Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive114

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noticeboard archives

v • d • e
Noticeboard archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68
Incident archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158
3RR archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34
Other links
Talk | Checkuser | ArbCom enforcement | Backlog

Contents

[edit] General Tojo

I was called to assist on Talk:Parkinson's disease. There have been serial reverts and a possible 3RR. I left a message on the talkpage of General Tojo (talk • contribs), one of the disputants, cautioning him that abrasive rhetoric and personal attacks were not contributory.

In response this editor has now been performing random reverts on articles I have edited recently. Evidence on his talkpage.

A simple warning may be enough, but I suspect short blocks may be necessary if this behaviour persists. JFW | T@lk 16:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Left a message on the user's talk page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Lasted for 9 minutes, now refactored[1]. JFW | T@lk 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A user is entitled to blank anything that's not a legitimately issued warning, even if archiving is preferred; it's still in the history. If the user edits in a disruptive fashion, however, that's another matter. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
As a clarification: users in good standing are afforded the privilege of blanking stuff on their talk page. Users with, shall we say, "issues", are not afforded that same privilege. --Cyde↔Weys 19:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
LOL well, let's just say the good General does not have a monopoly on issues ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
For the record, User:PaulWicks has offered an explanation for the above edit. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
On Paul Wicks' talk page, Dan reveals what he believes to be RL information about Tojo.--Anchoress 21:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

General Tojo simply carried on messing about, doing a "half-revert" on Parkinson's disease to subvert the 3RR and threatening on the talk page to finish the job tomorrow. I have blocked him for 24h for NPA, gaming the system and general WP:DICK. He seems to be a well-known troll from Braintalk. JFW | T@lk 23:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit-warring aside, why has he been permitted to keep this username? Tojo was a convicted war criminal and such, after all. Kirill Lokshin 01:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • This is an utterly unacceptable username. It must be changed. I dropped the user a note informing him that he must apply for a WP:CHU. As for the people who knew of this username and said nothing, I need to calm down before I'm going to say something I'll regret. Shameful. El_C 10:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

See Hideki Tojo for details. The response to El C's request has been more trolling. I sense civility burnout. JFW | T@lk 12:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the user indefinitely and protected the talk page. His responses were totally unacceptable. El_C 19:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has a name that nobody has ever previously objected to. They are notified that their user name must be changed. Before the warning period even expires that person is banned permanently. It is obvious from the above, that ElC personally disliked the name and banned as soon as possible based on ElC's personal dislike of the name (*This is an utterly unacceptable username. It must be changed). Is that actually in the Wikipedia rules, because it appears that ElC is abusing them based on ElC's own personal likes and dislikes rather than properly implemeted procedure. It also appears to be in breach of the requirement to give proper notice of banning and the reasons. Is it right some Administrators exceed regulations based on their own personal bias.

Much of this discussion is based on what JFW has written. He himself was criticised by an Administrator for the excesses and inconsistencies of his actions. So why have decisions taken notice of what he has written when he himself was shown to be at fault ? Why also is he allowed to get away with personal attacks ("a well-known troll from Braintalk"), especially when discussions elsewhere of this personal attack showed that the personal attack had no factual basis ?

Are Administrators allowed to abuse or disregard the regulations as ElC and JFW have done ? --Jonee G. Ralto 21:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Jonee G. Ralto (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) blocked indefinitely for serving as a proxy for User:General Tojo . El_C 21:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Um, didn't you tell that user to get a new name? Jkelly 21:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed I did, but that was before the "racism" and "arrogance" diatribes. El_C 22:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah. I see. Jkelly 22:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. A quick scan of WP:U shows several rules which would forbid the use of username "General Tojo". The username was, as El C said, utterly unacceptable. Kasreyn 00:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

ElC has just proven his intolerance and inability to rebut his abuse of power. If he can't answer somebody he tries to shut them up. He has also just proven that he is a liar. Nowhere during the discussions was General Tojo racist as he has deceitfully claimed in order to try to justify his misconduct. This can be fully verified in the correspondence. So the excuses for his misconduct do not stand up to scrutiny. Also, General Tojo, who I know very very well, is actually a member of an anti racist organistation, thereby making a mockery of what constitutes libel. Is libel allowed on Wikipedia ? Arrogance is such a vague term - deliberately vague on his part so that it cannot be properly assessed. He himself has shown that he is remarkably arrogant. He was completely unable to rebut any of the criticisms of his abuses of power and instead rushed to a permanent banning. Do what he says - he won't and can't explain himself - or he'll ban you even if his actions are in breach of Wikipedia guidelines. He is an Administrator of the worst kind. --El Corrupt 22:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, indefinitely blocked. El_C 22:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Another "abuse of power" El_C threatened me with a final warning not to revert comments that he erased on my own talk page. User_talk:Travb/Archive_5#Somewhat_involving_Norman_Coleman_.3B.29 Its like a dog, El_C does it cause he can. Travb (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I take exception to that personal attack and distrotion. I removed Jonee G. Ralto's very first —stalking— edit. Travb does not bother to review the facts and is too quick to assume bad faith. El_C 22:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Travb, you need to tone down your language and take an AGF pill. If you have a problem with another editor's actions or judgment, fine, talk it out calmly: communication and collaboration are key here on Wikipedia. You don't seem to be getting it. Your confrontational and accusatory tone is the exact opposite of resolving disputes. Dmcdevit·t 23:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
TELL THE WIKITRUTH! Mackensen (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I gotta admitt, the fact he was allowed to keep that username for so long is really getting to me. El_C 06:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

El_C has here blatantly lied by claiming that he banned a member for racism (a member, who incidentally is a member of an anti-racist organisation). He has been completely unable to rebut that fact. He instead dispensed with all of Wikipedia's guidelines and procedures by banning a member solely because of his personal interests. He now admits above that it was because the name annoyed him. This is because El_C is a lecturer in Japanese history, and it was a Japanese military name that he objected to. Somebody who abuses Wikipedia, blatantly lies about his reasons in order to cover them up, and bases his own actions solely on his own needs and prejudices is not fit to be an administrator. As can be seen above, when faced with criticism he tries to deflect the criticism by arrogantly criticisng the critic. He himself should be banned. ... added in two edits on 23 June by 88.106.150.206

If you think he should be banned, then note that banning is a step beyond de-sysopping, so follow the advice conspicuously given at the top of this very page. Wherever you write your complaint, note that putting the whole thing in boldface won't make it more persuasive; it will just make you look like a blowhard and also remarkably like the late "General Tojo". But if that's the impression you want to make, fine. Hoary 10:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
From what I've seen, User:General Tojo only writes in bold text (see his talk page). El_C 11:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a request for checkuser ongoing on this user, who has now resurfaced under various usernames. I have blocked Emperor Hirohito (talk • contribs) indefinitely for violations of the username policy, and Parkinsons (talk • contribs) for sockpuppetry using the former. Modus operandi is identical. The Parkinson's disease article is now protected as a result of this troll's activities. JFW | T@lk 15:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

