it very difficult to argue my case. It's like all of a sudden going to DEFCON 1, then going back to DEFCON 4 and acting as if "no blood no foul, right?".

Although a warning or 24 hour ban would have been preferable, the situation escalated because, in my opinion, Sandover was for the most part refusing to acknowledge the points I was making on the Talk page. I was also frustrated by the fact that my very small additions/omissions were being completely reverted while I allowed his entire section to remain essentially intact. On top of that, the POV tag that I inserted (for both the anti-gay blurb and Sandover's edits) was being removed again and again without dialog. This was especially annoying because the tag was also intended for content that Sandover had nothing to do with. Even though I initially added the POV tag and explained it, I was in part banned for a 3RR, again, even though no one bothered to explain why it shouldn't be there. At that point, I was pretty comfortable calling the whole incident "fascistic" simply because the editors/Admins were moving along without me while silencing me by force. Haizum 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Threat of Arbitration: Simply not represented fairly. Based on several complaints and my own personal experience with this Administrator (that I felt was contra the role of the Admin), I said "You're on your way to arbitration." Inflamatory? Perhaps, but this comment was made in private via Wiki email. It is not, "I'm going to get you arbitrated," and it is not worthy of an indefinite ban. Haizum 03:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks on my userpage and elsewhere

68.112.25.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made numerous personal attacks on me as well as User:Abu badali, such as here, here, here, and here (as well as other edits in the users contributions). This seems to stem from the fact that I have removed images from articles (that this user may have uploaded as User:Padgett22, User:Onlyslighted, and/or User:Steph11 ... I am not sure how to report/check sockpuppets, though User:Meegs seems to think Padget22 and Onlyslighted are one in the same) that are either unsourced or images that are not being used in fair use (most particularly when the image is from a DVD cover and is being used illustrate the person, not the creative property). Also, he vandlised my user page four times in a short amount of time. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 01:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. Previous (and possibly) relevant ANI discussions can be found here and here as they deal with the same actions and possibly the same user.

The user vandalised my page this morning for the same reasons; I had reverted their attempts to place pictures into articles where they have been told many times they can not because of violating fair use (as well as continually trying to change release dates in select Phish albums). I would really appreciate an admin looking into/commenting on this. Thanks. --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 14:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I share MOE.RON's concerns over this user's behavior. The personal attacks are unnaceptable and the continuos readd of the "fair use" images are highly annoying. --Abu Badali 15:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

An outside view on Linuxbeak's RfC.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Linuxbeak#Outside_view_by_FuCyfre - FuCyfre is a non-existent user; and the view I find rather divisive. Any comments? Werdna_T^c_@^b_C^m_L^t 03:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the outside view as trolling due to its forged signature and inflammatory content. JDoorjam Talk 04:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. May not be forged. Looks like it was added in this edit by a user who did have that name at that time, but is now SnarkBoojum (talk · contribs). See name change request at: Wikipedia:Changing username/Archive11#SnarkBoojum - Fan1967 04:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• However, it does look like he blanked Guettarda's comments in the process. Fan1967 04:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Quite wrong. Nothing was blanked. The name change was duly presented. I find this process telling. Have a nice day. SnarkBoojum 15:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is Alkivar allowed to be an admin?

le Alkivar uses profanity in his edit summaries and practices incivility. Here are just a few examples. Check his user contributions, and you'll find regular use of "shit" and "fuck". Check out his talk page in which he routinely removes comments that are not vandalism (also notice the number of complaints he receives on his talk page). Only administrators can do this, but notice his inappropriate use of deleting histories. Check out the brassiere page where he tried to add some awful picture to it that everyone hated, and then he insulted everyone (except one user) who complained about the picture. He also seems to be in the habit of provoking vandals by making his feuds with them personal. Why hasn't Alkivar ever been blocked for this kind of behavior or been removed from his position as an administrator? This is a travesty. Duckdid 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't any opinion with respect to most of the points you raise, as I've only a passing familiarity with Alkivar and am disinclined to spend time reading through his talk page. Apropos of his profane edit summaries, though, one finds that his profanity isn't directed in specific at other users (as would perhaps be in contravention of WP:NPA and would, in any event, be disruptive), save for those linkspammers whom we block straightaway. To suggest that his edit summaries are in bad form, then, one would have to argue that profanity is disruptive per se, irrespective of context, and I suspect that many users, like I, aren't willing to make such an argument. As to the history deletion, the last two months of his admin activity seem to have comprised no deletions of specific versions of a page/image (i.e., "history deletions") save for those in which an image was compromised (viz., either by an unencyclopedic image's being uploaded in its place or by a non-fair use picture's being uploaded). Now, I've seen several complaints here and elsewhere about Alkivar, and I think perhaps his style sometimes could be more decorous; I don't think, though, that any Wikipedian can say that he/she has never phrased something in a fashion he/she later regretted. Alkivar doesn't appear to be disrupting the community and appears to use the admin tools properly and constructively (if sometimes with terse explanation), so I can see no reason for which Alkivar ought to be desysopped. Of course, per WP:RfDA, one may always construct an RfC, which will surely bear out any actual malfeasance (even as I suspect none has occurred). Joe 06:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of some comments I found in his edit summaries and other places by searching just for a minute or so: "jesus fuck learn grammar you tards", "why do idiots insist on adding images without reading the HELP documentation first?", "All i've gotten is shit over this picture ... fuck you all its deleted", "Fuck You." Yes, Alkivar breaks incivility and he uses profanity to further that goal. Please, don't try to ignore this obvious fact. Doing a search on Wikipedia, I also found a reference to Alkivar deliberately trying to lure a guy he was feuding with into a 3RR block. Duckdid 06:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I know the feeling when people add in the worst-written shit you have ever read. Makes me want to say that first think, too. However, the rest is just unexcusable. Either this is a different user than the person elected to admin, or it has gone to his head in a bad way. --mboverload@ 07:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you've talked to him about this, which should be the first step rather than taking it here. Talk to him first, try to work it out, and if that doesn't work bring it here. I'm tired of people complaining on this NB without first trying to actually resolve the issue (wow! what a concept!). Snoutwood (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Talking to him is a great idea, but it's not a terrible idea for a fellow admin to do the talking. As it stands, he appears to be an ongoing embarassment to less potty-mouthed admins.

When you loose a cannon, you have the responsibility to reign it back in. Every person who voted in support on Alkivar's RFA should be jumping down his throat right now. Al 07:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, no. He made what may or may not be a mistake, and going "Ohnoes, sysop abuse!" is absurd (as per "why hasn't Alkivar ever been blocked for this kind of behavior or been removed from his position as an administrator?"). Talking to him is exactly what should be done here, as always. Snoutwood (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying we have TWO standards? Because when I once made a single edit comment that could be taken as an insult, I was blocked for a week. This guy is cursing out people repeatedly, but since he's an admin, all you suggest is that someone speak to him politely about it? With all due respect, there is clearly at least the appearance of disparity here. Al 07:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Alienus. Admins should be blocked, or not, for violations according to the very same standards (at least) which would be applied to any other editor.Timothy Usher 07:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. But I'm not playing a double standard, see below for details. Snoutwood (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know your situation, but I reckon that you should've been talked to first as well. If you'd already been talked with or warned or whatever, then I'd understand it. No one's brought up the subject with Alkivar. In fact, no one who brought this topic up appears to even have had the decency to let him know that he's being talked about on this noticeboard. Talk to him, take it to RfC. That's the dispute resolution process. The whole way this wiki works is through communucation. A lot of people seem to be under the misapprehension that when they don't like something, the best thing to do is shout over here, Abuse! Abuse! and then not bother to tell the "abusing" person anything about it or do any leg work themselves. If you'd mentioned the issue and then he'd said Fuck off, this post would be far more reasonable. But then that hasn't happened. Snoutwood (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. If a user is uncivil, why are we shooting the messenger rather than dealing with the problem. Fine, if Duckdid is a banned user, ban him again. But don't just assume that because a banned user brings something up, the complaint is ipso facto invalid. Alkivar's edit summaries DO contain problems, regardless of whether someone haas talked to him about it yet (and maybe no one has talked to him about it because of the perception that it will do no good, vis double-standards?). -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not shooting the messenger, nor do I think that the complaint is invalid. I'm saying that the messenger is taking the wrong steps. If I have a problem with a user, I talk to him about it. That I've assumed that he'll respond poorly is no reason to not talk to him about it (I may be wrong, he may say, "Oh, feck, right, sorry about that," and the problem's solved. I've seen it happen). If he responds poorly, then that's a good reason to bring it here. It's just plain rude to post a message here before first even going over the problem with the person you have a problem with. Talking to them first is indeed the first step in our dispute resolution process, a long-standing policy. Try it, and you may get good results. If that's done, then come here with the problem and we'll do our best. Snoutwood (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys have to realize the near impossibility of not being an “insider” and trying to get things done. I’ve been told that I shouldn’t have posted this concern here, even though the directions at the top of the page say this is where to do it. I’ve been told to talk to Alkivar, which is impossible since he has removed my comments from his talk page in the past. I’ve been told that I should appeal to a committee instead of creating a sockpuppet if I’m blocked, but how do I do such things if I’m blocked to begin with? And what about Snoutwood, who appears (though this could be wrong) to be interpreting everything in the light most favorable to Alkivar? Snoutwood claimed no one had the decency to tell Alkivar that he’s being talked about, and that’s a non-issue. Alkivar tried to have me blocked about thirty minutes after I posted here. He knew about it. He just didn’t want to say anything here.

No one has looked at this from my perspective. Administrators go around making binding decisions with blocks and deletions and so forth. I just make a few edits and create a few articles here and there. When people talk about needing to do a WP:RfA because the WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL were violated when there was a WP:3RR or whatever, I don’t know what any of that means. I have to sit here for an hour clicking on the links to figure out what those acronyms mean and what the substance of those policies are. So, I’m stuck hindered by an overly bureaucratic process that I don’t understand (and several in this conversation have interpreted differently) while groupthink and the good ol’ boys network run amok. Dizzied 05:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, where's your proof that Alkivar tried to have you blocked?

As I've said, I don't have a stand in regards to Alkivar, and if it's in the interest of the encyclopedia for him to be desysopped or whatever else than I would wholeheartedly support it. I think that there's very much an isue that needs to be addressed here, and I think that you're going about this the wrong way. However, that doesn't have anything to do with what I've been saying. What I've been saying is that he needed to be talked to first. As that still hasn't happened, I left a message on his talk page asking him to talk about this here. I won't have anything else to do with this: all I was trying to do is bring in some dispute common sense, and since it's being ignored I won't reiterate it any more. Snoutwood (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick comment: Duckdid appears to be a reincarnation of User:Beisnj, please see the respective logs or email me for details. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to talk to him before under just my IP address before I had an account, and he just removed my comment. His explanation was that he doesn't respond to anonymous users. Later, someone made a similar complaint under a real account, so I thought that would settle it, but he just deleted that one also. I also realize this next comment will likely result in getting me blocked indefinitely, but the Beisnj account was my account. An admin blocked that account indefinitely, however, please note that none of my edits were vandalism, I never harassed anybody, etc. Under this account, I have continued to make appropriate edits as well. I could have easily hidden that the Beisnj account was mine simply by not adding to my user page the list of articles I've created. I just want to edit on Wikipedia from time to time and be left alone while I do it. The only people I've ever complained about was one guy who tried to overtake an article about French military history, and Alkivar because of his string of abuses. Two mure notes: (1)As an added note, I see that his RfA was approved by a 28-21 vote. Now, I don't know much about the inner-workings of Wikipedia, nor have I ever attempted to be an "insider", but that doesn't seem like a very solid vote. Most of the "oppose" votes voiced the same concerns I have voiced here. (2) This entire conversation is hypocritical. I'm being asked to go talk to Alkivar about it, but he hasn't attempted to talk to me about this. His immediate response was to petition to Jayjg to have me permentantly blocked. Notice in Alkivar's complaint that he doesn't have an argument of substance against me, he just saw a previous block and is hoping for the easy way out. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he uses my "self-incrimination" above to permanantly block me himself. Duckdid 08:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Duckdid indefinitely as a self-confessed sockpuppet of a banned user. Sockpuppetry to evade bans is not acceptable, no matter how well the sock contributes. Inicidentally, the RfA Duckdid refers to failed. Alkivar's third RfA was the one that got him promoted, by 69/20/8. The allegations of incivility are disturbing, but an RfC sounds like the proper venue for this, with evidence that people have tried and failed to resolve this with Alkivar, and allowing Alkivar a response. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, RfC is the place for these kinds of complaints. ANI has become almost a replacement for RfC. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Then the header for this page needs to be reworded. Currently it says:

If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here, but please only do either that, or file a RFC or RFAr, but not both.

-- nae'blis _(talk) 17:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

He also called me a troll and blocked my user page for having a creative user name. (User:Can sleep, clown will not eat me) I saw someone named User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me in the Special:Recentchanges, and thought it was good user name, so I created a similar one. It is not impersonation.--4.19.93.2 17:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Alkivar didn't block that username, Jni and FireFox did. Snoutwood (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Although i have no personal insight into, or interest in, either editor's behaviour, i have to say that reading this section hardly instils confidence in our administration system. I reads very much like Admins covering each other's back, selectively quoting policy to justify awfully poor behaviour, and a warning to any non admin who dares to point out that some one may be abusing their tools. Per WP:AGF, i'll accept that is not the motivation of the admins here, but its hard to deny that is what it looks like. Irrespective of where or whether a complaint has been made, in light of the evidence quoted above would it not make sense of one of you to say youl will have a quiet word in Alkivar's ear and point out that such language and behaviour is unbecoming on an admin? Instead we say to the person making the complaint: "talk to him/her about it" then immediately we block them. Result? The problem goes away. Until next time. Rockpocket 18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're worried that Alkivar will block you for criticising him, which I think is highly unlikely, I will personally supervise the exchange and make sure that it doesn't happen. O.K.? I'm not "covering" Alkivar, I've no particular attachment to him or admins as some sort of cabal. If an admin came here without discussion with the person they're having trouble with, I'd say the same thing. Discusison with the user is first and foremost, that's all. People seem to be forgetting that these days. Snoutwood (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My point was more that of nae'blis'. Irrespective of the situation, an editor had pointed out out what appears to be a very valid concern. That user not cannot resolve the situation him or herself (as soon as they self identify they will be blocked again, moreover he tried to talk anonymously and was ignored or the comment removed). So the situation goes unresolved and Alkivar will continue to edit in a frankly, occasionally offensive manner. Although it has nothing to do with me whatsoever, i'll happily ask Alkivar if he would mind toning down his language and improve his behaviour, seeing as User:Duckdid no longer can and no administrator appears willing to. I'm not concerned about being blocked for that. But its unfortunate that one of the admins here doesn't see that as the commonsense way forward, instead of telling him to resolve it by talking then banning him. Rockpocket 20:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Since no one else will, I guess I have to. Hopefully this shows that I'm not necessarily supporting these actions, a point which no one seems interested in trusting me on.

I just went over the history of Alkivar's talk page, back to January. No anonymous edits talking about this stuff. I didn't see any other edits talking about this stuff either. Course, I could've missed it. Can anyone provide the diff?

Until I see that I just don't believe that Alkivar would block him for raising a valid concern. If he would, that's a Bad Thing and certainly needs to be dealt with. Rocket, since you've got a problem with this issue, why don't you just go and deal with it rather than saying that it's an admin problem, or that we're covering each other's backs? I don't understand why you don't just go and talk to him (still not done by anyone who is involved in the dispute). I don't understand why you don't see talking to him as being the commonsense way forwards.

As for User:Duckdid, he was blocked, NOT by Alkivar or in a way having anything to do with Alkivar that I can see, for being a sock of User:Beisnj, whose story I don't know. However, if he'd like to appeal that block, he can always go to User:Jayjg, the blocking admin, and talk to him. That hasn't happened either, unless it happened via e-mail where I wouldn't know about it. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this, and I don't understand why people think this is "admin abuse" or that I'm "defending Alkivar," when all I've said is to TALK TO HIM ABOUT THE PROBLEM AND TRY TO RESOLVE IT. Snoutwood (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) Yes, Alkivar knew about this comment on the ANI, and his response was to attempt to get me blocked. I posted here at 05:56, 5 June 2006. At 06:28, 5 June 2006, Alkivar requested from Jayjg that he run checkuser on me and block me. Alkivar hadn’t even posted on Wikipedia in three days, but he responded to that comment in roughly 30 minutes by trying to get me blocked. (Note also that Jayjg did, in fact, run Checkuser on me. As far as I can tell under these circumstances, that was not an acceptable use of Checkuser privileges.)

(2) There is plenty of evidence that these problems have been brought to Alkivar’s attention. At this point, you’re making it hard for me to not think that you’re not blatantly ignoring the evidence. At all three of his RfA the problems of his incivility and poor edit summaries were talked about extensively.

(3) A good example of Alkivar ignoring and deleting posts about his behavior can be found on February 8th. He went on a roll deleting comments critical of him with such edit summaries as “poof” and “wipe away useless post.” On December 6th, 2005, he deleted a comment from his talk page asking him to be civil, and Alkivar’s edit summary was “rv vandalism.”

(4) I was given the same kind of run-around as I’m being given now when I tried to get out of my block. I e-mailed Jayjg, and he basically said he wasn’t going to do it. I listed the unblock template on my talk page, and people basically told me that wasn’t the right way to handle it (which seems to be a common response to attempts to follow the bureaucratic process). Dizzied 16:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

1. I see. Yes, you're right about that, and that he didn't respond to the issues listed is a problem. Note that I don't see you being blocked as necessarily being a problem, as the way things work around here is, if you're blocked, you don't create sockpuppets to get around the block, like you've done. You e-mail the blocking admin with your main account and talk to them about the issue (which it sounds like you did, but I don't know the story). In case you didn't see, I've already asked Alkivar to contribute to the discussion, and we'll see what comes of that.

2. I don't know almost anything about Alkivar. There are over 900 admins on this project, and there's no way I'm going to remember the issues brought up in each one's RfA, especially in ones where I didn't participate. Indeed, however, apart from this your point is well made.

3. Yes, those edits are definitely problems. However, they took place some time ago... I mean, they don't have any impact on current events, except to note that this has been going on for a while. More recent examples would be more germane to this thread.

4. I'm not trying to run you around, I'm trying to have you solve your own problems before coming to the admins' board. The block template just don't work well, unfortunately, e-mail is best (people don't notice the template). Now that you have shown that Alkivar didn't bother to deal with the issue although he was aware of it, then your position makes more sense. It appears to me that his civility is certainly an issue that he needs to address, and much as I don't want to get more involved in this I've posted a message to his talk page. It's important that he respond to criticism. Note that while I say this I don't expect anything to happen while you refuse to directly talk to him about your trouble with his behavior. Snoutwood (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Snoutwood, when an admin deletes good-faith complaints and requests, I don't see what options are left other than ANI and RFC. Whatever the details, it's still clear that this admin made many uncivil edit comments and has not been warned, much less blocked, for it. It's also clear that the person who made this complaint has been banned. The end result is that justice is not served and it looks a whole lot like admins sticking up for each other. However untrue this may be, this is genuinely how it appears, and this appearance itself causes harm.