El_C must have something seriously wrong with him. The name General Tojo was only on the editing page of one Wikipedia page. Yet to him the mere mention of the name is intolerable even though in such an obscure place. However, General Tojo gets an entire article on Wikipedia yet he says nothing. Such illogic shows how emotionally iunadequate and irrational he is. Ironically I have added more as General Tojo since then making a complete mockery of his banning. he is so powerless. Jfdwollf, you're a pathetic keyboard coward. Insults and criticism when you think you are behind the protection of the Internet. Yet in the real world you wouldn't dare say the same things. A pathetic coward of the worst kind. I am far bigger than you intellectually, emotionally and physically. I now know where you are. You have given enough information about yourself in order to make that easy to find out. So why don't we meet up to see if you actually have any courage face to face. If you don't take up my invitation we can all assume that you are the COWARD I know you to be. --General Tojo...... 13:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Scribe85

Apparently, Scribe85 (talk • contribs) doesn't like to communicate. His edits get reverted on a regular basis (For example, he changes dates [2] and generally doesn't conform to any MOS guidelines - but he's done more). First he repeatedly blanked a talk page filled with warnings and when he finally archived as instructed, he put it on a page called "Useless Crap". I know stubborness or newbie-ness isn't a blockable offense, but it doesn't look like this user is going to conform to Wikipedia policy or even try to remain civil. What should I/we do? - Mgm|(talk) 21:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours for incivility, and have renamed his archive to something less obnoxious. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I have now reblocked him indefinitely, for his demands to be blocked and his absolute lack of civility and interest in communications. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Given his failure to respond to this, I endorse. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Middle_finger.JPG

Could we get this image added to the image blacklist? Johnny the Vandal is using over and over again. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Does it have any legitimate usages? if it does then it shouldn't be added, if it doesn't then we should see if it really needs to be added. Only the most severe image vandalism images should be added to prevent the list from filling up with erroneous listings. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 06:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It is primarily used on Finger (gesture) to illustrate the subject of that article. Therefore, I am not sure if it should be on any image blacklist. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
So is Image:Autofellatio, but it isn't allowed on the Autofellatio page. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
As I recall, the page you want to look into is MediaWiki:Bad image list. You might want to read the talk page before you do anything though. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rdos

Has been doing a lot of disrupting of Wikipedia lately to make a WP:POINT. On Talk:Asperger syndrome, bottom of the page, he admitted to forking arguments he personally disagrees with and "hiding" them in obscure locations to make his point that Asperger syndrome is not a medical condition, that it can be self-diagnosed by a layperson, and that it is a blessing. On deletion review under my proposal for undeleting Gilles Tréhin, he has made a snide remark about User:JzG's reasonable actions to prevent Rdos from spamming Wikipedia with his "Aspie-quiz" website link instead of addressing whether Trehin should be undeleted or not. On my talk page, he made another snide remark about me and JzG being "pals" when he shouldn't be communicating with me at all after I gravely insulted him and was blocked for three days for it. He has been clogging this notice board, the Asperger syndrome talk page, his talk page, JzG's talk page, and any other forum he can find with his protestations that he should be allowed to make his point that people with Asperger's are part Neanderthal. I realize that WP:POINT is only a guideline, not a policy, but Rdos has been doing a lot of disrupting to try to make people listen to his ideas. He has disrupted deletion review further by trying to get his "Neanderthal theory of autism" undeleted when it has been posted and deleted many, many times, which is a disruption in itself. I don't know what to do about him, and I can't go off on him again, so I'm leaving a message here so I don't get angry and say something inappropriate. Brian G. Crawford 08:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you got this wrong, Brian. I suggest you provide some diffs to prove your point. I've not talked much, if anything, about the Neanderthal theory at Wikipedia before I saw its deletion and was demanded to remove it from my user page. This is clearly when these discussions arised. As for moving content out of the Aspergers syndrome article, this was done by consensus and the need to reduce size of the article. You are trying to make the Aspergers syndrome article a WP:POV article again. Not everybody shares your view that autism is a disorder or disease, and Wikipedia should be neutral. As for the reincarnations, I'm not responsible for any of them. I listed the last deletion for WP:DRV, which I'm AFAIK I'm allowed to do --Rdos 08:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course you think I'm wrong. You think anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Brian G. Crawford 08:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Provide the diffs. --Rdos 09:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
This statement is redundant per your talk, and the current debates on WP:AN and here. Stop baiting other users. Just zis Guy you know? 09:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Any way you want it, but the above comment that "I'm always right and others wrong" doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand. --Rdos 09:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact that you clearly believe this is symptomatic of the problem. Just zis Guy you know? 14:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
How is that a fact? I won't you ask for diffs, because you will not provide them as of above --Rdos 15:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, dude. Just zis Guy you know? 09:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OMG an imposter!

User:John_Bradshaw_Layfield and John Layfield. Lapinmies 10:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Could be a coincidence. The first username is the name of a pro-wrestler. --InShaneee 22:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Could be a coincidence? The user mostly edits pro wrestling articles. He has even claimed to be the real person [3]. Lapinmies 05:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I have an idea, lets talk about it and not do anything! Killer! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 12.40.31.149 (Collective and proper nouns)

Please help. This user is edit warring with me on pages such as 12 Stones, The Doors, Rival Schools and The All-American Rejects when I was trying to correct the nouns. Later, he continues to change them back as well. He's trying to be like RJN, the person who continues to change nouns on the same pages. Please ban the user in a way to stop this edit war. Anything you could provide would be most helpful. 65.222.216.15 20:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a two-sided edit war, and WP:3RR may be applied to a lot of editors if it doesn't stop. If the users cannot decide between what sounds correct ("The Doors were a band...") and what is correct ("The Doors was a band..."), take it to dispute resolution. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think what's correct here may depend on dialect of English too -- American and British English have different rules for what is treated as plural on these issues. --Improv 21:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length on several talk pages to use "is" and "was" for American bands, not "are" and "were". See Guns N' Roses are vs. is, Talk:Angels_and_Airwaves/Are_vs_Is, and The Smashing Pumpkins are vs is. 12.40.31.149 21:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may point those interested to the discussion here, two manuals are cited which agree with the way I'd learned it a— well, a few decades ago (grin). I have noticed that Americans tend to go with what sounds right, to the point that misuses are eventually validated by dictionaries (I, for one, will never use "presently" when I mean "currently" [grin]). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but read that first paragraph in full, where it notes how sentences are rewritten to avoid what is clearly controversial in treatment of "the people constituting the team, rather than with the team as an entity." "Walt Disney Pictures presents" is perhaps the preeminent example of the treatment of a singular entity with a "plural" name. I will maintain to the end of my days that The Doors is a band, and its members are people. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I still find that completely counterintuitive, and wrong, and other stuff (possibly evil), but have long since given up on trying to make sense of it, as too many people honestly believe 'The Doors is a band' is even remotely decent English. People is strange. Proto///type 08:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No, no, no! A group of people is strange, people are strange! *ducks under barrage of rotten tomatoes* :D RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, RadioKirk definitely gets an A for grammar, he knows his stuff. I too have gotten involved in this silly dispute (and quickly got uninvolved). It's amazing how few people actually learn grammar anymore. Then you have these ridiculous arguments of people arguing that something that "sounds right" should be used, even though it sounds wrong to people who actually know what sounds right. --Cyde↔Weys 14:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I, as a non-native speaker, even know this.... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Fowler (Gowers edition) says that there are no hard and fast rules (Number, 6). The normal British practice is to treat collectives as plural (especially in cases such as The Doors or The Beatles where the name is itself a plural). Gowers gives the example of "the cabinet is" and "the cabinet are" both being appropriate in different circumstances. I think this is one of those cases where the rule about using the correct variety of English for the particular topic has to apply. --ajn (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why doncha ya'll shove yer socks in eet befur I get muy shotgon out my pick-em-up truck. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 15:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"If your date has ever had her hairdo ruined by a ceiling fan..." (apologies to Jeff Foxworthy) :D RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tourism in Slovakia

I am reporting a flagrant misuse of admin powers by Husnock. Firstly, I have replaced a terrible mess he has written in Tourism in Slovakia by a normal long text (I was forced to do that, although I certainly have more important things to do), secondly I have removed completely irrelevant information about a movie Husnock obviously likes and Husnock's FACTUALLY WRONG and ridiculous introduction text (tourism is not defined like promotion). As a compromise, I have left a link to the article on the movie in the See also section, but even this was – rightly – removed by another user – HywkerTyphoon. I have told Husnock repeatedly that his text is wrong and this information is irrelevant. Husnock's reaction to all this that I have allegedly violated the "4 reverts rule", although in fact it his him, who has violated it – he just keeps reintroducing his original text how ever stupid it might be and how ever the article changes. As a result: I request that I be immediately unblocked and that user Husnock be immediately blocked for the "reasons" he gave for blocking my account. Finally, I do not understand how a user like Husnock, who is unable to write normal content and is able to write what he originally wrote Tourism in Slovakia article, can be an administrator, and if I had the power to do that I would deprive him of admin powers, because admin must exhibit at least an elementary level of intelligence and non-personal attitude. User:Juro

Note that the above has been added by the new user Pete55 (talk • contribs) [4], not by Juro. Lupo 11:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Pete55 is Juro (i.e. me), because - interestingly - blocked users are unable to edit even this page (someone should change that). Pete55 12:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Steam (band)

Can we semi-protect a talk page? Blocked User:Musicknight is anonymously deleting comments from Talk:Steam (band). Ideogram 12:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it, can you semi-protect User talk:Ideogram as well? Ideogram 12:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nietecza

Could somebody please look after User:Nietecza's contributions? Thanks. --Thorsten1 12:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nateirma

Nateirma, over 6 days, keeps changing statistics in the infobox in the Canada page; changing the source from Statistics Canada to CIA. See [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Multiple editors have reverted him, and asked him on his talk page to discuss why he believe the CIA source should be used instead. He, however, does not discuss why he wants to change the source, and keeps removing those statements on his talk page (see [13], [14], [15], [16]) even after being warned that removing warnings on his talk page constitute vandalism. I would recommend a block so that the user knows that he must start discussing his changes. -- Jeff3000 13:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

He has reverted the Canada page [17] and blanked his talk page [18] again. -- Jeff3000 15:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for disruption/edit warring for 24 hours. Hopefully this editor will learn what talk pages are for. Petros471 15:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anne Milton

Another case of possible political whitewashing: [19] [20] David | Talk 15:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinite block of KraMuc

I have indefinitely blocked KraMuc (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). The immediate cause was this egregious personal attack, after I gave him this warning. In the interest of full disclosure, I have been involved in editing articles he's worked on, largely in regard to trying to explain/enforcec WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, whic he habitually ignores. In the past he has been blocked for a week for abusive sockpuppetry, and further back he made threats to take action against a user in real life. (Because the user in question was me, I elected to explain the rule in this regard and not to take further action at the time; however, he continues to allude to legal action in an effort to intimidate other users.) For more detail, read my warning.

Although the particular offense he just committed is not deserving of an indefinite block, on the heels of the warning I gave him it indicates to me that the user has no interest in following Wikipedia's rules and policies, either regarding basic civility or regarding our core rules like NPOV and NOR. He has been warned and reminded of these things an extraordinary number of times, with no result, so I no longer believe he has any potential to be an asset to the project.

If anyone has concerns about this blocking or is tempted to reduce it, I urge you to review the case in more detail. I am happy to provide more diffs and to discuss at length if requested. However, as his recent edit all by itself (his second block for personal attacks in the last few days) merits an extentended block anyway, I do request that time be allowed for discussion before the block is reduced. -- SCZenz 10:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that the NOR issue is disputable, it seems to be in part a lack of providing references in time (and he excused himself of being temporarily unable to do so). However, WP:NPOV and WP:CIV are sufficient for an extended block IMHO. Harald88 12:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I would add WP:SOCK and WP:NPA as additional grounds, but on the other hand, I wish he could come back at some future point a changed man and learn to play by the WP rules. If Krause's work is verifiable and notable, regardless of its possible fringe position, WP would want it properly described, with appropriate due weighting alongside other views. It seems that KraMuc is eager to present this theory, but needs to learn a collaborative and civil WP style to do so. If he ever does come back, I would support a "one strike you're out" probation for civility. Crum375 12:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Your points are both good. However, I think I gave him many extra chances to learn NPOV and NOR (and would never block for those alone anyway), and many extra chances on CIV and NPA as well. In the end, I gave him a "one strike and you're out" ultimatum on the civility, and he responded by making a scathing and deliberate personal attack on another user. I believed for a long time he might become a good contributor once he learned the rules, but at this point he's had every opportunity. -- SCZenz 15:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I saw some of his (and his puppets') vitriol and profanities in the meanwhile, and 'scathing' may be an understatement. I would say at least a year before any consideration for rehabilitation. Crum375 15:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If he's threatening legal action, you should point out "no legal threats". If he fails to adhere to that, he can be blocked until he does. - 87.209.70.231 21:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, now he's threatening real-life harassment [21]. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Too bad we can't do more than revert and block his socks on sight, which we were already doing. I recommend paying him as little attention as possible, and eventually he'll get bored. -- SCZenz 15:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Linkspammer - Geraldine123