I suggest that we put aside all this endless debate and solve the problem: an admin who violates the very rules he is charged to enforce and gets alway with it. Ask him to stop. Block him if he doesn't. That would be productive. Telling people to go talk to him is clearly not. Al 07:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Snoutwood has kindly requested Alkivar respond to these allegations. I think he deserves the opportunity to have his say. However, should he decline the offer to explain his contested edits or fail to justify them (admittedly, i can't imagine any valid justification for leaving an edit summary "jesus fuck learn grammar you tards" when an editor had used "An" instead of "The" [6]) then i would also suggest that a process be initiated in the same way as it would if a non admin showed this pattern of behaviour. I concur with Al in how it "looks". That is unfortunate, as i don't believe there is any conspiracy here, but as he suggests, appearance itself can cause harm. Neverthless, i don't believe this is necessarily Snoutwood's problem and, at this stage, either of us could as easily engage Alkivar in a discussion about this since we are concerned. Rockpocket 07:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just talked to Alkivar on IRC, which I know isn't a substitute for onwiki comment, but it just sort of fell together and I seized the opportunity. Since no-one's bothered to show the "good faith" efforts to deal with the situation, I'll show the two edits shown to me by Alkivar as being the most likely to have been the "criticism" from Beisnj, seeing as they edited the same pages as Beisnj and he said that he posted anonymously: [7] and [8]. Jusge for yourself; those strike me as defiantly trolling posts and as such I refute Duckdid/Beisnj's opinion of himself as being the bearer of good-faith criticism, pending further information. As for the incivility and cursing, he said that he'd already begun to tone down on that and would continue to do so (there have been a few recent bits of cursing in summaries, but as the edits weren't inicivil or in any way attacking I don't really see a problem). Seeing the situation in that light, I'm inclined to agree with the block of Duckdid and Alkivar's opinion that he shouldn't respond to a post from a troll, which is what this appears to be. As for the incivility, if it continues, which hopefully it won't, we can deal with it then; I don't believe any further action is necessary. Course, if you're inclined you can still talk to him about it, but I think it superfluous. Snoutwood (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you will note on the Duckdid user page that there is a list of pages I have created, and some of them were created from IP addresses. Those addresses were 209.30.22.214, 209.30.41.59, and 64.233.47.250. Dizzied 16:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Until you provide diffs of your "polite, civil, anonymous, criticism," I can't say that I really care what other IPs you've used. Snoutwood (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Snoutwood, you'll see above that Alkivar took three RfAs to gain the mop; part of that was likely his promise in that 3rd RfA to be civil and polite in his intereactions with others. So all arguments that he is "unaware of the problem" should be null and void; like any other user, he had been warned, repeatedly! Then above it's stated that his incivility lies in the past, citing diffs from as long ago as December 2005. This ignores the why do idiots comment from June 1, SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS on May 22nd, and the gratuitous usage of fuck oder fucking in edit summaries from June 1 and May 30 respectively. Is that what he's calling "toning it down"? -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I believe you to be an honest, good-faith user, I'm going to say this one more time and then be gone from this thread (barring further information, of course): I have no interest in solving your problems for you, with no help. If you have a problem with Alkivar, talk to him. If you're worried about being blocked, I personally swear that if Alkivar blocks you for politely criticising him I will unblock (course, this isn't actually going to happen, since Alkivar isn't stupid). And, since I'm an idiot and can't help myself, a parting note: I see little wrong with any of your diffs, they're hardly admin abuse (not even admin related). None of them really attack anybody, and although they could certainly be better I think that he'll respond if you just try and talk to him about it. Snoutwood (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as i'm concerned, Snoutwood has taken this as far as he should, and i'd like to go on record in thanking him for that. Its clear that Dizzied was less than frank about his "good-faith criticism". Similarly Alkivar has been less than civil in the past, and while he recent summaries as still not what i would expect of an admin, they are not quite as blatantly offensive as some older examples. He has said he is working on it and now Snoutwood has expressed further concern, Alkivar will realise that this problem is not going to go away unless he pulls up his socks. Should he continue to be uncivil then this exchange can be used as evidence of his lack of progress in that area. Thats my opinion anyway. Rockpocket 05:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Its clear that Dizzied was less than frank about his 'good-faith criticism'." So, apparently, criticism of Alkivar requires several days, multiple posts, and a series of evidence. But "clear" proof against me requires nothing. Hey, wasn't Alkivar supposed to come by and say something? Dizzied 09:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't've put it better myself. Very well put. Snoutwood (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Rex071404 is "retiring"

Rex071404 (talk · contribs) has left a very entertaining message on his talk page, admitting to being Merecat, among other things, and says that he is leaving the project. He asks that his user page and talk page be deleted. I would tend to agree with this request, with the caveat that if it becomes clear that he has not truly left, they will be undeleted. (At this point there is a long checkuser history on him and a lot of editors who can recognize him.) Thatcher131 11:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to investigate his claim of being an inactive admin, this page may help since it includes the promotion dates of inactive admins. The closest fit I see is Oven Fresh, who interestingly enough has returned in the past 24 hours to delete his user pages (his new edits makes doing a checkuser possible). But I would not want to falsely associate anyone with a known troll, although 2 of his new edits [9] [10] are quite odd.. NoSeptember ^talk 12:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete. His contribs list and the block tag are useful refs for the willing editors who haven't found out yet that User:Rex071404 / User:Merecat / User:Wombdpsw / etc is an unholy troll, and might want to check back some of his edits. I only recently found out, unpleasently. Also, he seems to be consistant in one thing only: coming back after being blocked and start trolling again. -- ActiveSelective 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of people requesting that their talk pages be deleted. Jimbo deleting... Locke Cole's page, I think it was, has set a bad precedent. User pages? Sure thing. But what's wrong with blanking user talk pages instead of deleting them? Nothing. Unless there are privacy concerns in the history of the talk page, in which case, only those privacy-defeating edits need be deleted from the history. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Deleting talk page histories should be the rare exception, not the rule. NoSeptember ^talk 13:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How about deleting the user page and blanking the talk page? It may need to be protected in case certain users try to re-add the sock tags.Thatcher131 14:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the generally-accepted forms of action for users who leave and want their user pages and talk pages "removed" from Wikipedia. You should ask Rex to blank his talk page and place a {{db-author}} to his user page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Since this user and his puppets have spread a multitude of uncivil remarks about other editors throughout Wikipedia, I think it is inappropriate to delete the evidence of his unsavory behaviour from plain sight. Also, Rex had already retired was the common defense by several other editors. Clearly he was still among us, and in light of his addiction to being disruptive it would surprise me if he did not reincarnate again. Therefore leave the proof of who this abusive puppetmaster is on his page. Blank it if necessary but do not delete. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the "confession" should be kept and protected. KWH 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If the talk page is blanked but not deleted it will be in the history, should this user become a problem again. Thatcher131 16:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good contributors generally don't get their talk pages deleted when they leave the project, and I don't see why disruptive editors should get special treatment. I support the suggestion of blanking and protecting the page. Also, a crash caused the loss of deleted edits and it might happen again (now they only go back to the date of the crash). While it may be possible to salvage deleted user talk pages after another crash, it's a lot simpler to just blank them. -- Kjkolb 18:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We do tell users that they have the m:Right to vanish. We should stop saying that if they don't. Jkelly 18:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We also say "As a matter of practice User talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made occasionally." --pgk^(talk) 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why the hurry? The body may be dead but it is not cold yet. Some editors still need to realize they've been duped by this troll and might want to trace his edits/tags/comments back to his visibly blockindeffed userpage. -- ActiveSelective 18:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete User:Rex071404's userpage, talkpage, or Any evidence of his 2 years of tormenting Wikipedia. Rex has said on numerous occasions in the past that he is quiting Wikipedia. He didn't. I don't even think he can. Rex's sockpuppets lied repeatedly saying they weren't sockpuppets. Rex is a self-admitted Liar who gave up the normal rights of a good-standing Wikipedian long ago. We have no reason to trust his word and a hell of a lot of reason to distrust him. We need Rex's userpages, talkpages, and all evidence pertaining to his 2 year legacy of disruption, deception and bad faith to remain untouched for the rest of time. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It might be wise to block his admitted socks. Derex 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Kozlovesred

Could an admin please take a look at the blocking of user User:Kozlovesred, the admin has cited "admitted political bias, lack of regard for opposing views and editors, stated intention to "guard" articles [11] related to socialism/communism from opposing views and editors, incivility to other editors and administrators. I checked, and have found no evidence of any violations, only the usual debate surrounding a contested subject. --Zleitzen 13:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you asked User:PMA to be more specific about his reasons for the block? If PMA can provide us with some diffs or point us at talk pages, then the reasons stated are valid reasons for a block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I took a glance over the lengthy debate going on at several talk pages and I agree, the disagreement is largely a content issue. The blocked user makes good use of talk pages, discusses major article changes and generally interacts with other editors in an effort to resolve problems regarding content. I don't see any evidence worthy of a block this lengthy and support unblocking this editor. I'll try and provide some diffs but as this user posts and replies to many comments at once, they're not easy to read. -- Longhair 15:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a diff regarding the "guarding articles" comment above, and will try to add the remainder as I discover them. -- Longhair 15:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe another administrator has requested more information about the block, which has yet to be publicly provided. I was alerted to the case having seen this entry written by the administrator of the block.

"probably get in trouble for it but I believe my stand is totally justified - something has to be done about the communist infestation at some articles."[12]

It should be noted that this administrator appears to be also personally involved in the dispute. --Zleitzen 15:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through his controbutions a fair bit. Less thanb ideal behaviour but not yet reached the point where admins can block for it. I've pulled the block and left a forceful note on Kozlovesred's talk page.Geni 17:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this unblock. Even in his unblock requests, the user was incivil, saying that the situation was like "Stalinist Russia" and that PMA's "methods don't belong on Wikipedia, but in a police state." Perhaps 2 weeks was a bit long, but shortening a block, and unblocking, for that matter, should be discussed with the blocking admin first, don't you think? --Rory096 23:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No. If the blocking failes to provided a ligt blocking rational definetly not.Geni 00:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So if the block summary isn't good, the user should be unblocked? PMA still said that he was blocking him for disruption, just not in the summary. --Rory096 00:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You should at least give some hint of which policy you are useing. In any case Kozlovesred was not dissrupting the normal functioning of Wikipedia. I deal with more anoying people around the alt med articles all the time.Geni 00:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean what policy I'm using? You said you unblocked him because he didn't give a valid block summary. I said that he told the user that he was blocking him for disruption. As for whether or not he should be blocked, don't you think you should give the blocking admin the courtesy of a discussion before unblocking the user? --Rory096 02:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Particularly in cases that are unlikely to be time critical.Geni 02:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely if it's not time critical one should wait before reverting another admin's actions? --Rory096 19:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No because haveing people blocked worngly isbad. As long as unblocking them isn't going to cause serious short term problems it is best to discuss any action while they are unblocked.Geni 19:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree - look at Kozlovesred and his mates talk of protecting articles from the so-called "right-wing army" - and Zleitzen is hardly an innocent party given his coddling of pro-communist/socialist users at Cuba-related articles - ask Adam Carr or 172 or Rebecca. i hadn't been involved with the Lenin talk page for some time anyway - the continued behaviour of them prompted me to act. I am seriously tempted to just walk away from Wiki if something is not done. PMA 23:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC, WP:RFM and WP:RFAR. That is what has been done. Some of them work quite well. (there is also the medation cabal somewhere. They can do good work).Geni 00:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Geni's unblock. Geni's action reminds me of the (unhelpful) attempt by another administrator to unblock the vandals Blu Aardvark (talk · contribs) and Mistress Selina Kyle (talk · contribs). when admins acts as the tools of disruptive users, it is a big slap in the face of serious editors. The community should have learned this lesson following the depature of SlimVirgin, which was triggered by the rash unblocks of Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle. Administrators are supposed to protect legitimate content editors and show disruptive users the door. PMA's blocks should be restored immediately, before another valued contributor like SlimVirgin is forced to leave Wikipedia in frustration. 172 | Talk 23:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you show where Kozlovesred has been carrying out large scale ofsite anti wikipedia activities? Frankly anyone leaveing over this is so close to burn out in any case there isn't much to be done.Geni 00:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot grasp how frustrating disruptive POV-pushers are to legitimate content editors, then you're too pretty close to burn out. Perhaps you should take a break as an admin. You seem to be losing sight of the goals of the project. The goals of the project are non-negotiable; as for the rules, see Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. 172 | Talk 04:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also see: Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules BruceHallman 14:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I understand I just not view your way of attempting to deal with the problem as acceptable.Geni 11:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If Kozlovesred's behaviour was blockable – and I'm not reassured that it has been – PMA was probably not the right admin to do it. He is regularly involved in editing articles related to Communism, and takes a stance opposite to Kozlovesred's in his editing. Stating that he is defending us from the "communist infestation" doesn't really convey the level of impartiality we usually hope to see. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You are quoting PMA out of context. PMA referred to a "communist infestation" in a message on my talk page meant only for me. It was not his stated reason for the block, which read: I am following Wikipedia blocking policy on disruption per Wikipedia:Disruption. You're not getting blocked because of your political orientation per se, your ideology is only relevant insofar as it seems to be the motive for your disruptive behavior. PMA 04:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 172 | Talk 04:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am quoting PMA's own description of his simultaneous blocks of Kozlovesred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Solidusspriggan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This is a public wiki, and everyone would do well to remember that our words can and are seen. The point is not that the message was a 'private' one to you, 172, but that PMA has a conflict of interest on this issue.

PMA used the same block summary for both blocks, as well as for another six hours later of GeorgeSears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). All three editors have been editing with a similar slant on Communism-related topics; PMA, meanwhile, has also been making Communism-related edits but from the opposing perspective. He has been reverting edits that might be perceived as pro-Communist, often without edit summaries.

For none of the three blocks did PMA notify the editors blocked on their talk pages (or, apparently, elsewhere). (He added the terse explanation you quote to Kozlovesred's talk page nearly a day later and after prompting, and just quoted text that 172 provided.) PMA did not provide diffs or explanation of the blocks here or on the involved editors' talk pages. None of the three editors had been blocked before, for any reason. None of the editors blocked had even edited, let alone engaged in disruptive behaviour, in the three days preceding the blocks; it is difficult to argue that the matter was urgent, and such a long first-time block should have been discussed here. Neither PMA nor any other editor had warned the three about their editing practices, save for what appears to be a well-received and understood explanation of 3RR to Solidusspriggan back in January.

I strongly urge PMA to lift the remaining blocks. While he meant well, his actions are the sort that can lead to the torches and pitchforks and cries of 'rogue admin' that make it more difficult for the rest of us to enforce policy. I would encourage him to do what we're all supposed to do with a conflict of interest—bring the matter here, with appropriate diffs and explanation, and seek neutral third-party comment and action. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Similar questions were raised six weeks ago with Cuba/ MichaelW block by PMA BruceHallman 15:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Since PMA has lifted the remaining two blocks, I consider the matter settled. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Permanently blocked editor User:Rgulerdem now formulating WP policy

Greetings, having been following the mailing list WikiEn-I, I recently caught notice of Resid Gulerdem formulating a policy entitled: WP:OURS. User:Raphael1 has just begun steps to put User:Rgulerdem's policy proposal in place on Wikipedia by starting its page and shortcut. I think it is rather obvious that permanently blocked users formulating policy is bad and due to this I am inclined to submit Wikipedia:OURS for speedy deletion but without previous experience concerning such a situation I've submitted it as a miscellaneous for deletion. Does it make more sense to speedy delete this banned user's proposed policy outright to clearly demonstrate that banned user's formulating policy is bad or should the MfD be allowed to continue? Thanks, Netscott 17:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Large parts of this policy has been formulated by myself. Though discussions on the WikiEn-I mailing list admittedly have been my inspiration. Raphael1 17:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There certainly seems to be a lot of tag-team editing between Rgulerdem and Raphael1. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well viewed Zoe, well viewed... I think that such editing is described as "proxy editing" no? Proxy editing for a banned user is bad is it not? Netscott 17:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, why can't we simply judge this on its own merits? --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That would seem a reasonable response considering the involvement of a non-blocked editor. As for "proxy editing", I don't think engaging in conversations via paraphrasing and discussion outcomes qualifies as "proxy editing" as such. In such a case as this, wouldn't assuming good faith on the part of Raphael1 be in order? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, "good faith"? It's getting a bit difficult to assume good faith when User:Raphael1 goes around making "hit" lists of Wikipedia admins and disruptively editing on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Raphael1 would not have started the WP:OURS policy proposal (the name given it by Resid Gulerdem) on his own and is in fact acting as a proxy for the highly disruptive banned editor User:Rgulerdem. Netscott 18:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

irrespective of who wrote this, i don't really see this as becoming policy anyway. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Irish's point that we oughtn't to be as concerned with the identity of the contributor as with the quality of the proposal is an important one. Notwithstanding that I am in any event inclined to assume good faith here (even as I disagree with each most strongly on most Wiki-related matters, I can't imagine that Resid and Raphael would continue to spend time here and on the mailing list were they not interested in helping to ameliorate what they see as problems), never should we reject a proposal (even where repugnant to policy, except where designed exclusively or serving primarily to disrupt) simply because the user offering it may not be acting in good faith or is blocked or banned. Joe 21:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Image vandalism

Someone's busy vandalizing a bunch of images by uploading new images over them. He's done this under at least three accounts: WikipediaSandal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (not blocked), ZapperNES (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked indefinitely), FallOutChoi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked for 24 hours). He seems to hit roughly the same set of images every time, so checking the history of the images in question should find any other accounts being used. Someone should probably also run a checkuser to see if the underlying IP address can be blocked. --Carnildo 18:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also DoubtingElDandy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