User:Geraldine123 is currently spamming many articles with links to interviews on suicidegirls.com. Imroy 20:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked . I could do with some help reverting. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
All done. Thanks everyone. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
If that wasn't a bot, she was a very dedicated spammer. --GraemeL (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We could simply have the site blacklisted... - Mgm|(talk) 22:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow that's alot of spamming, I do see no need for the site, so I agree with the blacklist Jaranda wat's sup 02:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be the minority view, but I don't see anything wrong with what she was doing. It's not like she was spamming one link over and over; she was adding a different link to each article, and the links in question seem relevant to the article content. User:Erck made similar edits to a bunch of articles last week, and I only noticed because the link he added to Amber Benson was potentially helpful in resolving a content dispute. Where's the beef? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

All this proves is that it is an ongoing spam attack. I've removed all of the links added by the above user. I was reluctant to ask for the site to be added to the global spam list as I've heard of them before. However, it is a commercial site and somebody seems to be bent on spamming links to them. Any meta admins care to comment? --GraemeL (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that'd be a bit sharp, since we aren't sure that it's being done at the behest of the site, and up until now nobody's actually told the involved party to stop. Particularly in light of the fact that this isn't overtly commercial spam, like a guy selling penis pills, I think a less confrontational approach would be better. Give them a warning, maybe copy it to the SG site admin via e-mail, and if the behavior persists then add them to the blacklist. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User Netwriter

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate forum to raise this issue, however I am having a recurring problem with User:Netwriter. I have a long history of being harassed by this user in various internet venues, and he is currently posting my name (and those of several others) on his user page. I have removed mine and one other three times now, and have posted requests that he not put our names on his page. He continually reposts them and removes our requests from his talk page. He is also accusing us of vandalising his entries and conducting a vendetta against him, which is odd since the edit history proves we have done no such thing. I have made a concerted effort to avoid this guy, but I refuse to let him use my name without my permission. Could someone please look into this. Mine is not the only name he has been told to remove and has reposted. Thanks in advance. Nick Cook 23:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The use of the name isn't a violation of policy at all; The personal attack is. Someone already removed the full section; I watchlisted the page and will add a NPA warning if someone else hasn't by the time I finish typing this. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 00:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I too have added it to my watchlist. I'm on A LOT. --mboverload@ 00:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I was tempted to toastify the entire page per WP:USER -- he's pretty blatantly just treating Wikipedia as a web host. He even refers to it as his "home page" on User talk:Netwriter. JDoorjam Talk 01:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Left this note. We'll see where it goes... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks nfor the help. Nick Cook 06:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've created User:Netwriter/Redshirt Filmette Series per WP:NBD (user's article on the subject was Afd'ed) and deleted the user page per WP:USER. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:OrphanBot

Please delete this account, the bot spams user pages, doesn't identify correctly tagged images (apparently looking at templates instead of categories), and it doesn't wait to let users fix their errors. The owner is unresponsive to complaints on the bot's talk page. -- Omniplex 13:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Bots, the procedure proposed on this talk page is apparently wrong. -- Omniplex 11:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur. The bot is a disgrace of Wikipedia. For instance, it's not clear why the bot targets the images uploaded to Sabantuy, yet it doesn't care about similarly tagged images from Angela Merkel, Lech Kaczyński and most articles on world leaders. At first I thought it was Carnildo's personal revenge for our dissent in the past, but now I see that he uses the bot to target other wikipedians as well. I would welcome a vote as to whether this bot should be deleted. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Have you tried leaving a message at User talk:Carnildo? Martin 11:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I did see a message demanding certain changes be made to OrphanBot, but given the tone, and that the author ignored the yellow box with the inch-high letters at the top of the talk page, I didn't feel a need to respond. --Carnildo 19:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot orphans images that have been tagged as having no source or no license information for five days, because these images will be deleted after seven days. If OrphanBot is orphaning your images, it means you need to add a source for the image and correct license information to the image's page, so that Wikipedia can continue to use your images. In doing this, OrphanBot is providing a useful service, and I'll bet if you ask Carnildo nicely, he can help you out with any problems you're having with it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with OrphanBot; it contacted me once I forgot to put a license on an image and it was pretty quick too. As the others said, just talk to Carnildo and see if he can help you out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't talk with Carnildo after he permabanned a bunch of precious wikipedians and a couple of admins. After that he promised to leave Wikipedia for good, yet he is back again and targeting me as usual. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you please point out where I promised to leave Wikipedia? Or any evidence that I'm targeting you for anything? --Carnildo 19:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This discussion has been had before here; OrphanBot is most certainly not a spambot or anything similar, and is most definatly performing a useful service. Any issues there may be with it are most likely minor, and do not require admin attention. --InShaneee 17:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/

In the process of mucking up a request of checkuser rather badly, I inadvertently created the page Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/. since this isn't an article page I don't think tagging it CSD is necessarily the right way to handle it, but regardless could someone delete the page since it was an accidental creation that serves no purpose?--Isotope23 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

done. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
For future reference, "author requests deletion" is CSD G7 and applies to all namespaces, not just articles. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I actually didn't know you could CSD/AfD namespaces that were not articles. Learn something new every day.--Isotope23 16:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Technically, most non-CSD, non-article pages that you want deleted go to Templates for Deletion, Categories for Deletion, Redirects for Deletion, or Miscellany for Deletion. (And I think there's a Stubs for Deletion, too) -- nae'blis (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
As a checkuser clerk, I often find CU pages created with botched names (the subpage system seems to mess things up for some people). I tag them db and list the reason as CSD G6 (general maintanence). Seems to work every time. Thatcher131 00:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Admins User:SlimVirgin and User:CommanderKeane in defense of User:IronDuke