WikipediaSandal is now indefblocked by me, and FallOutChoi should be indefblocked. Syrthiss 19:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• There is also HerkimerCountyBlowhole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whom I have blocked. Now I am purging the vandalized pictures from history. (A tedious work; there really should be a way to select and remove several versions at once. And to provide an explanation for the removal!) - Mike Rosoft 07:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit war on Peter Tatchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I initially blocked User:Irishpunktom for edit-warring and trying to game the system, based on this edit summary: self revert - gotta wait an hour or so. After looking more closely at the edit history, I decided it would be more useful to lock the page. So I did that, and unblocked Irishpunktom. If anyone else has suggestions for a solution, I'm open to discussion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that he is blocked for 24 hrs, because as the diffs show in the 3rr report that I filed, he already violated 3rr before his 5th revert that he himself reverted again, with the mentioned edit summary. So in any case he's in clear violation of 3rr. Another thing is that he also violated 3rr on the "islamophobia" article a few days ago, and he wasn't blocked for that eighter. He has already been blocked for 3rr 10 times, so he know the rule, but de just doesn't respect it. I am sure that if it is no longer enforced in his case, he will violate it even more than he usually do. -- Karl Meier 18:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This isn't particularly offering a suggestion for a solution, but just going by those blocks recorded in Irishpunktom's block log, this 3RR violation was at least his 10th violation of the three revert rule. Most people tend to find themselves banned before reaching that number. And that edit summary does not bode well for future behavior. While the protection and unblock look like a good call, it is probably time for someone to bring an arbitration case against him for the long term solution. Dmcdevit·t 18:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Has someone already done the RfC dance? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Dbiv has one ready, but he haven't filed it yet. -- Karl Meier 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

While I am of course not fluent in the circumstances, it is my opinion that anyone who has reached that level blocks for edit warring is probably going to be accepted with a coherent case presented to arbcom. Something can be a "last resort" a number of ways. In cases where it looks useless to go through other dispute resolution, or where the necessity of an enforceable remedy appears inevitable, we accept cases without an RFC. Dmcdevit·t 19:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Even without an Arbcom ruling, I think longer blocks are in order for any further violations. I initially was going to block for 24 hours, but when I saw his previous blocks I went for 31. He's been blocked for as long as 48 hours in the past. I'd say that or longer would be appropriate if there is any more edit warring. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that punitive blocks aren't encouraged on Wikipedia but User:Dbiv, User:Karl Meier and myself have all experienced this brand of "bad faith" ("self-revert - got to wait and hour"?) editing on the part of User:Irishpunktom and this latest example appears to be reason for another block. Irishpunktom unfortunately has been violating 3RR as though it was a right across a number of articles and this is but the latest violation in a series of his continuing pattern (see his block log). Netscott 18:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Between March 14th and today I have been blocked four times, I believe, which would be the same amount of times as Netscott for that period. Its no surprise that Karl reported this either, he was critisized for stalking before and has seom personal issues with me going back a while now. He was a founding member of the anti-muslim "SIIEG" guild, which was banned. While i do revert too much, the same is, obviously, also true of those who are also engaging in the edit war with me, which tends to be a rather short list. even so, i shall try to cease. --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

1. If you don't want to be reported for 3rr then stop violating that rule. 2. If I has any issues with you then it is about that you keep POV editing and make very strong personal attacks against me on your userpage and elsewhere. (you have been warned about this) -- Karl Meier 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

False analogy and infactual statements there Irishpunktom, I've in fact only had 3 total blocks for 3RR with 2 of them being unblocked upon explanation of the nature surrounding how I arrived at being blocked. Two of my blocks involved yourself (one of which I reported myself for re:Infidel) and the only one that wasn't unblocked (the very first one) actually was spurred on by you. I'm beginning to think that there's likely others who've born the bad faith nature of your editing and would surely add themselves to the list of editors who you've demonstrated bad faith towards. Netscott 19:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Have only just come back after an evening meeting. It's sadly true that I have encountered Irishpunktom before, especially on Peter Tatchell but also on other articles. The dispute arises because of his habit of automatically reverting without stating reasons, or stating uninformative reasons. Irishpunktom is a muslim: I often find his edits are highly POV (others may wish to check for themselves), but what sparked this recent problem was the addition of large amounts of detail on Peter Tatchell's views on Islam. This creates a POV problem of its own in that it distorts the significance of this part of Peter Tatchell's opinions, so I tried to prune the section back while not losing anything important. I'm not absolutely set on what came out, and I'm willing to debate what is the right way of the section, but I don't see why I should accept a blanket revert. Irishpunktom has not explained his objections to my edits on the talk page. David | Talk 21:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've found it annoying myself; Tatchell has a long history of fighting for gay rights going back 30 years, yet the current article devotes almost a third of its length to Islam, and has gone through numerous edits in a (in my view) twisted attempt by Irishpunktom to portray him as an Islamophobe rather than a simple defender of secular rights versus _all_ homophobic belief systems. --Paul Moloney 13:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I may add here that Irishpunktom exhibits this sort of behavior on many articles. On Dhimmi, Apostasy in Islam, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and other Islam-related articles, Irishpunktom only reverted without saying a word on the talk page. He moved Islamic extremist terrorism without even attempting to discuss the move, just because he disliked some recent additions to the article. I could continue for several more paragraphs, but administrators' noticeboard is probably not the right place for that. Pecher ^Talk 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Lindsey Graham

Repeated POV insertions & reverts by User:72.242.65.58, despite repeated warnings. Was posted on WP:AVI, but an admin took off since content-related and not merely vandalism. (I'm also worried that I've violated 3RR trying to keep POV out of the article). --mtz206 (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Another day, and another round of WP:POV edits by this IP without comment or heeding numerous warnings. Someone please help me get through to this editor. No one else at the article is intervening. --mtz206 (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if this will get through to them but I blocked them for 24 hours. If they persist after this block I'm willing to block further, as it doesn't appear to be a shared ip (they only have contributed to this article). Syrthiss 13:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a vandal...

I know right about now you're probably reaching for your ban buttons, but wait, not so fast.. as I was saying, Hi, I'm a vandal, in fact I'm a very powerful, virtually unstoppable vandal. I could go on being a vandal from who knows how long, but I've decided not to. The way I see it, If i were to put my vandalism beind me, I could be a valuble insight into the twisted mind of the wikipedia vandal. I could be your informant, your inside man, heck, just think of me as your very own hannibal lector, only without all the canabalism, just think how the CVU could advance with the insight of an ex-vandal?! Just think about it. block me if you want to, I'll just make another account. Think about it, consider my proposal--Sloeque Von Cheeseburgen 19:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you proposing? You realize that nothing like this can happen while you're vandalizing Wikipedia, right? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well you don't see any vandalism coming from my current account, now do you? surely an act of good faith--Sloeque Von Cheeseburgen 19:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't proposed that you do anything. What are you proposing doing? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey all of us were once 13 years old, we already know how a vandal thinks.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Moshe, I fail to see that you offer anything of value. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Sloeque Von Cheeseburgen You appear to be trolling. If you want to actually fight vandalism just go ahead and do it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked. AN:I troll, anyone? --InShaneee 22:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no need of a wannabe "Hannibal Lector's" insight. Now the REAL "Hannibal" would be a different story, what with his experience in culinary adventurism. But a vandal with a big ego, nah, Wiki's got ban buttons to take care of the "powerful, virtually unstoppable" vandals. -- Daniel Davis 22:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Especially repeat offenders like this guy. --InShaneee 23:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Request block: User:Dennv

This user has edited the Norman Lowell page for the past few days and it's all evident vandalism. These are some of his comments:

• "You sick neo-Nazi pervert: pan-Europeanism has NOTHING whatsoever to do with that sick fuck Lowell. His views are NOT "pan-Europeanism". Sick neo-nazi fucks.) "

• "It's great he's all for homosexuality. He'll have a lot of practice over the next few years."

• "This sick pervert's ideology is an ideology of tyranny."

Please block him, at least from editing this particular page. Thanks. Drew88 10:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV, please Will (^E_@) T 19:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:AppleJuicefromConcentrate

I have now permanently blocked AppleJuicefromConcentrate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for persistent re-creation of the hoax article, sockpuppet abuse, and threats to continue with his actions. I have also blocked all his sockpuppets I have discovered. Several of them (namely, Motorox2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Motorox3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Motorox4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Metrolox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) may need to be checked; they may have been operating through an open proxy which needs to be blocked. - Mike Rosoft 20:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

hinzufügen TurkeyJuicefromConcentrate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I guess no edits but created in roughly the same time frame. --pgk^(talk) 21:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:86.139.119.115

86.139.119.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I am not sure if this the right place for this, but I pinged 86.139.119.115 and I am positive that it is an open proxy or zombie computer being used to remove links and references from several articles. --Azerbaijani 21:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Reported to WP:OP. Joe 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I did my own investigation of this IP and was unable to find anything suggesting an open proxy. Portscan follows. --Cyde↔Weys 22:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Starting Nmap 4.01 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2006-06-05 18:02 EDT
DNS resolution of 1 IPs took 0.00s. Mode: Async [#: 3, OK: 1, NX: 0, DR: 0, SF: 0, TR: 1, CN: 0]
Initiating SYN Stealth Scan against host86-139-119-115.range86-139.btcentralplus.com (86.139.119.115) [1672 ports] at 18:02
The SYN Stealth Scan took 36.61s to scan 1672 total ports.
Host host86-139-119-115.range86-139.btcentralplus.com (86.139.119.115) appears to be up ... good.
Interesting ports on host86-139-119-115.range86-139.btcentralplus.com (86.139.119.115):
(The 1646 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)
PORT     STATE    SERVICE        VERSION
21/tcp   filtered ftp
23/tcp   filtered telnet
43/tcp   filtered whois
79/tcp   filtered finger
80/tcp   filtered http
135/tcp  filtered msrpc
136/tcp  filtered profile
137/tcp  filtered netbios-ns
138/tcp  filtered netbios-dgm
139/tcp  filtered netbios-ssn
161/tcp  filtered snmp
205/tcp  filtered at-5
445/tcp  filtered microsoft-ds
512/tcp  filtered exec
683/tcp  filtered unknown
989/tcp  filtered ftps-data
1029/tcp filtered ms-lsa
1214/tcp filtered fasttrack
1434/tcp filtered ms-sql-m
1521/tcp filtered oracle
2009/tcp filtered news
2307/tcp filtered pehelp
4000/tcp filtered remoteanything
4500/tcp filtered sae-urn
5432/tcp filtered postgres
6346/tcp filtered gnutella

Nmap finished: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 37.282 seconds
               Raw packets sent: 1807 (79.5KB) | Rcvd: 3543 (181KB)

I noted Cyde's result on the OP page; I'd simply copied Azer's reply there without comment. I'll leave it for someone who knows more than I (read: basically anyone) to resolve. Joe 22:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Five week block for spelling change?

I've just come across what looks like a case of severe injustice. User:Pnatt has been blocked for five weeks for changing the spelling of television program from programme in Australian articles. "Program" is the correct modern Australian spelling, and "programme" is regarded as archaic. The blocking admin is not Australian and has promised to keep adding one week to Pnatt's block every time he returns and corrects the spelling. Understandably Pnatt is upset over this. Could someone please calm down what should be a simple discussion about consensus? --Jumbo 21:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There's some context missing from that post, mainly this. 5 weeks seems a fairly minor escalation from the last block, which was one month and ran its full course, at which point the user again began doing exactly what got him blocked last time - uncivil edit warring over local dialect spellings. This seems to be practically all the user does, and I have no objection to this block. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't you be upset as well? Looking at Pnatt's contributions, any incivility seems to be on a minor level. I've asked him to try to keep calm. The response of the blocking admin seems disproportionate and likely to further inflame the user. Pnatt's preferred spelling has been endorsed by other Australian users, and this really should not be this big an issue. --Jumbo 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It actually was not five weeks for a spelling change. User:Pnatt has only been on Wikipedia since April. In that time he had received continuous last warnings and 5 previous blocks, climbing from 24 hours right up to 1 month for continuous edit wars, misleading edit summaries, personal attacks, etc etc etc. Every time a block was imposed he was warned when he came back to stop behaving as in the past or he would be blocked again. Every time he would only be back on WP when he would take up where he left off and start the same behaviour all over again. On his second (yes, second) edit after the expiry of his last one month block he began the exact same edit warring on the exact same issues, abusing the exact same users, and carried on as if nothing happened. He had already been warned many times that such was his behaviour that the length of blocks would climb every time he was blocked until he stopped the edit warring and attacks. Given that it was a repeat performance of his previous behaviour, and the last block was for one month, this time, as warned, the block was upped again, this time to 5 weeks. BTW this user, when blocked, has also a habit of posting constant {{help me}} messages on his talk page, to the annoyance of many users who keep telling him to stop doing it. For his last block, his posting of false templates and attacks necessitated that his talk page also be protected for the duration of the block. Already since this block another user have had to threaten to protect the page again to stop him posting the disruptive templates. At this stage this user has been blocked for more often than he has been allowed to edit Wikipedia. He had contributed little but edit wars and attacks. It is getting to the stage where quite possibly he should be blocked indefinitely. In less than two months he has contributed nothing but aggro and edit wars. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Thanks for chiming in. --Cyde↔Weys 23:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

On investigation of Pnatt's edits, I must respectfully differ. His second edit on returning was this one, where he changed the archaic "programmes" to "programs". He was absolutely correct in this, and he has cited several widely used sources, such as current Australian dictionaries and the Australian Government Style Manual. He has not been abusive, nor has he made misleading edit summaries. He referred to correction of vandalism, which from his perspective (and mine) it certainly is. Articles on Australian subjects should use current Australian spelling, and when such a conservative network as the Australian Broadcasting Commission uses "program", we may safely say that this spelling is current. He does not deserve a five week block for making beneficial edits. New editors should be guided rather than chastised, and whatever his past sins may have been, he does not seem to have resumed them. --Jumbo 23:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Referring to others' good faith edits as vandalism is provocative and incorrect. I'm not surprised it upsets people. "Vandalism" is when someone is trying to make the encyclopedia worse, not better. There's no compelling reason to think that someone using the spelling "programme" is trying to compromise the quality or integrity of Wikipedia - they probably think that's an acceptable spelling. I suggest that this user (and everyone) refrain from characterizing the other side of a style dispute as "vandals". -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a few comments:

• Six different admins have blocked this user. This isn't just one admin getting over-zealous.
• Some of his edits have been very blatant vandalism (e.g. [13], [14])
• The user is occasionally very incivil in his edit summaries (e.g. [15])
• This user spends a lot of time in revert wars, often with really strong POV statements such as this one
• This user has almost no productive edits
• The user does not seem to listen to warnings. See the user's talk page

Although I personally saw this latest edit war and was not planning on blocking him myself, I do support the block. -- JamesTeterenko 23:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Some of those early edits are disturbing. However, I note that since returning he has made no similar edits. Maybe he HAS listened to advice this time? He has hardly been given a chance and if we can make a productive editor out of him than turning him into an embittered critic of Wikipedia, then so much the better. --Jumbo 00:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In the very brief period before he was reblocked, his edit summaries included the misleading "revert vandalism" twice and he tells an editor " "Program" is the preferable spelling, like it or not" [16]. That does not suggest to me that this editor is close to being 'reformed'. Note that "being right" is never an excuse for continuous edit warring (since everyone's right in at least one person's opinion). We have a dispute resolution process for people who think they're right when the other editors don't, and "edit warring" does not feature in any stage. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

He is not alone in stating that he is right. Other Australian editors prefer "program" over "programme". The naming of articles and categories such as List of programs broadcast by Seven Network indicate that this has been the preferred spelling for some time. Government and university style guides state "program not programme". The Macquarie Dictionary - the acknowledged standard for Australian English - has a headword for "program" and not for "programme". (See here for a page scan.) I had not given this matter much thought until this morning, but all my research indicates that he is entirely correct, and quite entitled to think of reversion to an archaic form as "vandalism". I note that it is common practice amongst established editors to label such small details as vandalism: here is one from the blocking editor, who could be described as Wikipedia's revert warrior par excellence, judging by his extraordinary edit history.

However, some of Pnatt's early edits and attitude (as pointed out earlier, for which many thanks, JamesTeterenko) trouble me deeply, and if he had returned to this style of editing, then I would not feel inclined to defend him at all. But there seems to be a gradual improvement in his attitude, and I feel that imposing a five week block and threatening longer for such a small impoliteness in a new editor is going too far. Such long blocks are more properly the preserve of the ArbCom, imposed for more serious and protracted matters. I feel that this matter should have been handled so as reduce confrontation and encourage co-operation. --Jumbo 09:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have protected User talk:Pnatt after he added the {{unblock}} template after I had already removed it. This is the fifth time the page has been protected to stop him abusing the template. I will not be lifting the protection until his block expires, as every time protection is lifted he goes right back to getting in the way of users who have a legitimate reason to be unblocked (see the log). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought this comment from him was extremely encouraging: "After the recent 4-week block I made a choice that if I wanted to stay on Wikipedia, that I would have to make reliable and factually correct edits." Now one more avenue of communication has been blocked off, and heaven knows what his opinion of Wikipedia management is now. Perhaps he's altering the template text because he feels that he's been, oh I dunno, harshly and unfairly treated? --Jumbo 19:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't altering template text, he was adding a template that he knew damn well he wasn't allowed to add again. That's not in the least bit encouraging, he seems absolutely incapable of learning from mistakes. If he feels he's been harshly and unfairly treated then he can wait for consensus to build up here that the block is unwarranted. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

With respect, this behaviour came after he received a block of five weeks! I suggest that with sufficient provocation even the most angelic editor is going to get hot under the collar. On being unblocked - after a four week block - his Wikistress was at three. It quickly jumped to five: "Run for cover!". In such circumstances it seems reasonable to suggest that he's not going to be the perfect editor, and he should be calmed down instead of being provoked further. --Jumbo 11:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I repeat - his page has been protected five times now for abuse of the {{unblock}} template. The first time can be put down to ignorance, the second to frustation (or 'provocation'), but the third is downright refusal to listen, and the fourth and fifth are just taking the piss. It looks like no-one is willing to lift or shorten the five-week block, so I simply don't buy that throughout his block he should be allowed to continue adding {{unblock}} templates and get in the way of legitimate requests because he was 'provoked'. The block is, after all, already under review - the {{unblock}} template is for getting a second opinion and there are plenty of those here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on your reading of his motivation: "just taking the piss". It seems to me that this new editor feels he has been unfairly blocked and nobody gives a damn, except to kick him in the face longer and harder. I ask again, wouldn't YOU be stressed and upset under such circumstances? If your Wikistress level was set to "ready to pop', then how much would you care about niceties of policy? This editor started off on the wrong foot with some attitude problems, but all I see is steady improvement despite severe provocation. I'd like to see understanding and co-operation next time around. If he feels interested enough to return. In the meantime I can only imagine what he is saying about Wikipedia. --Jumbo 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

He can have all the understanding he likes when he stops doing the same things that get him blocked and his talk page protected, over, and over, and over again. I don't know what he's saying about Wikipedia, but the truth would be along the lines of "Wikipedia has better things to do than act as the battleground for people who obsess over dialect spellings". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

With respect, you shouldn't lump the two misbehaviours together. It takes two to make a battle, and his changing of "programme" to "program" was quite correct, in Good Faith and he provided sources. See the discussion here. This should have been discussed at the time by the other parties, but apparently they chose to revert without discussion. His edit summary when he was reverted was perhaps a little incivil, but certainly not worth a five week block, which is what he got, with the promise of a much longer one. On that note, the blocking admin appears to be a big booster of monarchies and nobility around the world and User:Pnatt is apparently not. There may be some issues there. However, as has been pointed out, there are far worse examples of incivility in edit summaries which go unpunished.

After he was given a five week block for doing what he regarded as improving the encyclopaedia, then he sought outside assistance. I imagine that, as his Wikistress level indicates, he was quite upset. It is quite unfair to justify this very long block by what he did after getting it.

I am also quite concerned that the increasing improvement in his behaviour has been met with increasing harshness of treatment. He has also stated that he wants to be a good editor and this has been ignored. Surely he should be assisted in his stated aim rather than beaten and abused until he gives up in disgust? --Jumbo 00:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just asking for information, but how is the edit summary " "Program" is the preferable spelling, like it or not" a problem, while "jesus fuck learn grammar you tards" reflects that the editor "sometimes could be more decorous" (Joe), and has "a few recent bits of cursing in summaries, but as the edits weren't inicivil or in any way attacking I don't really see a problem" (Snoutwood) in #Why is Alkivar allowed to be an admin? above? JackyR | Talk 14:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If Alikvar had been blocked six times for a total of about 40 days for that behaviour, that would be more of a valid comparison. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, this is a specific question. I'm not asking are Alkivar and Pnatt overall "good" or "bad". I'm asking, when assessing evidence, how is the first edit summary evidence an act <JackyR | Talk 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)> of wrongdoing, and the second not? JackyR | Talk 21:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC ) <rephrased to make less ambiguous JackyR | Talk 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)>

The first is part of a continuous pattern of disruption that has led six different admins to block the user and four to protect his talk page afterwards. The second is not. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Still missing the point. You make a specific complaint about this edit summary, over and above the edit to which it refers. And you appear to be agreeing that a pattern of uncivil edit summaries by Alkivar is not a problem (did you mean to?).

Look, what I'm highlighting is how easy it is to make an overall judgement of a person, and then interpret all their actions accordingly (person X is bad, so action Z by them is bad: person Y is OK, so action Z by them is OK). This is the very heart of many accusations of admin abuse, and so unnecessary. Folk on this page routinely have to make evidence-based judgements – it's an important and often thankless job, and I'm grateful someone does it – but often end up putting the cart before the horse. Please, stop and think about this for a minute. I'm not getting at you: I'm just alarmed by what I see every time I'm stupid enough to come here. I care rather a lot about WP, and this needs to be dealt with – by everyone. JackyR | Talk 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well said! I'm starting to regret that I ever stumbled across this, but I had to speak up. Admins do a wonderful (and largely thankless) job, but I am sure that mistakes are made, and it would have been remiss of me to walk past while another editor was calling out for help. --Jumbo 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm shocked by how poorly this editor has been treated, especially when certain admins routinely leave uncivil edit messages yet are not blocked for even a minute. Al 23:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Appealing the speedy delete of our content

I am writing this to you requesting that you forward this message to the correct forum, re appealing “speedly deletion” for (1), and suspected linkspamming’, from what I can make of it. The intent of our organization is to get our information out and not be stifled. I have looked at the mediation pages and a fair number of other methods, none of which are seemoingly clear and straightforward, that is not to say they are incoherent. If this message finds its way to someone that can help us resolve wiki problems, Great, if not then the information will be stifled until we on this end can figure the process. In any event; Thank you! Please advise. Mark, ceo, (ph 805-886-4773) The Organic Channel, Inc. The natural Channel, Inc.

OUR COMMENT: Our intent is to include our entry consistent with Wikipedia rule. Our organization has maintained links to wikipedia for a number of years already. There is nothing in our wiki content that seems to me to violate the four cardiinal rules. I am unaware is any url listing is contrary to wiki rules, if it is it is a rule not easily appearant, but we desire to comply with wiki rules and yet be included. We are a progressive organization that deserves simple inclusion in much the same manner as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_Channel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Learning_Channel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Discovery_Channel}}

THE ORGANIC CHANNEL(TM)(SM) (The Organic Channel, Inc. A California Corporation) A channel devoted to education and entertainment, broadcasting and advertising especially regarding organic, organic lifestyle and organic products. A trademark application is pending in the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the mark. Presently the mark is in use in interstate commerce in at least international trademark classes, 035, 038, and 041. Currently avaliable programs include: The Farmer's Market Show(tm) The Organic Farm Show(tm) The Organic Show(tm) SEE: [URL redacted]

</nowiki>

Do

You can appeal deletions at Wikipedia:Deletion review, or discuss it with the admin who deleted your article (I don't know who that is, as you didn't provide a link to the deleted article, but you can see who it was by going to where the article was and clicking 'deletion log' in the text). However, it would be better for everyone if you waited for someone independent of your organisation to create an article about it. If it's truly notable, that will happen sooner or later. Wikipedia discourages people and organisations from creating articles about themselves, as Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Samuel; I read what you wrote. I think there should be a distinction here at least regarding being deleted for self promotion, (is that a basis for deleteion in and of itself?) and the issue of whether a basis of being deleted for self promotion is even valid if nonetheless there is viable and valid content. There is an objective factual basis to our corporate existence, our filed trademark application(s) and the existence of video programs that can be viewed on our website, and thru limited public access televisions stationsall the result od hard and altruistic work. To be reduced to a speedly wiki deletion, is to me indicative of form over substance, maybe? We are prone to error as much as anyone else. Thank you!

I think we would be happy to include the article once you actually got on air... Sasquatch t|c 05:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:LEGAL MollyBloom

Five edits in a minute or two with WP:LEGAL diff being this one. It is a bit of a pattern, not just with me, and the range of interest is impressively narrow. POV, SOAPBOX, WP:BIO --> living persons, etc. Midgley 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this "incident". Jkelly 22:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think he's implying that she's implying that he may be sued for his actions. --InShaneee 22:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

From a very brief examination of the interaction of these two editors, it looks like they both need to dial it down a notch. There are serious lapses of WP:CIVILity from both editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely. Molly has lapsed into civility on a couple of occasions. I find her difficult to deal with, it might be possible to do it better, and some colleagues have offered advice, as have I, but her single focus is a problem and potentially one for WP. The AfD [17] would best be closed - concensus to delete is not there, and some very prominent arguing from recklessly false assertions is in there. Midgley 01:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

From my perspective, there is clear hostility on all sides of this conflict. There isn't necessarily one user who instigated it all. It appears to be a simple AfD that kind of flew out of control. Cowman109^Talk 01:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It goes back to April and the breast implant article, I'll add a diff. if I find myself there. Quoting WP:LEGAL

• Wikipedia has had bad experiences with users who have made legal threats in the past, and by making legal threats, you may damage your reputation on Wikipedia.
• A legal threat may lead to you being blocked from editing (on a case by case basis), so as not to exacerbate the problem through other than legal channels.

Midgley 09:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe is back and hes angry

For a long term I was an administrator here, routinely infuriating other administrators by not allowing them to abuse their power, until they finally got together & gave me the boot. Since then I've had about 3,000 edits as User:KI, for the most part minding my own business and ignoring the same BS from the same people again and again.

Now I've been blocked for 3 months for one instance of vulgarity - which was in response to repeated vandalism of my talkpage by several administrators. Every account I've created to get around this ridiculous abuse of power has been indefinitely blocked as a "sockpuppet."

I caught someone using sockpuppets which is the real reason I was blocked. I was reblocked for longer - and note there was no justification for doing so - when I revealed that I was freestylefrappe.

I appealed to an administrator who has seemed reasonable in the past, but he was unwilling to unblock me because I used the phrase "bullshit."

I would like to be unblocked (both User:KI and User:Tchadienne) so that I can run for adminship and infuriate all of you other admins asap. Thanks, freestylefrappe 00:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. I hate you all.

Edit summaries like this one make me rather uncomfortable at the idea of you editing at all. --InShaneee 00:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? I thought my edit summaries here and here were much worse than that! freestylefrappe 00:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I seriously considered doing so until I saw this edit. Ral315 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe, I know you're frustrated, but please remain civil at all times - you're not going to improve things by being tactless. (And as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe demonstrated, civility is a must on Wikipedia.) I haven't reviewed the situation, nor do I wish to, but I would recommend you continue to talk with Sasquatch, the blocking admin; I see that he's already aware on his user talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked 1 hour for making incivil comments and personal attacks. Could another admin check to see if it is worth extending a block? Also, is an indef-ban for this disruptive user out of the question? NSLE _(T+C) at 01:25 UTC (2006-06-06)

If you wish to seek a ban (note: I make no assertion of whether I agree or disagree with that), I would recommend going through ArbCom because there's already been a case, and the Arbitrators could decide the appropriate remedy, if any. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe, you are engaging in the some of the same behavior which got you deadminned, that being rude comments and removing other people's comments from your talk page. I think nobody will take you seriously unless you keep your cool and civil manners. Grand insinuations like you were given the boot because you were preventing admins from abusing their power don't help either. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I was heavily involved in Freestylefrappe's RfArb, I won't take admin action against him, but I urge that he be blocked for at least a week immediately -- that's the current block on the account he said he wanted to use, User:Tchadienne. Sasquatch blocked User:KI indefinitely and lowered Tchadienne's block from indefinite to a week as as part of an agreement to let him make Tchadienne their main account [18]; he shouldn't be editing as Freestylefrappe in the meantime, especially not in the abusive manner he has so far today. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

For the time being I'll block user:Freestylefrappe indefinitely, and leave the one week block on User:Tchadienne. For whatever reason, this editor appears to be provoking trouble. Perhaps a break will settle things out. -Will Beback 04:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be too much at this point and it would just provoke Freestylefrappe more. I think we better wait and see how things develop. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Per your suggestion I have unblocked the account. However the "main" account of User:Tchadienne is still set for a one-week block, which seems to have been earned. Let's see what happens. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, just noticed this thread. Anyways, I'll be monitoring the situations as well. Best thing anyone can do. Sasquatch t|c 05:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:LIVING Frater Fiat Lux

Frater_FiatLux (talk · contribs) has uploaded legal documents currently listed on WP:IFD [19] which are being used solely to attempt to slander a living person on Golden Dawn tradition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Talk:Golden Dawn tradition. These are affidavits in a lawsuit which has not yet been tried. It has been privately communicated to me that this is being used as a tactic to "try the person in the media" possibly instigated by one of the opposing legal teams. This sort of abuse does not belong on Wikipedia. -999 00:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to do much speculation about the motives behind the upload, but they are PDFs, which we really don't make a habit of hosting. Anyone have strong objections to me speedying them? Jkelly 00:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to know who had the bright idea of even ALLOWING PDFs on Wikipedia. --mboverload@ 03:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I support several MediaWiki-based sites, and by default, PDFs are disabled. --999 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Maker has arrived

Apitchlev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the first arrival of the promised Maker. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-06 00:37

That's Jimbo's sock? --Rory096 00:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually this matter should be taken seriously. It's a returning vandal (see the immediate featured article history who uses multiple sockpuppets. It seems some progress has been made by the deletion of the disturbing image the vandal uses, but still, it will be a long night of spontaneous featured article protections if the vandal continues on as he's done in the past, unfortunately. Cowman109^Talk 01:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is probably the same vandal who used to attack George W. Bush back in November/December, then moved on to main page featured articles, replacing the contents with various pictures of penii. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-06 02:00

It's a vandal, big deal. There are a million of them. --Rory096 02:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep we've managed to survive them all so far. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Iamfscked

Iamfscked (talk · contribs · count) Does this violate WP:U? Yanksox 02:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --Rory096 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, really old account though. --Rory096 02:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, 'fsck' is a Unix command which checks the integrity of file systems. :-) -999 02:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Even so, it seems to be trying to imply the word "fuck." --Rory096 03:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Especially in the manner that it is being used, "I am fscked." Probably a play on words, but it worries me due to WP:U. Yanksox 03:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps but FCUK did that for quite a while. I think it is harmless.Geni 03:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest a change of username, since he has a non-trivial set of contributions. — Jun. 6, '06 [04:10] <freak|talk>

I think it's harmless. I don't think a change of username is needed at all. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Snoutwood (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If their fsck concluded successfully, they must be clean! Kim Bruning 12:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I was just wondering what the consesus was. Yanksox 12:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy on inappropriate user names says: Names that refer to or imply sexual acts or genitalia, including slang, innuendo, and double entendre. This is obviously the case here, whether intentional or accidental (doubtful) or this conversation wouldn't have started in the first place. Tyrenius 14:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This use of fsck is an old old joke in unix circles. Coming down too hard on this username might be a bit over the top, even if it's technically not in compliance with the stated guideline. But letting it slide is a bit of a camel's nose problem I guess. Just thought I'd throw that out there. ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Any admins here have GameFAQs account

If you are an admin and have a GameFAQs account, please give me an email. I need an investigation to be performed.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Special:Emailuser/Sceptre. User:TheCoffee has a GF account too. Will (^E_@) T 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Request that Admin Ask Fellow User to Cease Personal Attacks

Moved discussion to User_talk:MikeWazowski - KWH 05:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Need watchers for Al Seckel

Done. Yanksox 05:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Due to an edit conflict, I hadn't explained the problem yet!

The article Al Seckel was largely written by Al himself (an anon IP signing himself "Al" on the talk page. Two days ago new user Tmciver (talk · contribs) nominated the article for deletion; evidently he has a lot of animosity toward Seckel (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Seckel and Talk:Al Seckel). At first, Tmciver's comments were helpful to me in removing various unsourced glowing claims about Seckel and providing references. However, Tmciver now persists in adding negative information based on his own original research. [20] [21] He claims Seckel never graduated from Cornell. The article does not mention Seckel's credentials at all; Tmciver adds them in in order to make his allegations, which are based on a 1991 newsletter called Saucer Smear and Tmciver's own alleged phone call to the Cornell registrar. I have gone over this on the talk page, apparently to no further avail. I have to work and sleep; Tmciver seems not to be bound by these constraints. Can a couple of people put this on their watch list? Thanks. Thatcher131 05:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

added to watchlist. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have posted some comments along these lines (see below entry). Appreciative of all your help.

Al Seckel

User proclaiming sockpuppetry

I have been given evidence that a user has proclaimed on an off-site webforum to his sparring partner that he has hundreds of IPs ready to sock-swamp his way to victory in an edit war. A screenshot is available on my talk page. This screenshot was verified to be true by PS2pcGAMER, who is a member and has access to the forum. The user has been involved in edit wars on a variety of pages without any discussion. I think a substantial block is in order. Thoughts?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd support simply asking the user in question first, and trying to convince them that they shouldn't do that. If that doesn't work, a block, yes. The user hasn't done anything yet, I think we should give them a chance. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 08:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:PatCheng has been engaging in extreme edit wars with no attempt at consultation on a variety of pages, in a manner which seems not to be NPOV. He has been battling the other user everywhere for a long time now. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

So this is the user this post is about? I'll have to think about this... something's telling me we should just block this user based on the fact that they're threatning to do something, despite the fact that they've already been involved in lots of edit wars. I'll get back to you... there's no rush, right? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 08:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the user in question has also launched personal attacks on other users, and was blocked by me yesterday for swearing.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

After seeing the screenshot, it looks to me like "your mama"-style trash-talking. I'm not too worried. Just keep an eye on any relevant pages. What makes you think it's PatCheng? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoutwood (talk • contribs)

Well, "Fenriswolf" is later asked whether he contributes as PatCheng and is stalking, and he shows more bravado.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Still, I wouldn't be overly concerned about it. Like I said, keep a eye on any relevant pages, maybe talk to the user about the issue, but apart from that I don't think there's too much reason for concern from this particular incident. Snoutwood (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it's an admission of stalking then that is serious, as they are always in the same place. PatCheng started editing long after the other guy - he started in March 2005.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the forum post image is here -- Longhair 08:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am PatCheng and I proclaim my innocence. In that Gamefaqs topic, YINever claimed that "RevolverOcelotX" and "Fenriswolf" are my alternate accounts. Looking at Fenriswolf's profile at Gamefaqs, he created his account on 11/3/2002 5:39:52 PM. I, however, did not create a Gamefaqs account until early 2005. As for RevolverOcelotX being my alt, it has been proven false by CheckUser, but nevertheless YINever keeps insisting these are my alts in that topic. PatCheng is my sole Wikipedia account, which was created to organise the contributions my previous IP-based ones, and not for the purpose of "stalking" TJive. My first edit occured in late 2004 and did not even come across TJive until late early 2006. I revert some of TJive's edits because I find many of them questionable under NPOV policies, such his reference to Cuban government as "Castro regime" [22], and the Tiananmen Square protests as "bloody supression" [23], and that he uses three different accounts to evade 3RR TJive (talk · contribs), YINever (talk · contribs), 72.65.77.79 (talk · contribs) --PatCheng 14:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems like alot of hearsay. Is there any evidence that "Fenriswolf" contributes as PatCheng? Is there a screenshot where "Fenriswolf" says he is PatCheng and agrees with battling on WP? --RevolverOcelotX 22:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see this entry from new user User:151.205.8.146 [24] which again refers to PatCheng "wiki-stalking". I'm not interested in the dispute between these two users, but it's spilling out all over the place, bothering a lot of articles and innocent bystanders whose work is getting messed around in the warzone. --Zleitzen 00:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been reviewing PatCheng's edits and there are a lot of posts which are very innappropriate.

• Extremely Racist comments : [25], [26], [27], [28]
• Insults towards other users : [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34],

[35], [36], [37]

• Swearing at other users: [38], [39], [40], [41]
• Calling for death/ Inciting hatred: [42],
• Attacking another's userpage: [43], [44]

He has complained to me that he has a balanced view and wants democracy but in the diff regarding inciting hatred, he says that the only wrong thing that Mao ever did was not kill Jung Chang. I have not extensively looked at his editing of articles, but giving the repeated racist comments that he has made, I doubt whether he is here to write an encyclopedia or to push POV and indulge in ideological head-banging. In the screenshots shown and further evidence verified by other admins who have access to GameFAQs that the screenshot is real, "Fenriswolf" brags that to "TJive"/"YINever" that he doesn't care about WP policy and his block, and has hundreds of IPs ready to sock-swamp to victory. PatCheng has admitted to clashing on the webforum (admitted by both parties) and is the only person fitting the description of being blocked on June 5 relating to a dispute with YINever/TJive and using the GAMEFAQs forum. "Fenriswolf" is then confronted as to whether he is using User:PatCheng to stalk TJive, to which he reacts with pride. Later, a series of posts arose where "Fenriswolf" claimed to have taken control of User:PatCheng and User:RevolverOxelot, who have been team-edit-warring on various Chinese Communist Party related political articles with no discussion from either side whatsoever. "Fenriswolf" then deleted the previous comments. As a block is a preventative measure, I feel that it can be applied to prevent sockpuppeteering. Given the serious infringements performed by PatCheng in the past, I have indefinitely blocked him as a temporary measure pending some kind of final resolution.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that some of the edits were from an IP, which PatCheng later redirected to his user account after registering.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen, again, what hard evidence do you have that "Fenriswolf" is indeed PatCheng? That one screenshot you have only shows that the GameFAQs user "Fenriswolf" is bragging.