User:BlindVenetian (me) was just blocked by User:SlimVirgin for being a sockpuppet (not true, and not listed on the sockpuppets page), and for "harassment of IronDuke", though the only interaction I have had has been trying to remove a personal attack he has made on me -- that I am a sockpuppet. User:CommanderKeane previously told me not to edit pages on which IronDuke had ever edited, again simply because IronDuke doesn't like opposing views. I have promised that if the personal attacks are removed, I will stay away from IronDuke, but I don't see why he isn't being warned for continually reposting personal attacks. -- 88.149.150.76 16:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Your first two edits on Wikipedia were to jump into discussion of this issue [22] [23]. This behavior is transparent sockpuppetry. --Ryan Delaney talk 16:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Several accounts have been hounding IronDuke for months. We've had enough and you're going to be blocked from now on at the first sign of it, so if you want to edit Wikipedia, stay away from IronDuke. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
You guys are incredible. You say: "stop being an anon, get an account", and when I get an account, you say "transparent sockpuppet". And if people are harassing IronDuke, I can see why, since he seems to call everyone who disagrees with him a sockpuppet or something. What a bunch of head-up-orifice echo-chamber bozos. -- 217.22.230.193 17:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC) (P.S. I guess it's back to being an anon, since you make it untenable to have an account: no rights, no protections. Block away.)
Y'know, I just happened to wander by here, and I have no clue who IronDuke even is, or what drama has transpired here before, but I certainly hope User:SlimVirgin is making completely 100 percent sure that everyone accused of being a sockpuppet is, in fact, a sockpuppet. I just checked User:IronDuke's contributions, and it certainly seems that anyone who disagrees with him indeed gets labeled a "wikistalker" or a "sock", including User:Anomicene, User:BlindVenetian, User:Nyanyoka, and others. I have been told repeatedly in the past by other Admins that we must withhold such bad-faith accusations until absolutely proven by CheckUser, even if it's totally obvious. An ultimatum like "if you want to edit Wikipedia, stay away from IronDuke" sounds very inappropriate and one with a chilling effect on discourse here. wikipediatrix 18:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Wikipediatrix, it's been going on for some time as I said, involves numerous accounts, and a check-user was indeed requested. I've also been in e-mail correspondence with some of those involved in an effort to stop it without using blocks. It didn't work, so here we are. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey Wikipediatrix. Just a quick clarification. I did not call User:Nyanyoka a sock, and I apologize to that user if it appeared that way. As for the rest, well, as Slim says, there's a long history. As some of it is by necessity off-wiki, things might look more opaque to other editors than would be ideal. IronDuke 19:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The why don't you put it on-wiki and make it clear? -- User:BlindVenetian 21:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, in this edit that reverted User:Nyanyoka's changes, your edit summary was "rv wikistalking sock". But nonetheless, yeah, I fully admit I have no clue what the context of any of this is about - I just wanted to stick my 2 cents and remind folks that puppethunts should be done by the book. wikipediatrix 20:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Regardless of whether this person has ten thousand various accounts or one, and one's stance on this issue, it's painfully apparent that blocking won't dissuade this person. WP:DR is a very good idea. That caveat aside; How does this and this violate any policy we have at all? They are civil, non-confrontational questions. WP:AGF, for the love of god. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 18:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me just add this: I know nothing of IronDuke's history, and don't really care. I have tried to do what I think I've been told: get an account, edit within the rules, etc, and I think I have been treated unfairly. I have been told by CommanderKean that there is no appeals process except to him, and now SlimVirgin swoops in out of (apparently) nowhere, with no history with me, and bans me from Wikipedia. I am NOT out to create a problem on Wikipedia, or with IronDuke as an individual. I just have an issue with this cadre of admins protecting one user, and who isn't satisfied with my voluntary banning from articles, and insists on personal attacks. Perhaps this is the venue to ask: what is the appeals process for this treatment?? (User:BlindVenetian forced to edit as 62.94.178.217 20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC))

Well I'll tell you this much, I'm sick of people evading blocks. I don't care whether the block is unfair or not. Evading a block is against policy, and is a basis for a block. I blocked this IP. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 21:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:BlindVenetian is claiming that he is not a sock or stalker and is requesting to be unblocked on his talk page. I have to go to bed now but i promised I'd bring this to your attention here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This happened to show right at the top of my watchlist and piqued my curiosity, if only because I have recently realized the importance of editing by anons in the light of what might be termed Wikipedia's philosophy. I've briefly reviewed the situation and think there is only one user involved. The pattern looks suspicious but the explanation is plausible. I have not looked into this user's actual edits and can imagine there may be other problems but socket puppetry does not seem to compute. The subsequent block evasion looks like a genuine mistake. I suppose this all looks rather Kafkaesque to this user. I suggest that the BlindVenetian account be unblocked (or that the user sits out a 24-hour block to think this over). The user has already been asked to stay away from the "problem area" for a while. When reinstated, hopefully s/he will get some more experience editing Wikipedia, read up on policy, and generally stay out of trouble from now on. If not, regular procedure will suffice. We can't do much about changing IP numbers but this user who could so easily have become a REAL sock puppet insists on being treated as one person (the exact opposite of sock puppetry) so I believe this would be the end of it. Or am I being naive? AvB ÷ talk 23:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The issue is complex and involves personal identities that can't be posted. I've posted a query to BlindVenetian. I'm hoping he'll e-mail me so we can work out what's going on, and if we do, he'll be unblocked. I'll post the result here either way, though it may take a day or two. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As SlimVirgin says, there's more to this than meets the eye, and much of it involved revealing personal information. Jayjg (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What a complete smokescreen. Involves personal information - fe. There's either evidence or not. Put it up or let it be. -- 62.94.131.9 09:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wholescale name changes causing disruption

Vaquero100 (talk • contribs) is using AWB to change as many links to Roman Catholic Church to be [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic Church]] as he can find. I said to him that if he dislikes the way the article is named, he should follow the proper procedure to get it changed. It appears he has tried this and failed, and now is trying to make the name change in articles by stealth. This seems to me to be an obvious rejection of consensus. This user keeps complaining that there is a great anti-Catholic campaign that he is fighting about — it looks like paranoia. Please could other admins keep an eye on this issue. — Gareth Hughes 17:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Vaquero100's removal of all messages requesting for him (or her) to slow down with the replacements is not a good sign. At the very least his AWB privileges ought to revoked. joturner 17:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Could anyone explain to me with could possibly be so problematic with the title Roman Catholic Church? IIRC, it refers to its Roman origins as opposed to other forms of catholic churches. Makes perfect sense to me. Catholic Church would be a title that's not specific enough to the subejct at hand. Am I missing something? - Mgm|(talk) 08:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand that it is felt that the word Roman is meant to diminish the sense of catholicity of the church (the universality of its jurisdiction). Many documents of the Roman Catholic Church do refer to it simply as the Catholic Church. However, there are plenty of occassions where Catholics do add the word Roman. This is especially so in ecumenical contexts. Of course, there are other churches that use Catholic as part of their official title, and many churches that describe themselves as being catholic though without using the word as part of their official titles. The Roman Catholic Church has given us a long history of disambiguation — it is the Catholic Church in union with the see of Rome. — Gareth Hughes 10:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed Vaquero100 from the AWB approval list for now. Ral315 (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] urgent: I'm being outed - completion of name change

I asked to have my real name nick changed to my present user name, both on en: and de: However, my real name still appears on the history of my en:user page and the en:talk page. Additionally, I had links to my homepage on earlier versions of these pages. Some de:user is outing me at the moment, pointing to these pages. Please delete their history and all archived versions. Ideally, any link between my former and my present user name should be deleted. I refrain from getting a new identity because I'm "Tickle me" in about a dozen wikis: en/de/sp/it/fr/commons/mediawiki, different wikiquotes, wikisources and unrelated armeniapedia. I'd prefer questions by email to avoid outing myself even more when providing information, thx. --tickle me 17:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with at EN; a DE admin will have to tackle the problem over there. JDoorjam Talk 18:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] CrazyRussian Summarily Closes Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dhimmi