And Blnguyen your accusation that my account is taken control by this "Fenriswolf" is rediculous. On what grounds do you want to block my account? You can't block my account just because a random user on GameFAQs claims to "have taken control" of my account. And your accusations of me being a sockpuppet of PatCheng have already been false by this CheckUser.

Indeed, I have not been "team-edit-warring" with PatCheng on any articles. I have only edited some articles out of concern for NPOV. In fact, I haven't even "team-reverted" any articles ever since I was blocked for 3RR on Mao: The Unknown Story. The only people that are edit-warring are PatCheng (talk · contribs), YINever (talk · contribs), TJive (talk · contribs), 72.65.77.79 (talk · contribs), 151.205.8.146 (talk · contribs), 65.33.167.138 (talk · contribs). In fact check the contribs of those IP addresses, almost all their contributions are reverts against PatCheng's edits. --RevolverOcelotX 04:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Fenriswolf" has been stalking me ever since late last year when he vandalized my user page, claiming I insulted his grandfather at GameFAQs. At first he used anonymous accounts to summarily revert any contribution I made. [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] These all trace to Australian providers - a couple of them are from different locations but the main ones use Optus. These include two accounts used to launch personal attacks on contributors, which can be seen if one follows off the talk pages. [50] In the case of the last known IP, its talk page was redirected to User:PatCheng's. [51] "PatCheng" himself started his career here by attempting to cull Wikipedia editors against me, in his very first two edits. [52] [53] He then moved on to three articles I was editing at the time, in order to revert my edits. [54] [55] [56] He would continue to do this unabated until earlier this year, when I took an extended break due to time constraints. The moment I left he reverted my contributions for what he thought would be the last time, and the moment I returned to contribute again he has picked up his disruption right where he left off. As I explained here, he has been stalking me, even leading into successive accounts of mine. The story I gave in that link was verified by PatCheng himself here and here.

There have been a couple instances where Fenriswolf has acknowledged his behavior at Wikipedia but I never thought to record them. So when "PatCheng" was blocked for personal attacks and "RevolverOcelotX" was blocked for 3RR violation the other day, I made a topic on GameFAQs mentioning the blocks to see what his response might be. Unsurprisingly, he was unrepentant and gloated that he was flagrantly violating policy:

And do you know that I don't give a **** about looney wikipedia admins? I can obtain hundreds of IP addresses to revert your trash on wikipedia. [57]

I posted his user history and examples of his reverts, and a denial of the comment he alleges that I made, which strangely he took for an admission.

So you're admitting it huh? [58]

By this time he was made aware of the posts concerning him and decided to backpeddle in a way that would throw the whole thing into confusion:

LOL PatCheng was blocked for personal attacks and RevolverOcelotX for 3RR. I really don't care about these two idiots considering that I own neither of these two accounts and merely guessed their passwords. [59]

He would later make a mistake. When some users confronted him for lying, he responded by saying that PatCheng and RevolverOcelotX were "only two" of his accounts, but he deleted that message and posted this in its place before I grabbed a snapshot:

You're not even close to finding my real account or my hundreds of IPs. [60]

The actual forum post can be found here, but only members have access, and messages are regularly purged within a few days regardless of what anybody does. A couple administrators were sent there to verify some of these pictures. I don't believe they saw the deleted message but they did see the rest. "Ashibaka", seen in that last picture is an admin here. This is a flagrant admission of policy violation and disruptive intentions, looking past the braggadocio about "hundreds of IPs". Fenriswolf's half-concocted tale of merely finding the passwords for the accounts is proven false in the case of PatCheng simply by looking at his first contributions. It was not an accident that this account was following me; it started out that way.

As for RevolverOcelotX, he has the same posting habits as PatCheng - they both have been trolling through Asia and China-related articles watering down critical views and words about the Chinese government and communists. They both accuse me of "whitewashing", Fenriswolf's traditional description of my behavior. They discovered a mutual interest in the following articles, which they would revert in tandem.

• Military budget of the People's Republic of China
• The Epoch Times
• Human rights in the People's Republic of China
• Mao: The Unknown Story

At this point, "RevolverOcelotX" began to place a great deal of templates on the talk page of my sockpuppet in an attempt to get me blocked for "vandalism" which saw two bad reports deleted. [61] [62] Not only did PatCheng and RevolverOcelotX manage to trump reverts in the four mentioned articles, but RevolverOcelotX himself committed a 3RR violation. When I reported him, he posted a bogus retaliatory report which had to be dismissed as well.

In other words, "RevolverOcelotX" quickly took up "PatCheng"'s hobby of harassing me, immediately prior to, and during, PatCheng's 24-hour block. That may be coincidence, and "Fenriswolf" may well just be blustering to avoid wider blocks, but I seriously doubt it. If "RevolverOcelotX" was lily-white in this manner he would leave well enough alone rather than attempting to present the defense for unblocking a disruptive and hateful user whom he pretends not even to know. He has taken up the cause, not only here on ANI but PatCheng's talk page, as well as the pages of administrators where administrator Blnguyen has merely asked for separate opinions, of unblocking PatCheng and launching into further polemics about my accounts. [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] The difference is, I have not been demonstrated to have violated a single policy but have merely been defending my ability to edit at this site, whatsoever, without a stalker over my back every moment. As other users have noted, this warring is disruptive, is unhealthy, and many pages have been caught in the crossfire over one individual's bizarre personal feud with myself. The block should remain in effect on PatCheng and any subsequent sockpuppets. If "RevolverOcelotX" wishes to maintain any pretense of distinction from this issue then he will refrain from further violating policy and not simply pick up right where "PatCheng" left off. --TJive 06:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I have been using "TJive", "YINever", as well as anonymous IPs while logged out. None of these have violated policy alone or together. --TJive 06:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

TJive, for the record, I am NOT one of PatCheng's sockpuppets as proven by the CheckUser, and I have no intentions of "harassing" you. I don't know who "Fenriswolf" is but from what you've posted here, it seems clear that "Fenriswolf" really is PatCheng. "Fenriswolf" aka User:PatCheng is clearly lying about "guessing my passwords". The only reason I was edit warring with you the other day was out of concern for NPOV, not because I wanted to help YINever/TJive or PatCheng. But I haven't been edit warring with either of you ever since my block for 3RR.

Now the only reason why I presented the defense for unblocking PatCheng was because there didn't seem to be any hard evidence and his block seemed unfair. But, now that I see that "Fenriswolf"/PatCheng is clearly lying about "merely guessed my password", I don't really care if PatCheng is blocked or not, since I don't even know him or you. And I have not violated any policy ever since my block for 3RR. I know see that "Fenriswolf" really is PatCheng. --RevolverOcelotX 07:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Abusive editor in Bulgarian Wikipedia

We have a very interesting example of abusive editor in Bulgarian Wikipedia that is using very dirty language, threatening other editors, and using vulgar language. Recently he abused 2 of the administrators in Bulgarian Wikipedia. Unfortunately there is no Arbitration Cometee and Bulgarian Comunity in Wikipedia is not very well organizes to restrict the actions of that editor. In addition that editor has some contributions for the developement of the bulgarian project of Wikipedia and other editors are protecting him from ban.

The situation started 2 years ago, it escalated and a lot of new editors left the project because of the constant abuses from that editor. I tried to contact English Wikipedia 3 months ago, but I was not able to find the right procedure to report that case. The last resolution when I made the complain against that editor is in my discussion 1 There are multiple examples of abuses from that editor, many discussions for that case in bulgarian Wikipedia, but all of them are in bulgarian language. Please advise what we can do to stop that abusive editor. He is proud of his actions and nobody can restrict his violations.

Bogdev 07:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

---

There's nothing the English Wikipedia can do, as it isn't part of this Wiki per se. Admins here do not have the same privileges there, so you need to make your case there, or in Meta. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Bogdev 07:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't have some sort of administrative process in the Bulgarian Wikipedia for these sorts of things, then take it to Meta (somewhere like m:Requests for permissions, where a Bulgarian editor with community support could gain administrative powers and block the user). Surely there's an admin who can block him already, though? Snoutwood (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There are administrators, that editor was blocked temporary many times and there is ongoing discussion to ban that editor permanently. But in the meantime that editor continue to abuse people, he is very proud of his actions and he is a very bad example for that comunity. I hope that bulgarian comunity will find the solution for that situation, at the same time I see that this is a problem for more that 2 years, dealing with that kind of abusive people is waste of time and energy for a lot of people. And allowinig abusive activities is also not acceptable.Bogdev 08:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this is true. Sounds to me like a permanent ban is a good idea. If that's a problem while disussion is ongoing, I would block him temporarily, and then if the discussion decides that he should be permanently banned, do so. I would try that and see how it works. Snoutwood (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

I have just permanently blocked I have verve! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a self-admitted vandal (created Wikipedia vandilism unit). I think you ought to know about it, because he may be preparing a sustained attack on Wikipedia. - Mike Rosoft 11:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

People need to stop worrying about vandals returning (not just you, a lot of people). If they do, we block them. Simple as that. Ral315 (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Attempted password theft?

I blocked 193.39.172.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for repeated vandalism, after s/he had been reported at WP:AIV, and left a message about the block on the vandal's talk page. A few minutes later, NINETEEN e-mails came in from wikimedia, telling me:

Someone (probably you, from IP address 193.39.172.1) requested that we send you a new Wikipedia login password for en.wikipedia.org. The password for user "Musical Linguist" is now [I've removed that for obvious reasons!].

You should log in and change your password now.

If someone else made this request or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may ignore this message and continue using your old password.

The new password was different in each e-mail. I just ingnored the messages, and everything is working fine. After reflection, I increased the length of the block from 24 hours to a week, but thought I should report it here. AnnH ♫ 11:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

long standing trick. TRhey just repeately hit the email new password button.Geni 11:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if you ignore it, your password remains the same. If you come under fire and it's jamming up your inbox, a simple mail filter will take care of that problem. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:EnthusiastFRANCE

This user has been creating mutiple socks posting abusive and obscene messages to evade a block. Many on the sock are concentrated on attacking User:Aknorals. I have created Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of EnthusiastFRANCE and tagged as many socks as I could find so far, some of them were created by sock usernames and this showed up on the username creation bot which is why they may have no edits. Anyway, this situation needs to have a eye kept on it, The IP's are probably open proxies and sock creation is still continuing. For evasion of the block, I have lengthened the orginal block to 1 month. pschemp | talk 11:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Egregious personal attacks by Dabljuh

Normally I would just leave a warning, but User:Dabljuh has truly gone off the deep end here. This is an extended rant on the talk page of a mediation I was involved in (which is why I am not taking action myself) and which has closed. You really have to read it yourself to fully appreciate it, but let's hit the highlights:

• "Because there is this other policy, "No Original Research" - that can be summed up as "Wikipedia is fucked proper since its obviously run by total morons"."
• "That person hates wikipedia and wants it to contain shitty articles"
• "That person somehow has his head several miles up his ass"
• "Any person that has or had opposed the inclusion of this information is a huge asshole that should not be allowed to edit anything on wikipedia, or consume my oxygen for that matter."
• "GET THE HELL OFF MY INTERNET, YOU LAME-ASS FUCKTARDS"

This user has been warned about personal attacks before (see here). Obviously I'm an involved party — as the person being told I "should not be allowed to consume his oxygen" — so it's hard for me to be objective. But I think this is way beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior. Like, several hundred miles beyond. Nandesuka 11:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That is one helluva rant. I'd say we give him a cookie along with a nice long block. --Cyde↔Weys 13:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You should take a look at this and this. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Snoutwood (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion

...by Sami44 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • logs) See User talk:WAvegetarian#Are you that thick? and history of James Purdey and Sons for evidence —WAvegetarian•(talk) 13:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As the user admits that it is a proxy, it has been blocked indefinitely. [68]. If it happens again via another proxy, report here again. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations

Most of the active people on the project need a block for a day or two. Endless, endless fighting, reverting of each others' work, labelling it as 'vandalism'. Violations of 3RR, WP:Civil, legal threats, wikistalking, stupid requests for comment, harassment, much more. They've even taken the fighting to MY talk page, when they have no fight with me. Users include (but are not limited to): User:CFIF contribs, note the mass reverts), User:CoolKatt_number_99999 contribs, note the mass reverts), User:Boothy443 contributions, note the many reverts, User:Kirjtc2 contribs, note the mass revertions, User:Rollosmokes contributions, note the mass revertions. All five need a wikibreak. I don't want to go to MY talk page and find a bunch of fighting on it, from people I'm not even arguing with. I've tried to talk with them, I've tried mediating. Nothing works. The most immature "group" on Wikipedia.--Firsfron of Ronchester 13:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion report

User:Stephan KŒNIG was blocked on May 15 for one month for vandalism as well as continually adding blog-like, irrelevant material to talk pages as well as chronic uploading of non-fair use images (with no apparent intent to use them in articles), and finally he began vandalising the Bill Haley article itself. His targets tend to be articles relating to Bill Haley such as Bill Haley, Bill Haley & His Comets, Jodimars and others. KŒNIG is apparently working from a rotating IP server as he has continued to post to the above articles (again almost exclusively their talk pages) despite the ban being in place and signs his talk page messages with his name or initials. Evidence: Talk:Bill Haley (see additions by 81.246.223.29 (reverted), 87.64.184.168, 81.245.68.169); Talk:Bill Haley & His Comets (see 81.244.63.70, 81.246.205.39, 81.243.173.11, 81.244.38.179) ... you get the picture. To be fair not all these edits are nonsense, but he is still evading a block that isn't supposed to expire until June 15 and that's the issue. 23skidoo 14:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The user should be blocked indefinitely per WP:USERNAME, similar to the American author, Stephen King. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, this is beyond the scope of that policy. While it might be convenient, I disagree with the common over-extension of that policy to ban people whose true offences are other. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WCityMike

I believe we have a problem with WCityMike - he's started a mass AfD against many Star Trek fanfilm related articles, and has apparently gone after several people, myself now included, who have questioned his actions. He's placed a warning about canvassing for votes on my talk page, when I have done no such thing, just reverted an edit he made that was critical of his actions and asked for an administrator's input. I would like an adminstrator to look into this situation, please. TheRealFennShysa 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to second that request -- I've noted the same issue this morning, and would like to have a third party (preferably an admin) look into this as well. --Mhking 15:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed remark began, "I have just found out from my Watchlist that there appears to be some sort concerted action against Star Trek Fan Films" and was on fan film talkpage. Removal of remark followed same methodology employed last night uncontroverrsially from BigDT. Note that complainant is a Trek fan film director, BTW, according to his talk page. User who posted original removed remark (Kirok) has made all sorts of sinister implications on his talk page based on my use of the afd_helper code. He's done wikistalking (investigating my monobook.js), personal attacks, bad faith assumptions, and incivility -- which I did not bring here per the way MikeW...'s similar incident was handled here last night, but instead merely asked him politely to cut it out (see talk page). Merely asked user to stop being incivil/stop the personal attacks/etc. Complainant above restored vote-stuffing query from original user, thus restoring the canvassing for votes -- if the canvassing warning isn't policy (despite ArbCom rulings?), then why is it even on the warning page? — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓  15:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Small point here - although I have an interest in the genre, I am not a Trek fanfilm director, and have never made a Star Trek fan film. Perhaps you're confusing that with Star Wars - it's such an easy mistake to make. TheRealFennShysa 15:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the clerical error. However, I've seen a great many Trek fanfilms on TheForce.net, and in my desire to get a response on the record to your charge above, did not read further in your profile. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓  15:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no Star Trek fanfilms on TheForce.net. TheRealFennShysa 15:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, those who oppose the deletion of the cited articles are assuming, without any proof, that I brought these nominations in bad faith. (That in and of itself seems to be not only textbook assuming bad faith but also personal attacks.) In actuality, I did not. Were you to see my bookshelves at home, you'd see I'm not precisely a detractor of Star Trek. However, it is simply that the extreme proliferation of fan-film-related articles, including each and every one I cited, has led to a large collection of non-notable articles that I felt merited exposure to a AfD vote. Nomination does not equal deletion. Nomination states, "This user feels that the community should come to a consensus about whether this article deserves to be on Wikipedia." I don't think that that opinion is out of line, but evidently by expressing that opinion, I've given license to many hordes of Trek Wikipedians to engage in personal attacks and indignant outrage. It's a shame people (in general, not just in this incident) sem to have lost the ability to respectfully disagree. Those who can still pull it off usually come across as class acts. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓  15:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I could suggest moving this conversation off to a talk page again, but you're clearly looking for an administrator to act as a mediator or referee in this dispute. There's no blatant vandalism, attacks, or activity by blocked or banned users here. Again, you're looking for someone with administrative powers to simply witness and/or referee your content dispute. Administrators have the capability to delete articles, block/ban users, and maybe 1 or 2 other things, but they are not Solomonic judges. Work it out amongst yourselves and you'll be better for it. KWH 15:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, with regards to the "you're clearly looking" (as I'm not sure to whom you addressed this remark — it's an indent underneath my statement), I would note that although I brought the matter to WP:ANI last night, I didn't bring this complaint. Or, to use a legal analogy, yesterday I was the plaintiff, today I'm the defendant. I wouldn't have brought things here this morning, as last night I was told this wasn't the place for such differences of opinion. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓  15:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• This editor has now moved onto Lost-related articles. As he has stated above, he is on a mass AfD campaign ("the extreme proliferation of fan-film-related articles has led to a large collection of non-notable articles that I felt merited exposure to a AfD vote.), which appears to be contrary to WP:POINT. Rather than constructively aiming to develop consensus (or WP-policy improvements), he has chosen to list numerous fiction articles under the pretense of calling them "fancruft". I'm as against cruftiness as the next editor-- in fact, I have a back-burner proposal about the topic-- but disrupting WP/antagonising other editors is not the appropriate way to demonstrate the rightness of that belief. I would suggest that WCityMike should refrain from mass AfD nominations, and if he continues, to face appropriate sanctions. --Leflyman^Talk 00:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't appear he's nominated anything in the last few hours, but I do think a block may be neccisary should he begin again. --InShaneee 03:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I take respectful issue with InShaneee's comments. I have done my best to demonstrate good faith throughout the rather large outpouring of angry editors who have repeatedly taken issue with my nomination of articles that I felt did not meet Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion.

For example, I engaged in extremely long dialogues with NickC and Kirok on Kirok's talk page (dialogues which were time-consuming) to address their concerns and in an attempt to make peace with them, despite Kirot (as a new editor) posting rather egregious diatribes about the AFD Helper code and making incivil remarks all over the votes. And, indeed, with each of these individuals, I left the issue having made peace with them, as you can read for yourself.

The largest majority of other editors who have attempted to speak with me personally (including the two individuals bringing complaints in this section) have not demonstrated assumption of good faith or civility. But certainly, administrators should uphold these policies in their official actions as administrators. I have asked every single person who has accused me of bad faith in my nominations of articles to provide proof that I have acted sinisterly or with malicious intent. None have responded with same.

I respectfully posit that it would be a poor choice for an administrator to issue a block — which, from my understanding, is a preventative measure ("blocks are preventative, not punitive," I've heard several admins say) — to attempt to cease measures which are done in good faith.

Prior to reading this remark, and prior to posting this remark, I had nominated a handful of articles to AfD this morning. I emphasize that this was done prior to reading this comment, so it was not a retaliatory action to InShaneee's comments. However, it can now be argued I have "begun again." In these nominations, I did my best to offer more precise, reasoned criteria as to why I believed the article merited deletion, avoiding the seemingly inflammatory "fancruft" phrase, and I think it would be extremely difficult for anyone to argue that these nominations were made in bad faith and deserve blocking. (Indeed, no one has decided they need to take me to task on my talk page, as they had been doing yesterday.)

I am writing here not to prolong the issue in your eyes — as you can see above, I have attempted to make peace without administrator invention, once it was suggested that this issue was better handled without administrator intervention (see WP:ANI#Request that Admin Ask Fellow User to Cease Personal Attacks above).

But I did monitor this complaint when first brought against me, and I find it quite disturbing that an administrator is now seemingly ready to levy a block based on popular sentiment with no proof of the various accusations of disruption and malicious intent that have been tossed about by the people here and elsewhere. Thus, I'd respectfully suggest that said administrator reconsider their readiness to do same.

Thanks. — Mike •  18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not currently following the Afd discussions, but if (for example) the articles you nominated yesterday are generating strong keep consensus, it probably doesn't make sense to nominate more in the same class. If the consensus is mixed, with some going each way, I would proceed with a small number per day. Having fanfic based articles for a few extra days is worth fostering an environment of calmness and deliberation that focuses on the article content and not the nominator. Thatcher131 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

To answer your query, Thatcher131, without grabbing all the votes and calculating percentages to give you a precise answer, it's roughly a mixed bag. A very good portion of them are generating a delete consensus, a few are no-consensus, and I believe one or two are definitely leaning towards keeps (Star Trek: New Voyages, for example). — Mike •  19:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like on June 6 you nominated about 35 articles (Trek and Lost, mostly). I'd say that a high rate of deletions demonstrates good faith, and that somewhere there is a number (less than 35, obviously) that will let people focus on the article rather than you. Thatcher131 19:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I just gotta say that I looked into Mike's history of communications with others on this and I think that he's got a good head on his shoulders and his commitment here is exemplary. I'm not even saying that I have read all the individual AfDs and judged that I agree with deleting them—just that Mike has used the AfD process correctly. KWH 23:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

user:Hoof38 clone?

64.192.106.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) may be an incarnation of banned user Hoof38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=End_of_planet_Earth&diff=57184900&oldid=56363005 , reinstating edits made by User:Hoof38 and reverted by me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Science3456 socks have reappeared to continue the tradition of adding unneeded redirects to Jonathan Bowers, which Hoof38 also liked to do (see Bongulus). To wit: Freee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Lockser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Boar34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -Big Smooth 19:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Go for it!

Go for it! (talk · contribs) is trying to make all editors communicate with him through email. He had directed his Talk page to his User page. When I edited his Talk page and indicated that he should leave it available for editing, he moved my communication to another page, then moved his User page to his Talk page. I have reverted the moves and once again left a message on his Talk page, and have indicated that he needs to leave a Talk page available, or he will be blocked. User:Zoe|^(talk) 15:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems a bit suspicious, maybe he/she is trying to harvest emails?--Andeh 15:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

His talk page must remain available. E-mail is secondary to on-wiki discussion. Snoutwood (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Go for it!, from April. User page moves were a problem then, making communications with the user difficult. He stopped editing in April, and returned a few days ago. I wanted to leave a message, welcoming him back, but noticed the instructions about e-mailing. At that point, his talk page redirected to his user page, so I was unable to leave the message. I hope a solution is worked out, and he stays (contributing constructively). But the recent user page moves indicate continued problems. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 17:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Frater FiatLux

Frater FiatLux (talk · contribs) is repeatedly uploading two speedily deleted PDF files, File:Document4-1.pdf and File:FyttonDeposition.pdf. These files were deleted because they contain libel against a living person in violation of WP:LIVING. Also, Frater FiatLux claims they are in the public domain as government produced files when they are not. They are not court-produced documents, but affidavits submitted by private parties. Thus they are publicly accessible on the court website, but the authors of the documents would still be the copyright holders and control other uses.... -999 16:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes they are, your completly wrong, I will be reporting you. The Cicero affidavit is a factual court file and does not in any way infringe on painting Cicero in a bad light, nor is it painting a living person in a negative light. The document should be looked at more carefully. The file is indeed a court produced document you can gain access to the COURT records by following the information at the very bottom of this page.

User 999 is not correct, please see my infra comments on the last file that user 999 is in an unprincipled manner harrasing. Frater FiatLux 16:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, if they are actual court documents, they can't be "solely to slander" (or rather, libel). They are, at least, factual as evidence that a court case exists and that certain allegations were made. They don't, of course, prove the claims in the case. --FOo 07:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This file comprises of fully verifiable information from the original public domain source. Information on how to download these documents for yourself are provided on the files pages themselves. They should not be deleted as the user that is attempting this “999” is of a rival order and is attempting to sabotage and interfere with present discussions and litigation to their own biased POV by deleting these public domain affidavits from the original source. -Frater FiatLux 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Frater FiatLux:There is minimal fee for downloading the documents through the official courts web-site. Instructions are given on the page of the file on how to do this. To make the files immediately assessable to mediators, editors and people that want to view this verifiable original and factual information. They can simply do so by clicking the link in the talk page and going right to file, where they can open and browse at their leisure, without paying for it, or applying to the court for the records. The file is linked to in many of the current talk threads and should not be deleted, as they are integral to some of the entries. Any opposition to remove these files is a clear, biased attempt at trying to interfere with the present talk, discussion dispute that is currently being considered by the mediator. Furthermore the mediator handling the disputation hasn’t made any remarks to me -whatsoever-to remove the file. -Frater FiatLux 23:55, 5 June 2006

I will reiterate what I told you, to in reply to your threat to me on the talk page I will be reporting you to the relevant admin pages for this threat and for also tampering with the files I uploaded. Suddenly one or two have conveniently gone missing.

I have already addressed the legal threat directed at myself with the relevant comment, however, I appreciate Kephera’s support. Any other comments on this matter though I feel are rather unnecessary and will only further perpetuate the schism makers, and further add to the burden of the mediator. The relevant comments have been made; I now feel it best that the outright threats by these schism makers should be treated with the appropriate disdain. I consider it very appropriate to treat such misleading, defamatory attacks on the HOGD/A+O's integrity seriously, to which I'm a member, and feel this rightly constitutes a formal and proper form of correspondence. This is not to be misinterpreted as some have in a very ill judged manner, to claim that I am legally threatening users, or that a formal comprehensive style is slanderous. User 999, your message supra however, is a direct threat and a perfect example thereof. I have only stated the facts and have not therein my posting attempted to deliberately slander Cicero, although, to biased eyes it could be appear that way. The fact that Cicero doesn’t appear to have a whiter than white background when the facts are compiled, or that these facts do not live up to expectations of Cicero supporters or licensees; frankly is not my fault. The sources in my posting cover a range of books, some of which are even written by Cicero, and original from the source court affidavits; and these aren’t all based around Cicero, or with the sole intent to slander Cicero, whatsoever. I am not interested in -anyone's- opinion of my writing style, and furthermore my writing style has nothing -whatsoever- to do with any of the matters at hand in this disputation. The fact that I treat correspondence seriously with schism makers attempting to misrepresent and defame the order I am a part. I consider is highly appropriate and should not be misrepresented as slanderous or threatening. Although, user 999 has given us a perfect example of what a direct threat constitutes. "/wiki/User:Frater_FiatLux" 01:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: By Frater FL Your threat of informing Cicero’s lawyers doesn’t bother me -Whatsoever-; he cannot do a single thing about anything that I’ve written. I’ve back up the articles entries with comprehensive sources that are in the main, books in print that are verifiable, and even written by Cicero. The affidavits are publicly available documents and are open to anyone. I am in violation of nothing, therefore he can do nothing, so your threat is unfounded. All important points of the disputation are verifiable from books in print with relevant quotes, to which I have duly, and comprehensively given in my posting. The affidavits are only therein included to back up verifiable information that is obvious, and are the only integral documents to back certain claims in the HOGD/A+O entry. Such as the agreement between Griffin and Behman. This type of biographical information can only be soured from actual publicly available original sourced documents, that are signed by the hand of Griffin and Behman. To which I might add, is comprehensive factual, and accurate information. "/wiki/User:Frater_FiatLux" 18:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is direct information on how to download the affidavit direct from the COURT:

Please find infra: the ECF link at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. You can find the original court affidavits I used supra in my posting with: The case number which is- C05-432 JSW, and the ruling court for this case is the San Francisco Courthouse. ""https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/index.html"" Furthermore, please find again infra a message served to the Hermetic-Order-of-the-Golden-Dawn public forum, at Yahoo groups: ""http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hermetic-Order-of-the-Golden-Dawn/message/5095"" The message served to HOGD public forum contains clear and comprehensive instructions on how to download the original court affidavits, from the original public domain source.

Frater FiatLux 16:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I just left a note at your Talk -- the WP:LIVING concern and the copyright concern are sort-of red herrings. We're really not in the habit of hosting reference material of any kind locally, and we also avoid hosting PDFs. Jkelly 16:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

scifi articles & WP:POINT

I hate to even bring something so petty here, the AFD on star trek sort of peeked my interest in the matter, it seems like people are going on a WP:POINT spree, and nominating scifi related atricles left and right, some sort of 666 related practical joke? I'm not sure, but it's going to become messy I think--152.163.100.65 16:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

New class of warning templates re: WP:POINT

Please see this regular noticeboard post. Thanks. Netscott 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin threatens block for oppose vote

Check this out. He is threatening to block me now for opposing his friend's RfA. Incidentally, a month ago, the same abusive admin threatened legal action like this. That harangue was duly reported in WPANI and WPVP. Anwar 16:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think he is threatening to block you for opposing an rfa. He is warning you that making personal attacks could lead you to getting blocked. You are free to debate if the comments you made on that rfa are personal attacks or not; I don't deem them to be, but at least a couple of users believe that they tantamount to personal attacks. However, you cannot twist the language of Bhadani's message on your talk page in this way. Also, please understand that the last time you posted here, the consensus was that your "refactoring" was wrong. (Associated thread here). However, you chose to ignore the messages on this forum and retained the messages as they were. Please do not expect people to give a patient hearing when you are not ready to offer the same courtesy. As the saying goes, people who live by the sword, die by the sword. Translated, people who defy consensus cannot expect to formulate consensus. Good day, --Gurubrahma 17:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The comments were clearly not personal attacks, but commentary on a person's edit history when that person is a candidate for adminship. The reason that comments about people's personalities are discouraged in article talk pages and other general discussion is that they are not relevant. However, in reviewing a person's application for administrative access, that person's personality is central. The comments, by raising concern about a potential administrator's editing habits (and that is a lot of reverts!) are in fact praiseworthy as a contribution to the review of the application for adminship. Threatening to block was harmful and chilling to the consensus-making process. --FOo 03:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; however this reasoning would apply if and only if the reverts fall into edit war category. Almost all of them fall under reversting vandalism category. Anyone who has even a cursory look at his edits would understand it. Anyways, it was great that you could take time to comment here. It would be much appreciated if you can also look at the reverts by him and how many of them correspond to edit warring. While I absolutely agree that commentary is essential, for an oppose vote, diffs are even more essential. In the absence of diffs and given the pattern of Anwar's voting, other editors would feel justified in forming an opinion that he is only rabble-rousing. The diff that Anwar provided doesn't refer to POV warriorship. --Gurubrahma 03:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello FOo, I think it was a typo on his part. His sentence should have read "Significant edits are unacceptably low - just 22% of his edits". My reverts were just 8%. Please check contribution section on my RFA. I mention this since you said, "that is a lot of reverts!". - Ganeshk (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. This admin's actions towards you were inappropriate. The repeated requests to meet in person (immediately after issuing weird legal thread) creep me out a little too. -lethe ^{talk +} 08:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My response

I am fully seized of the concern of the esteemed members of the community at the activities of Anwar, and complaints against him have been received. I have put him on alert – Warning I think that he is a nice person and is capable of improving promptly. --Bhadani 14:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If Anwar has made personal attacks against you as part of his problems, is it really wise for you to be the one placing his "last warning" on his talk page? That smacks of gloating, can be perceived as abuse of power to win the argument, and I believe is against Administrator best practices. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for your very wise suggestion, which does not smack of gloating (feel or express great, often malicious, pleasure or self-satisfaction) and would like to add that I have always maintained best administrative practices, but I can not compromise on the core values of the wikipedia. And, I am sure that all true wikipedians shall do the same by not using the words like "gloating" and imputing motives to me (or to others) which trangresses the wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith. I am happy that you have implicitly accepted the lacunae in the edits of the user Anwar by not defending his editorial style! As I have better work here to do then to indulge into a fault-finding mission, I shall not make further comments on the issue. Cheers! --Bhadani 14:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think copyright and other wikipedia rules are being broken

I think copyright and other wikipedia rules are being broken. Please see the discussion page for the JP Holding article which is hereken 17:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Appears to have been protected, and is in discussion. --InShaneee 03:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of blocked vandal appear

Blocked vandal WoodDaver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back as Gene Chris Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and probably GeniusCreator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). For details and evidence see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WoodDaver. This sockpuppet discussion page doesn't get much attention, doesn't it? — Sandstein 18:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

ARYAN818 (talk · contribs) problems

ARYAN818 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been adding POV unsubstantiated information to a load of articles (see their contribs). They also made this comment, which was removed by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as trolling. I removed 3 edits they did to Proto-Indo European[69]. Can someone watch this user for anything they might do? Perhaps they should be blocked for trolling next time they make a comment, like the last one they made.-- The ikiroid  18:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The 818 stands for HAH, among neonazis common crypto for Heil Adolph Hitler (just like the 18 in Combat 18). Don't expect anything constructive of this user. The Username is in violantion already! -- ActiveSelective 19:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked per WP:USERNAME. Ral315 (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Hryun is unhappy about this AfD result and about WP:NOR. What's slightly novel, is the idea, that he can get his will by force and we should better compromise:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Physics&diff=57222178&oldid=57210649

Pjacobi 19:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Chuck Marean

User:Chuck Marean is displaying inability to follow policy and consensus regarding placement of external links in List of web directories and Web directory, despite continued discussion & warnings by multiple editors. User made two disruptive edits(reverting to original article) in order to prove a WP:POINT: [70] & [71]. --mtz206 (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User continues to keep trying to make a point with unnecessary page creations [72]. Ignoring numerous editors' warnings and advice. --mtz206 (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The net effect of this user's contributions seems to have been mildly disruptive rather than constructive; at the very least, even as he has made valuable contributions to some articles, he has also caused several other editors to spend time repairing damage. We ought, I think, to continue to assume good faith, inasmuch as the user doesn't appear to be editing maliciously and is relatively new; nevertheless, if he, having been apprised of policy and having seen many edits reverted, doesn't undertake to comport his editing with policy and to discuss major revisions on talk pages (ideally before editing, but surely after, at least before revert warring), he will have demonstrated himself unwilling to collaborate with other editors, and an RfC might then be in order, so that he might learn how better to interact with the community (I am confident that this user's primary purpose here is not to disrupt--even as disruption may be his primary effect--and so I'm hopeful that he can change). Joe 04:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

AlexPU keeps on attacking despite his block

Recently, User:AlexPU was blocked for a week and then for a month for numerous personal attacks, 3RR violations and so on (enclosed below is original Ghirla's report).

However, he recently made another attack on his talk page saying "Like Khruschtchev said: Ми їх поховаємо!"

In Ukrainian, that stands for "We will bury you", and refers to Khruschtchev's speech during which he threatened to "bury" the USA. I don't think this is a stunningly constructive or neutral reply, showing that he is still quite agressive.

I don't know what's the exact policy for that, but I'm reporting it so you know. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

AlexPU (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been blocked yesterday for a week by Dmcdevit (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). In the block, the following reason was cited: "3RR and more egregious incivility despite many previous "final" warnings".

The last block was prompted by this activity (pay attention to edit summaries and actual words used at the talk page entries). This isn't a new behavior from this user lately.Perhaps these two entries from recent archive of this very board would help remind some of what's going on: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive99#Uncivility report and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive97#user:AlexPU|maintaining an attack page and perpetually unleashing uncivil diatribes there as well as all around Wiki]].

The user beats the record by an amount of "FINAL warnings" he received (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 8, 9) all to no effect whatsoever. Neither his previous block (for "Personal attacks, incivil behavior") did him any good. His talk, which is an attack page on his opponents, a Black Book-type list compiled by him, isn't moderated, he persisted with addressing his opponents by their ethnicities (misapplying those too), calling them vandals, propagandists and whatever.

However, what he posted at his talk following the very last block is just unspeakable. He trippled the level of his attacks and spiced them with homophobic ("You, smelly faggot"), ethnic ("gypsy") and sexual ("whore") slurs. While there is no indication that any of his opponents actually belong to any of these groups, I am calling this behavior to the admin attention.

The first thing that comes to mind is to lock his talk page as well so that he would have no chance to assault anyone anywhere at wiki-space but this may be counterproductive as it may prevent others from talking to him and would prevent him to censor his previos attacks and the black book should he come to senses. Warning him seems useless but something needs done. Perhaps doubling the block for the post-block activity so that he sees that his actions would have further consequences? I leave it up to the community.

I don't see why we need to waste the ArbCom's time for such an obvious case. ArbCom is busy enough. I don't see any sense of an RfC since, again, this is plain enough, got sufficient exposure for many people to comment already and they commented. There seems to be a need for an action rather than talk. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've used a translator as I'm not fluent in Russian, and your summary fits. I've extended it to a month, any admin is free to change the length. Will (^E_@) T 18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not just get it over with and ban him? --mboverload@ 18:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to support an acclamation ban at this point. If he continues, I'll support acclamation banning Will (^E_@) T 21:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

undelete

Hello,

I am the creator of the page "Jed Simon." For some reason, the page was deleted, and I don't understand why, or how to get it restored. The explanations on the website are very convoluted and confusing. Could you please let me know how it can be restored?