I opened an AFD for the Dhimmi article which is hopelessly POV biased. The talk page dialogues reflect a deadlock with all sides totally devout to their POV. On the AFD page, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dhimmi I documented the justification of the move, while on talk:dhimmi you can see the details that justify the view that NPOV is unattainable. After roughly 1 hour of opening the AFD, CrazyRussian closed the AFD while votes were coming in. His statement on the top of the page suggests his own judgement that the 'article was not completely POV' was his reason for stopping the process. I would like the process to be opened again, and for appropriate communications to be made to the admin who, in my view, is abusing his powers to push ongoings on Wikipedia. His Excellency... 17:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If an article is POV, it doesn't need to be deleted, just edited to make it neutral. The article seems to be on an important subject, and notability is the primary criterion on which inclusion in Wikipedia is based. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 17:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The phrase 'article is POV' is itself suggestive of a failure to understand what POV is (see WP:POV). If a violation (and this is the most blatant violation I've seen) of NPOV were never to be justifications for an AFD, WP:ADF wouldn't mention NPOV as the first of the standards articles must abide by. Obviously a user is obligated to go through other avenues before filing an AFD. I've tried correcting the Dhimmi article, even bending backward and allowing the flagrant vioation of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight to go on, albeit with opinions being described as opinions and misleadingly portrayed as undisputed fact (see Talk:Dhimmi). It is clear that there is no possibility of Dhimmi reflecting a NPOV. I've fulfilled my obligation in taking other avenues, and used the last option that's justified under WP:AFD. His Excellency... 17:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Lefty, an additional point: if the article deserves to stay in its present condition ( I think it shouldn't), the AFD process is what should be used to make that judgement. For the process to be ended in 1 hour and 10 minutes because an admin has a strong view on the 'POV' isn't a fair move. If a solid arguement for not having the AFD at all could be made, it should have been voiced by CrazyRussian before killing the vote. The reasons he's given so far aren't cogent ones for the action he'd taken.He voiced his own view of things without giving a credible basis for his view, acting like a judge who has no regard for the jury. Admins were never meant to do this. His Excellency... 18:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I refer everyone to my closing note, and continue to stand by it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
With the exception of User:His excellency, there appears to have formed a rapid, unanimous consensus to keep. The article's topic seems appropriate for Wikipedia. A speedy keep seems reasonable. Deletion review can revisit these decisions, but I would strongly discourage User:His excellency from going that route because it would be a waste of his – and everyone else's – time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
As a general rule, AFDs last for 5 days unless I'm mistaken. This AFD lasted for 1 hour and 7 mins due to Crzrussian's interruption. His reason for stopping it seemed to be his own judgement on the matter. He followed up with the following note on my talk page: I'd like to ask you to AfD Judaism because everything within is written from a Jewish POV. Ridiculous. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC). Meaningless rhetoric like that is difficult to even respond to at first. However, it seems the point he's trying to make is that a POV-bias is to be expected in articles, and that my demand for a Dhimmi article that reflects a NPOV is 'ridiculous'. I would question his credibility as an editor with comments such as those, and more so as an editor with such sweeping powers. His Excellency... 18:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
With the statement 'As a general rule...' you've hit the nail on the head. In some situations we expedite processes when the outcome is obvious. (See WP:IAR and WP:SNOWBALL.) We're not slaves to process here. The unanimous opposition to the proposed deletion should tell you that deletion isn't going to happen, and you'll need to find another way to resolve any problems you perceive with the article. Neutrality issues related to otherwise-valid article topics are dealt with through editing and not deletion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Not only was deletion not going to happen, "continu[ing] th[at] discussion would [have] be[en] counterproductive to our encyclopedic goals". - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Or your encyclopedic goals? Explain the "I'd like to ask you to AfD Judaism because everything within is written from a Jewish POV" comment.The votes that came in the first 50 or so minutes were made because of the notability of the topic. "Dhimmi" is a popular word these days. However, notability is not the ONLY criteria that determines whether an article should exist. The AFD should have gone on longer. In time, there would surely been responses from users who'd take the time to read the article and observe the disputes, rather than instinctively respond to the topic name. His Excellency... 18:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ten, et al., that WP:SNOWBALL and WP:IAR suggest that this close was altogether appropriate (and, to be sure, the nomination stated no legitimate reason for deletion). Even as I think this one fine, though, I wonder whether permitting an AfD to run for a few days in situations where it is obvious that the article will be kept is disruptive or counterproductive to our encyclopedic goals. An AfD such as this might generate much less-than-helpful discussion and consume the time of users who might be otherwise inclined to more encyclopedic purposes, but so too might it bear out the idea that deletion is not the proper means (in general) by which to remedy article bias, in order that User:His excellency and others might appreciate that they ought to collaborate with other editors on the article's talk page to produce an NPOV article. I think the benefits of our keeping the AfD open to be altogether marginal, but I see no concomitant harms. Joe 18:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Have you bothered to read the Dhimmi article and its talk page? There is no scope for collaboration. The article is in totality built as an indictment of the Dhimmi practices. His Excellency... 18:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Joe, how did I become an admin?? This AfD was GUARANTEED to degenerate into name calling and personal attacks. One of the functions of the sysops here is to make peace between users, and preëmptive peace sure beats having to warn and block people. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
If indeed the discussion was sure to degenerate as you observe, then the harms of keeping the AfD open would outweigh the benefits, such that closure is appropriate. I intended only to express a view similar to that of Netscott, namely that, where there is no harm to come from running an AfD for a good period of time, the AfD should run, if only because some good often comes. I trust Crz's judgment enough to know that if he says the AfD was going to degenerate, it likely was; my notes was, I suppose, more to the meta-question of snowballing AfDs after just a few hours. Joe 23:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Funny enough I've seen on a couple occasions a lot of good in terms of improving an article's quality (NPOV, etc.) come from AfDs. Still this particular closure was probably correct. Netscott 18:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure. I agree, this was either a bad faith or simply unknowing nomination, and was clearly not going to be deleted (nor did it belong on AfD in the first place). --InShaneee 19:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the closure was correct, but shouldn't this be on WP:DRV instead? Tom Harrison Talk 19:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • This is just one more in a series of examples by H.E. that he is taking Wikipedia and its processes in general in bad faith. He has said that "The people on Wikipedia are deaf and blind to reason and logic" [24], that "Wikipedia has become a soapbox for the Islamophobes, with the consent of the larger Wikipedia community" [25], and has personally attacked editors: "Mostly the show's being run by people like Pecher and Timothy Usher who are basically forwarding the orientalist propaganda drivel spewed by the Daniel Pipes and Bat Ye'ors."[26]. - Merzbow 23:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles have been deleted as unfixably PoV; it was decided that it was easier to start over than fix. On the other hand, this wasn't going to be one. Speedy Keep exists to answer obvious landslides. Septentrionalis 23:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


If you look at Talk:Dhimmi, speficically the section "This article has no regard for NPOV", Merzbow offered a maliciously deceptive analysis of my contribution to the article. I responded with a correction of his analysis, and pointed out how his work on the article has been in bad faith. WP:AGF does not require one to assume good faith when there's overwhelmingly reliable evidence to suggest an editor works in bad faith. I have made solid observations on Merzbow's work, as I have of Timothy Usher's works and Pecher. Their work is effectively POV-driven vandalism that is aimed at turning Wikipedia Islam-related articles into indictments against Muslims and Islamic history. If you're bothering to read this, please take the time to look at Dhimmi and its talk page. I've noted on the talk page that out of 114 cited sources, 40 of them are from Bat Ye'or, an author who has been labeled as a polemic and an Islamophobe by many and has been critisized repeatedly for her lack of education in the subject she often talks about. Other sources include Stillman, Bernard Lewis, etc. Virtually all the sources represent a single rigid and critical POV, with no significant representation of any view that does'nt host a condemning tone. The flooding of Islam-related articles with less-than-credible and POV-driven (I'd say hate driven) content is a problem in all the Islam-related articles.