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon squared (talk • contribs)

It was incorrectly speedily deleted, perhaps because there had earlier been an article about an unverifiable individual with that name who claimed to be an American wrestler turned British producer. If it can be properly demonstrated that this Jed Simon you want to write an article about really was a guitar player for Frontline Assembly, there will be no problem undeleting it, I'm sure. Note that we do need all of our information to be verifiable, however. Jkelly 20:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. So, how do I go about having the page restored, so that I can add the citations? Thanks again, Simon_Squared. 17:10, 6 June 2006

WP:DRVU. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just pasted the text to User:Simon squared/sandbox. Jkelly 21:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A Google search of "Jed Simon" in conjunction with "Frontline Assembly" gives 374 pages. The article should be definitely undeleted. Friendly Neighbour 21:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy-delete mistakes happen from time to time. Jkelly 21:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved then! Yahoo! --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Sorry for being such a Wiki novice! I'm trying to learn as I go, which in retrospect, isn't the best way to create a page! Simon squared 01:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)simon_squared

It's a very good way and one we encourage, in fact :-). See WP:BOLD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Article restored. I speedied then it as it seemed a repost of a previously deleted one. It can be expanded now. --Tone 18:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:MONGO removing text from userpage

Can an Admin remove a diff from my userpage?

Put another way, can a simple diff constitute a personal attack?

I had a diff to a comment by an admin (MONGO (talk · contribs)) on my userpage with contentious link text that MONGO believes constitutes a personal attack. He removed it. I replaced it without the contentious text. He removed it again, and threatens to protect my userpage.

Is there a policy that supports him? If not, can someone reason with him? — goethean ॐ 20:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You have a history of using your userspace to launch personal attacks on others as shown at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Goethean/Examples. I have also been informed about you by another admin...[73]. Do not misuse this resource. See: What your userpage is not--MONGO 20:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you shouldn't be trying to reveal other people's personal information, even if they had revealed it once. It is not your call. And I too would probably take offence if I was listed under "Alerts". --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:USER#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space. What MONGO is doing is perfectly reasonable and consistent with the policy. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 20:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong in linking a perfectly valid diff, and changing someone else's userpage unless there are clear personal attacks is very inconsiderate. Lapinmies 23:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you know about Gator1 and Katefan? MONGO is perfectly within his rights to remove personal information about himself. In theory he should have been omniscient and known to never reveal it in the first place, but in practice, shit happens. --Cyde↔Weys 00:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. As one who who Goethean has compiled links on in his attempts to undermine his "opponents," I totally support MONGO's removing links; they only serve to perpetuate strife. FeloniousMonk 01:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this kind of thing, trying to use someone's workplace or personal life against them, has a bad effect on the whole project. Mongo was right to take it down. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if people know where I work...it would be a really bad idea for them to go and use that information for any maliciousness they may have planned, so my place of work is not the issue. It is the repeated misuse of userspace that bothers me, and that this editor has done now at least twice.--MONGO 01:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: Please see this and this. I welcome any assistance or input here, this is garden-variety trolling currently, it would be nice if someone could get through to Goethean before he loses the community's respect. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And he wonders why his userspace attracts the attention of admins? Goethean should cease using his userspace as a soapbox if he doesn't appreciate the attention. FeloniousMonk 17:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Bombs Away

It appears to me that this user (or, from what I can make out, group of people sharing a user account) are using the user page as their own website (Wikipedia is not a free host). The "user" has only made three contributions to the main space, all of which were vandalism. I suggest deleting (not just blocking) the user account. Waggers 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, accounts are not deletable. The best we can do is to block the account, delete and/or protect the user & user talk pages, and if necessary, scan and block the IP for a while to prevent sock-farming. 20:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Glancing over the talk page, it appears the user has not even been made aware that using their userpage as a personal website and a free host is not acceptable. Before jumping to block the user, perhaps attempts should be made at making this clear? Cowman109^Talk 22:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

12.40.111.107 (talk · contribs)

The above anon has made 22 edits in the past hour and a half, adding large blocks of trivia, quotes, and POV information to the introduction paragraphs of various articles. The user has been warned four times to please stop. This isn't vandalism, as it's well-intentioned, but I'm unsure of what to do and so I decided to report it here. TomTheHand 21:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll give him a short timeout. Sasquatch t|c 22:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, he's gone.. perhaps tomorrow. Tell me if he comes back. Sasquatch t|c 22:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

1960 International Harvester T4 in Miscellaneous Questions

Hi,

I was blocked from replying, even though I promise I have never knowingly done vandalism to any website or computer.

I just wanted to reply:

"LOL!! That photo was submitted by my ex. The driver is my son, Ken. EVERYONE around here knows who he is. Everyone who knows the value of that crawler doesn't really want to make an enemy out of my ex, so it has been extremely difficult to get an unbiased appraisal. Thank you very much for confirming that THAT is the ONLY crawler like it around.  :)"

Thank you very much for this forum, Debra Schreiber

You have not been blocked. Lapinmies 23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Block indicated for own good

Please look at the trail of, or perhaps contact MollyBloom. I don't do medicine in America, and this isn't a diagnosis, but I submit that a block for a few hours would be for her own good as much as anything else. Alternatively or as well, if someone could locate a mediator cabal member, or attempt a quiet word, it would be a good act. Pointing out that WP does this Jgwlaw (talk · contribs · logs) and for a reason might help or might not... Midgley 02:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Incivility appears to be a problem for both of you. --InShaneee 02:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That won't do as a response. JFW is an admin who is still up and about, I suggest you poll him, or InvictaHog who has edited recently, before you come to a conclusion. Midgley 02:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That IS my response. A look at the talk pages you've been on shows BOTH of you openly attacking each other repeatedly. --InShaneee 03:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Noted. Your reply, your decision, your responsibility. Midgley 09:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with InShanee here, Midgley. You've tangled with – and gotten tangled up with – some rather...tendentious editors on Wikipedia, and I can understand that you might be frustrated at times. However, you've a history of skating awfully close to (and sometimes over) the limits of civility yourself.

Unless and until your own behaviour is above reproach, please don't keep coming back for another bite at the apple on this. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not a negative feedback arrangement. Midgley 09:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Molly has a lot of nerve to suddenly claim victimhood. With all due respect, Midgley has been pretty restrained with his comments towards her. Please look and see where the downward spiral started & I guarentee you won't come away thinking it was from Midgely. The bizarre flurry of activity by Molly on an obscure entry should point to where the problem lays. If I complained every time I got pretty venomous language from her on the breast implant article where she's distinguished herself, I'd be asking for moderation daily Droliver 17:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Dannycarlton

Dannycarlton (talk · contribs) has been inserting links to his own webpages in a number of articles, and has been hostile and abusive on talkpages to defend their insertion. Could someone have a look and warn/block as necessary? JFW | T@lk 02:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've warned him about his incivil behavior. --InShaneee 03:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User removing warnings from their own talk page

(I originally posted this at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism but was advised to post it here instead. Since usually removing warnings from one's own talk page results in a block, I thought it was a pretty simple case, though.)

AlexR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Was warned with the Wr2 template for removing warnings about personal attacks and civility from their own talk page. The user removed this warning and continues to edit using abusive edit summaries (for example: [74]). The same user also made a legal threat against another user here: "And you are bloody lucky you are not in Germany, otherwise, I'd see you in court for those lies and false accusations and slander.". Catamorphism 02:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought about posting something here as well, but hesitated because AlexR seemed to finally be catching the attention of some admins, and because there's sort of a mediation case involved (which Alex R openly has no respect for). But since Catamorphism broke the seal... I can't believe this user hasn't been banned. Just look at his most recent edit. He has been warned over and over again, with problems going all the way back to April 2004. I'd say removing the warnings is the least of it. --Allen 02:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that removing the warnings is the least of it. It's just that this is the first time when AlexR has clearly violated a rule that I know of (personal attacks don't necessarily result in blocking unless it's repeated, though by now, it seems to be repeated enough that it would justify a block). Catamorphism 02:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Two serious personal attacks by User:Jar Jar

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUrthogie&diff=56341004&oldid=55436039 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUrthogie&diff=57320828&oldid=57211041

True, I got angry and was a bit rude on his talk page after he posted the first personal attack, but none of what I said or did warrants the first unprovoked insult, and the second serious one.--Urthogie 07:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Loserlarry removing deletion tags from nonsense articles

This guy keeps removing the db-nonsense tag I keep placing in The Weasel Overlord. He also vandalized the article Kaiserslautern American High School, which I also fixed. I already warned him in his talk page, so I'd appreciate an Admin taking a look at the situation. Thanks, --CapitalR 10:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• This guy just recreated his article (The Weasel Overlord) that was just deleted, and he's warring a number of people over the deletion tag we keep putting on it. I suggest he be blocked right away. --CapitalR 10:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've deleted the article again, and put a warning on his talk page that if he vandalises or adds any more nonsense, he'll be permanently blocked as a vandalism account. --ajn (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Disruption of contentious survey

Last night, User:Appleseed moved Sigismund III of Poland to apparently his own preferred location, despite of the fact that a contentious vote, RM vote, was then ongoing at its talkpage. Already then it was quite clear that the alternative to which Appleseed moved the article (=the one beginning with Zygmunt...), is NOT going to win. It has a minority, practically an ethnic-Polish group of users as it supporters. The survey favored much more an alternative, that beginning with "Sigismund...". The page has earlier been subject to several moves. I am not going to ponder over those in this complaint. Whereas the move Appleseed did last night, dangerously disrupts the survey. The survey which was not ging to the direction Appleseed presumably wants. Appleseed is known to be a bit possessive and obstinate editor, which offers some background explanation why he did now what he did. This sort of moving simply must not allow to happen when RM is ongoing, and such behavior should be disencouraged. It's disruption of Wikipedia processes. I hereby request that Appleseed is blocked for some time, week or so, to reflect his ways to act here. Marrtel 13:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Libelous and unsubstantiated comments being made on the discussion board of my entry

I have an entry in the Wikipedia (Al Seckel) and am an internationally known author and authority on cognitive neuroscience and its relationship to perception, and have authored many books on the subject, and have lectured on this subject at many of the world's most prestigious institutions. (A google search under my name: Al Seckel will verify this. Also a visit at my home page at Caltech (http://neuro.caltech.edu/~seckel) server now down, so you have to view the cached version). In a previous incarnation, I was the founder of a group out of Caltech, which debunked pseudoscientific claims, and had my own columns in both the Los Angeles Times and Santa Monica News.

There is a very mentally disturbed person Tom McIver, who has been consistently re-editing my profile based on his hatred of me for combatting creationism as science in the public schools and speaking against UFOs. On the discussion board he has made unsubstantiated and negative comments about my academic history, affiliations, medical history, and has stated that I have embezzled money from not only my organization, but also from individuals, the list goes on and on. Nothing substantiated. In the discussion board, I can show quite readily through Wikipedia's own guidelines that his personal diatribes, which have no documentation other from what he himself published in the non-peer reviewed self published magazine "Saucer Smear" state. This journal rallies against anyone who speaks out against scientists and others who dismiss the accounts of extraterrestrial visits, psychics, and goes on against atheists, etc. I, on the other hand, can cite rebuttals to him from Nature, Science, Discover, Skeptical Inquirer, NY Times, Los Angeles Times, etc., which are peer reviewed.

The point of this, is that the discussion board contains statements about me (from this one individual) who is clearly posting material that is not only libelous, but threatens my credibility and financial status, as I am involved in many business affairs, and someone reading this sort of thing could pull away from business deals. This could cause serious legal ramifications not only for Wikipedia, but for McIver. I am already starting to take legal action against McIver for slander and libel. It is quite easy to go to reliable sources (Wikipedia approved) to verify that his information is not only negative, but false. It is important for the credibility of Wikipedia to remove this discussion (and its history) entirely because it will cause irreputable harm not only to myself, but also to the credibility of Wikipedia. Although, Wikipedia is excellent as an "open source" document, it can not survive as a credible document in the world of scholarship, if it freely allows people to add information (or delete information) that is untrue for purposes of disparagment.

It is obvious from reading the discussion board, that the editor (who now seems to have caught on and refered me to you), has stated that in my original posting on the cite, that no incorrect information from me was stated, and that McIver was adding material that was not stated by me in order to disparage and discredit me. Nevertheless, the disparaging information can be found on the discussion page and its history. I respectfully ask that the entire history of McIver's comments (as well as my rebuttles be removed).

Yours sincerely, Al Seckel—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.215.109.78 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 7 June 2006.

This is reminding me of a similiar sounding case. Netscott 15:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Both Mr. Seckel and Mr. McIver have made, shall we say, questionable personal comments about one another. I advised Mr. Seckel to contact the Foundation about having them deleted from the history. If any admin would like to review them now, I have compiled a list of diffs of those that seem problematic at User:Thatcher131/temp. Thatcher131 16:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I took a look at this article, as well as some of the opposing material that McIver has elsewhere on the web, after McIver's failed attempt to have the Seckel article deleted. While I have no idea whether there is substance to McIver's allegations, he is right on one thing: this article makes a great example in favor of WP:AUTO. Although it's very well-written in an encyclopedic style, I have to suspect that, in tone and content, it is totally different from what would have been written by a disinterested third party. Fan1967 19:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I would also like to note above how often Seckel refers to "my entry", "my profile", "my article". Quite frankly, that bothers me. Fan1967 20:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to remind him about WP:OWN if you want. He uses a stable IP address and also has a user account Al Seckel (talk) although he rarely uses it. It might help if both involved parties knew there were many eyes on the article, not just mine. Thatcher131 20:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And gee, do you think it's possible that he uses the anon IP instead of his ID so that the edit history doesn't show that the article has been written almost exclusively by him? Fan1967 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, he was very open about signing the talk page "Al" even when not logged in. Thatcher131 22:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if this guy is notable enough for an article, I must say the current version doesn't seem very encyclopedic. It seems to impossibly overstate his importance, if I was actually immodest enough to write an article about myself, I think I would at least try to write from a npov. This guy has really thrown that out the window. I thought this level of pretention was actually fatal. Although I have never heard of this guy, nor edited "his" article, and if I had to take a position I would probably support the so called "skeptical one", but I must say this situation kinda upsets me.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Basically, Seckel wrote a very long article, JDoorjam radically trimmed it, and I found some references to try and improve it. I got distracted into other things, while Seckel continued to work on it. To his credit, he seems to have adopted a wikipedial style, and did not restore too much of what JDoorjam had removed. When Tmciver launched the Afd it jolted me back into action. I have been working on rewriting sections using references I find, trying to adhere to WP:BLP as well as WP:RS, while dealing with two highly opinionated disputants who have been trying to persuade me with tales of personal letters and phone calls verifying or disputing this or that (WP:NOR of course).

Tonight, by hook or by crook I will finish, then I will tag it {{POV-check}} and let fly. (I asked for a half-day's grace so I can add the rest of the WP:RS I have found.) Thatcher131 22:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've finished doing what I can and added {{POV-check}} to the page. Dive in! Thatcher131 03:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It actually seemed fine to me; I've done a few little bits, but it was already 95% there. Proto||type 13:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Francis Schonken

User Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) is deleting comments from talk pages and forcibly archiving the talk page despite warnings not to do so. See Wikipedia_talk:Lists_in_Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about Wikipedia talk:Lists in Wikipedia, I don't see a problem with it. Discussions are often archived when they become fruitless or disruptive. FeloniousMonk 15:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sayinng that a user can unilateraly delete content from talk pages, close a poll and archive discussions that are current? I do not think so, FM. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems with User:Johnstevens5

Me and some others have problems with Johstevens5. He is constantly vandalizing articles, pushing for an extrem Turkish-nationalistic and anti-Persian POV, rejecting authoritative sources, etc.

He had already vandalized the articles Babur and Mughals, and went on with messing up the articles Alisher Navoi (here even with copy-right issues) and Ulugh Beg. And now, he has started to vandalize al-Farabi, again pushing for a pseudo-scientific, anti-Persian, Turkish-nationalistic POV.

I have warned him on his talk-page that I will contact an admin if he continues [75]. However, he simply deleted my message [76] and continued his vandalism [77][78][79] . He is totally ignoring the al-Farabi talk-page. He is again ignoring authoritative sources, such as Encyclopaedia of Islam (THE source regarding Islamic history) and Encyclopaedia Iranica (THE source regarding Iranian history).

I had already asked User:Khoikhoi and admin User talk:Naconkantari for help, and they replied that they keep an eye on this user and - if necessairy - will report him. [80].

I am going to revert al-Farabi for a last time (because of 3RR) and then I leave it to admins to solve the problem. This is not an issue of different opinions, but that of a Turkish-nationalistic zealot pushing for an extreme racist POV. And he is continuing this nonsense: [81]

We need your help! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tajik (talk • contribs) .

• Someone does indeed push an Pro-ethnic POV .. see the babur Talk Page if you really want to start poking around this hornets nest. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Johnstevens5

User:Johnstevens5 is just coming off a block for 3RR and he is now removing whole sourced paragraphs that don't correspond with his POV. I am not sure, but I think this qualifies as vandalism. [82] --ManiF 16:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

More vandalism, where this user simply delets well-referenced parts of the article only because he does not like the message: [83] Tajik 19:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Incivil comment from User:Hucz

I don't know if I'm over reacting, maybe a simple warning on the users talk page? Incident here. He appears to be a contributing user to wikipedia so I couldn't really endorse a block at this time.--Andeh 15:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Rajputs, again

the Rajput trolls are at it once again, and the editors watching the articles find it hard to keep up with cleaning up. According to Talk:Rajput, among the IPs/accounts involved are

• User:Tatra
• User:Tamzigh
• User:Arjun Singh
• user:Partha rathore
• User:Moulin rouge
• User:Tykwndo19
• User:Rajguru
• User:Fateh Singh
• User:131.151.90.152
• User:202.138.112.252
• User:220.225.171.198
• User:60.254.51.66
• User:64.12.116.7
• User:220.227.204.38
• User:192.91.75.30
• User:192.94.94.106
• User:192.94.94.105
• User:192.91.75.29

This is the same old crowd that was warned, banned and blocked over and over again. I would welcome it if some admins put at least Rajput on their watchlist and blocked disruption with prejudice. thanks, dab (ᛏ) 15:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith reverts/edit warring

This probably just merits a warning but Raphael1 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • logs) appears to be reverting in bad faith relative to the editorial commentary he made, "rv Netscotts vandalism" on a shortcut ( WP:VOTE hist) that I just made yesterday. Originally I made the shortcut point to Wikipedia:Voting is evil but I changed it to Wikipedia:Voting is not evil after I made the additional shortcut WP:NOVOTE. I'm thinking that the only way that he would have become aware of my editing on that particular shortcut would be if he tracked my edits (something others tend to call "wikistalking") looking for revert candidates. Thanks. Netscott 16:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to User:GTBacchus. Netscott 16:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Block user: Ben-w

This user has a long history of removing cited information from the stubhub page.

Ben-w just completely removed something that has been cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flmarinas (talk • contribs)

• It's not as clear-cut as you would like to make it seem. The disputed edit is true but poorly written and POV. I'm sure you can do better with the facts at hand. Thatcher131 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

user:Purger keeps deleting "pov check" tag, even after being explained the rules

user:Purger keep deleting {{POV check}} tag from the top of the article Neo-Nazism in Croatia. This article has been a scene of a edit-war for very long time and we are nowhere near concensus. I studied rules of wikipedia and decided to put "POV check" tag.

Chronology:

• I put "POV check" tag without detailed explanation on talk page, but wrote "I remind that removing tags in a sort o vandalism, see Types of vandalism" in comment
• user:Purger soon deleted the tag
• I returned the POV check tag and explained in detail the reasons precisely citing wikipedia rules. I also copied the most important part "Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled." to make sure everyone understands the rules.
• user:Purger deleted the tag.
• I put it again.

Please, anyone, try to explain the rules to user:Purger, he has a quite a long hisory of conflict with other users here. --Ante Perkovic 19:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you first list the problem(s) that you want POV checking on the talk page, your explaination above only outlines wh the tag shouldn't be removed while a dispute is in progress, but you don't say what the dispute is. By placing the POV tag, you are saying "there is something that needs fixing", but, by not saying what, it makes it impossible for anyone to address your concerns. Regards, MartinRe 19:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Important: User claims mandate from high up regarding content

In AmiDaniel's archives he has this page User_talk:AmiDaniel/JLK_Archive. However, an IP has contacted me telling me that Wikimedia assured them references to John would be removed. [84]. It says he is a known sockpuppet but I thought this deserved at least a bit looking into. I'm not familiar with this at all, which is why I came here. I am NOT saying AmiDaniel did anything wrong, I'm just wondering if this is legit:

In answer to your question, we were told that all references to John and the magazine would be removed. We discovered that this page still remains on Ami's Archive. Please be so kind as to remove this page or delete the title and name headings as was done in the other instances. You know the history is still there if you need it. At this point this insignificant verbiage does not serve anyone. I don't understand what the point was for the name change; particularly since the link to the pseudonym is now posted online? This doesn't make any sense. Thank you. Eliz.67.86.180.171 19:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 7 June 2006 (UTC)

--mboverload@ 21:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't take his word for it. Ask. Email Jimbo. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

AmiDaniel said he would remove it. There is no "higher up" involved. Prodego ^talk 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it for now. As it's not in an article and has no obvious place on Wikipedia, I think it's reasonable to comply immediately with the request to remove it. [85].

I wonder if mindspillage would know about this. It sounds like an OTRS thing . --Tony Sidaway 21:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't, trust me. It was discussed at WP:VPA. Prodego ^talk 21:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Hryun threatening to edit war, evade blocks, etc.

Hryun (talk · contribs · block log) has been threatening to edit war, recreated deleted articles, evade blocks, and other disruption if he doesn't get an article about his fringe theory included in Wikipedia and linked to prominently from other articles.[86][87][88] He has already likely been engaging in sock-puppetry in order to evade 3RR[89][90][91] and is almost certainly a sockpuppet of other usernames who tried to create the same article (i.e. User:Rcq).

I told him to knock it off with the cheap threats, that this wasn't how things were done on Wikipedia, and that if he kept it up it'd be grounds for blocking.[92] He responded by referring me to a statement he had already made about not being afraid of blocks because he thinks he can get around them.[93] (I repeated my warning that threats were out of hand and also told him that it was unlikely that he had any tricks up his sleeve that had not been previously used around here.)

I'm just wondering if anyone would care very much if I blocked him the next time he threatens to disrupt in a direct way. Your input is appreciated. --Fastfission 21:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good call to me. --InShaneee 22:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I support you 100%. Evil socketpuppets are evil. --mboverload@ 22:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him and his socks plus i've semiprotected he uncertainty principle and speedy deleted an obscure non article that contained only an abstract. I suggest we keep an on on the physics pages for a while and block socks / delete crap on sight. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

GJRFMorelligu

Would someone please look at User talk:GJRFMorelligu. This user has been warned multiple times for removing copyright (and other) tags without fixing relevant problems. He refuses to provide his image sources, in many cases removing nsd tags and putting "image from world wide web." He has engaged in revert wars regarding many of the images, and a block may be in order, as it appears he has no intent of stopping or changing his ways. Thanks. --Hetar 02:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Block user: Ben-w

This user has a long history of removing cited information from the stubhub page.

Ben-w just again completely removed something that has been cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flmarinas (talk • contribs)

• Appears to be a content dispute. --InShaneee 02:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Perhaps, but he doesn't discuss edits and uses misleading edit summaries, like this (rv to last rational state). He seems to object to any attempt to actually describe what this company's business actually is. It's not precisely vandalism but it's real hard to deal with. Thatcher131 11:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Violation of Arbitration decisions

James Salsman has been editing Depelted Uranium articles in violation of 1.1 of his arbitration ruling, through the use of various IP addresses, and sockpuppets.

• [94], [95], [96], [97].

Articles should be SP for the time bieng. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFCU. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 03:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Metrocat sockpuppet

24.161.22.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) posted to my talk page unsigned, and when I went to look who it was, I saw it was one of three edits made by the account, the second of which was to an AN/I vandal from earlier this week, and in the third, the user identified themself as Metrocat, evading a ban. I blocked based on that, but I think indef is probably inappropriate for an IP. I don't know how to get much information from the WHOIS report, but could someone more IP savvy than I please reduce the block to whatever length is actually appropriate? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Our 'friend' Metrocat, or Thewolfstar is playing some cute games. The last user whose talkpage the IP commented on (their 'cousin') is Twasmetrec. The name is an anagram of "Merecat TWS", or Merecat (who Thewolfstar considered a friend) and TWS, or Thewolfstar.

But I wouldn't advocate blocking that account - give them the opportunity to try to do something right, and maybe they will realize that Wikipedia is quite welcoming to people who want to work on the encyclopedia.

The IP in question appears to be a RoadRunner account in Herndon, Virginia. It doesn't appear to be a proxy of any sort. I don't see a compelling reason to block; it only plays into this person's apparent persecution complex. KWH 04:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It was indeed Metrocat, who is indeed Thewolfstar, and it looks like he's only been on it the last few days (since the 5th); his IP appears to shift every three days or so. It's a dynamic RoadRunner IP, so I'd say a week will probably be sufficient, though he'll likely just force reconnect to get a new one.

On a related note, these are the same user:

• Metrocat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Twasmetrec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Buckyball-z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Macai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

No doubt; all the same user. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeez SJ, you stole my thunder... and you did it the easy way! KWH 04:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to lift or reduce the block, I have no problem with that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I almost hate to throw this guy to the sharks...

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

...almost, but not quite. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't. If anyone feels like doing cleanup, he's also responsible for:

• Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Users (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Determination (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JlMB0 WALES (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Coproero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Beer God (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Christ Almighty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BlankFlank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• FunkDunker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Blocking the IPs to stop the flow as well. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

More of the same from Horace Manley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Kotepho 05:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe he's also

• ¢um (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ¢umbucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ¢luster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• £over (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A real charmer, it seems. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

He is:

• Horace Manley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tyrell Incy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Beauford Spingolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Will check on the above. Essjay (Talk • Connect ) 05:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the individual IP blocks are not quite effective, since new accounts are still pouring in. I suspect that those IPs might be dynamic, and that we might have to block a whole range of IP addresses to completely suppress this vandal. 05:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.117.4.132 (talk • contribs) .

Indeed, he is the accounts listed above by GTBacchus. 69.117.4.132 is right, individual blocks are not working here; I've checked the /16, and there don't appear to be any legit contributors in it, but a lot of this kind of vandalism. I've blocked it for 24 hours; feel free to unblock if legit collateral damage shows up (make sure it's an established user, not a new account, and let me know about it so I can look for any tie-ins), or to reblock if it continues past the 24 hours. The range is 70.218.0.0/16. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, isn't /16 something like 65,356 IPs? Wait a minute... 70.218.x.x.... I've seen that range... no, it was 70.213.x.x, here. WHOIS identifies those as the same. It was a very similar pattern, and someone identified (correctly?) that person as User:Dschor, if memory serves. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's about 65,000 addresses. And yes, 70.218 and 70.213 both belong to the same company, Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless. Dschor has been in 70.218, but also in unrelated IPs. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Spam by HMLINC

HMLINC (talk • contribs) seem bound to use Wikipedia as a tool to market himself and/or his company, named HML Inc. Furthermore, he or she is constantly removing the AfD tags on the spam/vanity pages created with this account. /Magore 04:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked, nothing but nonsense from this user.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 05:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Daredevil dave is spamming boogers

Daredevil_dave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is persistently changing Boogers from a redirect to Nasal Mucus to third grade nonsense about nose-candy. (Four times in the last ten minutes. I used a {subst:test2} tag on his talk page, but he's ignored itJuneappal 05:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You should go to WP:AIV for response on that kind of thing. JDoorjam Talk 07:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Breaking UK laws

There is a concerted campaign by just a few hardened and very un-Christian individuals, including it would appear two administrators, to demonise Gregory Lauder-Frost. I myself would rather the page was just deleted as I see a biased presentation of anyone on Wikipedia as unfair. But now User:Humansdorpie has deliberately contravened both English and Scottish laws by deliberately and illegally posting information about legal difficulties Lauder-Frost had in 1992-3. Wikipedians must not think they can ride roughshod over our laws. I urge action to stop this continuing. Lightoftheworld 09:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be very careful, you are bordering on legal threats, and legal threats are cause for an immediate, permanent block from further editing. Wikipedia is bound by US law, not UK law; if you believe laws are being violated, you need to raise it with Wikimedia's legal department. Your first point of contact would be Wikimedia's attorney, Brad Patrick. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Re. the above, the following was posted on Humansdorpie talk page by User:213.122.46.228: You have deliberately chosen to flout the law because you think you are very clever. You are not. Believe me. Is this a threat? Yes, it certainly is. --Tyrenius 12:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Lightoftheworld indefinitely due to the above per WP:NLT. In my opinion, it is virtually beyond doubt that the IP address behind this post is Lightoftheworld, given that he has continued to carry on in the same vein. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd urge caution about blocking people in this case. This has been a troubled article for some time, there are unsourced claims in it, and the intro indicates the subject is not being written about in a neutral tone. I've put the blp template on the talk page so the subject (if he's the one complaining) can see what policies ought to be followed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Users cannnot expect to collaborate in writing an encyclopaedia with people they are suing or trying to get arrested. Preventing off-wiki intimidation takes precedence over everything else. He can withdraw his threats and edit (for good or for ill), or he can go to the police and not edit until legal action is completed. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Rollback abuse?

Can I have some comments about the behaviour of User:Rebecca, who repeatedly reverted normal edits on Psephos using the rollback function that is supposed to be for reverting vandalism? She has never explained her reverts either in edit summaries or on the talk page. Margana 13:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're being pedantic with your reverts. A historian is a person who has studied history, or so says the article anyway. User:Adam Carr certainly qualifies as someone who studies history. Why isn't Adam a historian? These questions are probably better answered back at the talk page. -- Longhair 13:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What does your opinion about my reverts have to do with my question? It's not vandalism, is the point. I don't even know what Rebecca's problem is. If she is of the same opinion as you about the "historian" wording, fair enough, but she should have put that in her edit summary or on the talk page, no? Margana 13:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There was this revert [98] yesterday with a comment of trolling. Before you ever edited that article the wording used to describe Carr was 'historian'. You keep taking it out, and it's not clear to anybody why. -- Longhair 14:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be grasping for excuses. Edit summaries for original, non-revert edits are not mandatory; especially since I made various other changes within the same edit, it wasn't very practical for me to explain all in an edit summary. However, I did subsequently discuss one of the points of my edit on the talk page, when there were objections. Unfortunately Rebecca didn't take part of the discussion, and I still don't know what her objection is. Her comment of "Stop trolling" was just an insult, since I was doing nothing like that. Margana 14:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

One thing is clear - Rebecca is using the rollback button on something other than vandalism, which is a clear violation of policy. I don't care about the rest of this, which is just content asshattery. I will have a word with Rebecca on her talk page. Proto||type 14:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Snoutwood (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What policy is that? Jkelly 16:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't solid policy, but it's discouraged for use against anything but pure and clear-cut vandalism, and for good reason. The unhelpful edit summary and connotation with vandal-fighting makes its use in content disputes inappropriate. Snoutwood (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if someone had slapped {{policy}} on Wikipedia:Rollback recently. Jkelly 16:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah. Snoutwood (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I had a similar problem with Rebecca a few days ago; I added an expansion tag to the Third-wave feminism article, and explained my reasons on the discussion page. She reverted my addition (marked as a minor edit) without any explanation.--Anchoress 15:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverts of non-vandalism without explanation are a bad idea, regardless of whether the rollback tool is used. Abuse of the rollback tool only makes it worse. I would say that Rebecca needs to be asked to revert with accurate edit comments, as a simple matter of courtesy and fairness. Al 16:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Margana: while you are not using the rollback tool, you are also reverting with content-free edit summaries. Is it too much to ask for you to have clean hands before complaining about someone else's behaviour? It takes two to revert-war, and you're being an enthusiastic revert warrior - constantly, if a view of your recent edits is any guide. Wikipedia should not be used as a battlefield, and that's what you're doing, article after article after article. I note your original edit to Psephos that started the whole thing was summary-free as well.

I would urge you to learn more collegial ways of improving Wikipedia than the battering-ram approach you are using right now. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the larger concern is not so much with the roll-back button as with the uninformative edit summary. A blank edit summary is uninformative, but so is "removed POV" or "NPOV" or "added clarity". Honestly, I'd rather see "rv - stoopid" than another "rv - pov". Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Repeatedly uploading of images with inappropriate licenses

Hi, I'm about to block User:Vlatkoto for a week for repeatedly uploading images which he licenses as {{GFDL-self}}, but which clearly aren't. I have tried to explain to him. He is also revert warring with User:Telex over the use of {{nolicense}} on one of his images [99]. If anyone disagrees, please note here. His image contributions are here. Aside from maps, which may be copyvios from Google Earth, most of the images he uploads are either copyvio or inappropriate licensed. To be fair, he is from Macedonia, which as other Macedonians inform me does not have enforcement of strict copyright laws, he may simply not understand the consequences. However, it is clear from his userpage that he has been pointed at our policies many times. I am in discussion with other Macedonian users to try and determine the exact copyright status of images produced by the Macedonian government as there is some confusion as to if they are public domain or not. I won't block him just yet, but if there is no objections I'll do it in a few hours. - FrancisTyers · 13:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As a note, I am trying to procure translations of key points relating to this in Macedonian. Notabily the Policy section from WP:FU and WP:COPY. - FrancisTyers · 14:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Añoranza

This user is going to each article that has the term "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in it and removed the term stating "no propaganda terms" or has added POV tags to any use of the term. This user has done this on the following articles Jeffrey Chessani [100], Haditha killings [101], David Kay [102], Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. [103], Martin Dempsey [104], even Get Fuzzy [105]

Is this the current standing of Wikipedia policy that military operation names are not permitted on any article space? Or is this over zealous editing. I am fearing this user is attempting to remove any mention of the operation from Wikipedia space. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to add this user moved Operation Just Cause citing its a propaganda name, from what I see without any talk page disucssion except her own comment Talk:Operation_Just_Cause#Propaganda_title, to US invasion of Panama then started renaming all examples of Operation Just Cause from articles that contain the term. Is this the news Wiki policy? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

When a colloquial name exists it should be used in preference to the military propaganda name. For example: "Gulf War" instead of "Operation Desert Storm", "Iraq War" instead of "Operation Iraqi Freedom", "World War II" or "Second World War" instead of "The Emergency", etc. I think this user is being overzealous though: obviously the propaganda names are notable and need to be discussed, but they shouldn't be the primary name we use to refer to events. --Cyde↔Weys 16:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The user has attempted to remove the term from every article, sometimes causing it to be reffered to as both in the same article. Breaking the uniform of the article itself. For instance some state the places the person served by operation, then state in the article now, the non operation term. It seems to me its also sloppy editing as enough thought was not put into its effects. Considering all were made today in the span of 2 hours or so. Are operation names allows in the body of articles? I understand possibly redirecting titles, but there is no policy regarding article bodies I would assume. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue over names, but I would be reluctant to call an operational name a "propaganda name." Operational names may be chosen for propaganda purposes, but I think it is more NPOV to refer to an operational name. Moreover, there have been arguably more than 1 U.S. invasion of Panama, so how do we distinguish between them? --CSTAR 17:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I had not even thought of that, its one article now. I did not see a disambiguation page, perhaps there was not an article on one? I worry about the obliteration of the term throughout wikipedia, but not had thought about the point you brought up. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User inserting ads in articles on congresspeople

Not sure if this is the right place to report this, but User:RebeccaM Contributions is systematically inserting links to [www.vis.org] on the pages of many members of congress. The page she is linking to lists the candidates in the congressman's current election race. This information is usually contained in the body of the article so the links are pretty non-significant. I'm guessing this is linkspan. Would someone mind taking a look? GabrielF 17:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Tony Sidaway

This user is trolling, and should know better, being an admin.

• first, he deletes a DRV i put up re Userbox. That has now been recreated and received some good intelligent discussion, leading to a resolution of the issue which could not have happened if tony had his way.
• I put a comment on his talk page asking him to talk about it, and he deletes the comment.
• And again... i continue to try and get him to address the real issue, but he keeps deleting my edits
• I find on his talk page that i'm not the only one disturbed by his behaviour. You'll have to check the history, he keeps deleting any posts which are not favourable to him.
• He creates a sockpuppet, User:64.132.163.178, and blows his own trumpet on his userpage, about him being a good boy and everything, before deleting the discussion because he realised that he got totally owned.
• I think an admin or someone with a bit of power ought to knock him down a few bars. Being an admin doesn't make you a god, as most admins would be happy to admit, because they can have intelligent discussions and accept criticism, unlike tony.
• Best outcome = deadmin, most likely = severe talking to by another admin, a 'please explain', most dangerous = he just continues on his vandalism rampage and deletes this post, in which case i will refer the matter to another admin via their talk page.

THE KING 18:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

/me notes that "User:64.132.163.178" is a non-logged in IP-user and not a "sockpuppet". --Vamp:Willow 18:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)