On the AFD, I question the intelligence of anyone who thinks the votes that flooded in within the first 1 hour and 10 minutes can be assumed as representative of what the product would have been in 5 days. Many of those who voted did so instantaneously, without actually looking at the articles or the WP policies that were the basis of the complaint. It's entirely plausible that other voters chose to take the time to research the reasons for what I proposed. It's plausible that they didn't expect the procedure would have been shut down in 1 hour and 10 minutes. The AFD was entirely justified, even if the result wouldn't have been to delete the article. His Excellency... 16:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

By all means, I encourage everyone to compare my recent edits to article space with H.E.'s, and judge for themselves who is editing in good faith. - Merzbow 04:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Block attack account User:Brianleiter ?

Brian Leiter is a professor at UT Austin, best known for his rankings of Law Schools. He is also a controversial political blogger. In March, someone created an account named Brianleiter (talk • contribs) and used it to vandalise the Brian Leiter article and its talk page. The account has only 2 edits. I suggest permablocking this account:

  • WP:U forbids "Names of well-known living or recently deceased people".
  • It is (or was) a vandalism-only account.

(I had forgotten all about this account until I read an old to-do list. There's a good chance the vandal has forgotten the password by now, but I would prefer to play it safe.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 17:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked it indef. Sasquatch t|c 21:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Autoblock stuck

I have a user User:Phat Bastard that was indefblocked for his username. Linuxbeak then renamed it to User:PhatB. I have repeatedly undone all the autoblocks, and unblocked his IP, but it still autoblocks every time he tries to edit with the message "your IP has been blocked becuase it was recenlty used by User:PhatB. I suspect this is happening because there is still a block associated with the original username, but Linuxbeak erased that account during the renaming, so I can't get to it to remove the original block. I have asked in #wikimedia-tech and gotten no response. Is there anyone who can help to fix this? The poor user hasn't been able to edit for five days now and I don't know what else to try. Thanks. pschemp | talk 18:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Create a new user called PhatBastard, one second block him, one second block PhatB? --Avillia (Avillia me!) 18:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Was originally User:Phat Bastard, no need to create the user again, I've unblocked it and we'll see if that helps. --pgk(talk) 18:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No luck. Anyone else have an idea?pschemp | talk 02:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Contact a developer? --Carnildo 06:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I tried that twice on #wikimedia-tech with no response. Hence my posting here. pschemp | talk 14:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] {{Unblock}} abuse

Ipclog (talk • contribs) is persistently spamming the {{unblock}} template with a summary of SOCKPUPPETS!!!!!!! I recommend his talk page be protected. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 18:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Unwarranted Block Warning by InShaneee

The issue is evident on my talk page. Another user called an AFD I filed 'ridiculous', and sarcastically suggested I should file an AFD against the judaism article because it exibits a pro-Judaism POV. In response, I called his rhetoric 'ridiculous'. InShaneee then placed a 'final warning' for this 'personal attack'. I've posted responses in his talk page which he has not responded to. Though the 'personal attack' I made was preceded by the usage of the same word against me, the other user was not served with a warning, or so much as a comment. I pointed all this out to him, he merely responded saying the warning stays, and that further 'incivility' will result in a block. He did not do the fair thing and offer a comment directed to the other user on his same offense. If you ask me, I think this is harassment. I request that the threat be removed, and that Inshaneee distance himself from this harassment. His Excellency... 19:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The warning did strike me a bit as "jumping the gun", from what I saw comments were flying back and forth relative to commentary and not actual persons. Netscott 19:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it should be taken up on WP:PAIN. Tom Harrison Talk 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Lol. Entertaining entry in my honor there, Tom. I'll discuss that later. This particular issue involves a comment that couldn't have been understood as a personal attack under any circumstance. The justification for the warning was a single comment directed at some other guy's telling me to file an AFD on Judaism. Funny how he saw a personal attack in my usage of the word, but not when used by the person who first used it. His Excellency... 20:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Either way, filing an AFD on Judaism is pretty much trolling. InShaneee is overreacting a bit (or posted the wrong warning) but don't file frivolous AFDs again. Sasquatch t|c 21:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, i need to read more carefully. Nevermind that... It's not harassment... and IMO the warning is a bit harsh. Sasquatch t|c 21:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

HE makes a cogent argument IMO, and the (few) people who have responded here seem to pretty much agree. Note also this post, where the victim of the supposed PA states that he disagrees with the warnings and thinks neither of the disputants has been incivil. I'm removing the warnings per HE's request. Bishonen | talk 12:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC).


[edit] Inappropriate username

Can someone take a look at Taigkiller (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)? (Taig is an ethnic slur for Catholic, so the name means "killer of Catholics"). From their three contributions (including posting loyalist paramilitary slogans on another user's talk page [27]) I don't think they're here to make any sort of useful contribution. Demiurge 19:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Freakofnurture beat me to it. Endorse indef. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Argh, I thought I'd done it. Never mind. Well spotted. Proto///type 19:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User: AFD Waiting to Happen

AFD Waiting to Happen (talk • contribs) is a recent member whose name may be inappropriate. Also, the user has created a TON of new pages. Based on the user name, I would like nothing more than to assume good faith, but ... well ...Typed too fast, since doing a bit of research merits the ones I checked were real. I apologize -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 20:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for username. --Cyde↔Weys 20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we normally have articles for minor league players? I thought we didn't. Just zis Guy you know? 20:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Minor League players are a hot topic in AFD recently, easily WP:POINT creations. Jaranda wat's sup 21:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Some we do, and some we don't. Generally, a player doesn't get an article just for being a minor-league ballplayer, but there are a lot of minor-league players who qualify under other grounds: notable amateur achievements, membership on a national team/international competion, presence on a major-league 40-man roster, etc. There's currently some discussion of this on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), which suggests extending it to a few other categories (players in the All-Star Futures Game, minor-league All-Stars, etc.), and if you have an opinion on the matter we could use some more feedback. As things currently stand, a lot of these player stubs seem to be the sort that'd be deleted with the current precedents in mind. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Being on a minor league team simply can't be sufficient for a biography. First, the athlete's career isn't established yet. Second, the numbers are staggering. Third, the athlete doesn't rise to fame/notability beyond the very local area or the very devoted interest group of scouts. I'd want to know that the other notability is pretty danged huge. Otherwise, the person would just be a name on a "List of players in the all star minor league game" or something like that. A break out article suggests a biography rather than a fact, IMO. Geogre 21:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I should also note that some of these can be deleted as reposts of deleted content: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinston Indians. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd think that normally minor league sports players aren't really notable enough to get their own articles unless there's some other fact that makes them notable. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible return under AFD WtH (talk • contribs), fyi. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In case these keep getting re-posted, I'd advise against a {{deletedpage}} on one of the articles, specifically the one for Stephen Head. He's by far the best prospect in that batch, and you could make a case for keeping a good article on him, if there were one. He was a three-time All American in college, conference player of the year for the SEC in 2004, part of the 2003 US National Team that competed in the Pan American Games, one of five finalists for the Golden Spikes Award (the baseball equivalent of the Heisman Trophy), etc. The one-liner that got speedied is no loss, but I'd hate to see this mess end up blocking the one guy who really does deserve an article. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

When he comes up to the Majors, then you or somebody else can go to DRV and request that it be unprotected. Until then, let's just keep things simple. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You're probably right. With any luck, it'll all be a moot point anyway. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I would hope, though, that this isn't a general "minor leaguers don't get their own pages" suggestion. Certainly, clubs regularly engage in the hyperbolic "he's the next (insert superstar's name here)" but, if the article satisfies WP:N, I would hope it would stay. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Stalker/Outer/Vandal

I have a "new" Wikipedia editor, [Pete Peters] vandalizing my talk pages and edits. Arthur Ellis 22:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I warned him. He should stop adding suspected sock tags after RFCU was declined. Please post back on this page if he continues with unwanted edits. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
A question: Pete Peeters, is a famous NHL goalie; is Pete Peters (talk • contribs) username in question? -- Samir धर्म 23:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Could be coincidental, being a common name, but combined with his behavior, I'd suggest going ahead and blocking. — Jun. 27, '06 [23:11] <freak|talk>
Working with this one... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Move war

User:Lysy started a move request at Act of Kreva on 26 June, and just before submitting it, he moved the page to the location Union of Krewo where he, concluded from his vote, supports it to be. This no doubt was because he wanted to put the burden for getting a clear majority to burden his opponents, and not his own camp. This is why we generally frown upon and regard bad form, if a requester of move makes a move to his location just before the request. However, now the situation has escalated: some other users moved the page back where it was before Lysy's combined "move and request" antics. And Lysy has now at least three (Four?) times countered it. His last move was just a bit over 24 hours had passed from the previous. So his conduct seems to be circumventing barely the restrictions upon 3RR. We call it gaming the system. Situation seems to be that two or three others counter his moves, and on his side, he acts alone. Clear move war, and clear case where Lysy dos not want to respect a majority, but regards himself alone having the right to act. Of course he may be able to fill pages and pages with explanations why he is materially right and how everyone other is wrong and that all previous doings are in his opinion of course procedurally wrong. But that all should not matter much, in face of clear move warring when his own move request is ongoing. Lysy had been requested not to move the page to the location he votes for. So, warnings were sufficiently given, I think. Requests and warnings do not hnder his disruptive warring. I hope you mandate a longer block upon Lysy. Marrtel 23:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dr sean chronic RSX (talk • contribs)

He's leaving a semi-legal threat at Talk:Canadian Federation of Students saying he's afraid Wikipedia will get sued over content in the main article. Ardenn 00:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] racist attack

Hi. Could an admin please have a look at this edit and editor and take whatever action is appropriate? Thanks. IronDuke 02:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin myself, but I would recommend a block, as he's a repeat vandal. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 02:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. -- Kjkolb 02:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much. IronDuke 02:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Blu Aardvark

I have blocked Blu Aardvark (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) for violating the terms of his temporary injunction while his ArbCom case was still proceeding. The terms of the injunction were that he could only edit his user talk page and the arbitration case pages. I caught him editing a variety of articles as well as his user page. --Cyde↔Weys 02:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Meh, it was RC patrol. Perhaps he should recieve a strong slap on the wrist, but it's no POV pushing of sorts. People have done worse. I was curious about it, but I figured someone on ArbCom had given him the go-ahead via email or something.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
With respect, I disagree. It doesn't get any clearer than "any Wikipedia pages". RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, it's not our job to interpret ArbCom's sanctions. Not that there was anything ambiguous whatsoever about those sanctions, by the way. --Cyde↔Weys 02:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The link provided shows an injunction that has failed to achieve majority, and the actual Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Blu_Aardvark page says "Temporary injunction (none)." Is there something I am missing? - brenneman {L} 06:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't on the main case page, but he should have been aware of it if he had read his unblock message: [28]. I'm not that familar with arbcom policy, but it appears that it should only be a 24 hour block: Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Injunctions, not indefinate. Not that it matters much, considering he claims he'll leave wikipedia if he gets a ban out of arbcom which is currently one close vote away from banning him for a year anyways. Kevin_b_er 07:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
And the log also says "(Unblocked to participate in arbitration)" so, yeah, the message was there. Taking into account (+) that it was new page patrol, (--) that he should have known better, (+) that there was no term specified, I lean towards reducing to 24 hours for forms' sake. - brenneman {L} 08:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
He said that he knew about it and ignored it. I see no reason why he should be unblocked at all. Let him e-mail arbitrators if he needs to weigh in on his case- we've done this before. Ral315 (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Yup, here, both in content and in edit summary, invoking WP:IAR. Problem is, there is a massive difference between ignoring the rules and ignoring specific instructions by ArbCom. I fully agree that he should now deal only with them for any further action. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Nah, it shouldn't just be a 24 hour block. The penalty for violating an ArbCom injunction is "stay blocked until an ArbCom member deals with it", not "stay blocked, but just for 24 hours". Hence the indefinite. In all likelihood Blu Aardvark is going to stay blocked for at least a year. --Cyde↔Weys 14:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course he should be re-blocked, what I meant was that he could have done something much more malicious. The ikiroid 14:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Charter of Rights content removal

This was a really tough call. I blocked User:70.48.3.174 for repeatedly removing content from Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms- an important note in an FA- even after it was referenced, after warnings and after one last attempt at discussion. His last few edit summaries included interesting anti-Wikipedia sentiment and personal attacks as well. Please review. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the anti-Wikipedia sentiment and personal attacks aren't interesting at all. Good block. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] External Link Spam

I am requesting that the external link [29] be blacklisted (or whatever it takes to block the whole domain) because it is being spammed on a number of cases by a number of IPs and forums are not appropriate external links according to manual of style. This is clearly just a case of trying to advertise. I am including some links to the IPs that are spamming them and every single edit done by these users (check user contribs) is to spam these forums. 200.55.64.219 (talk • contribs • logs), 200.55.75.96 (talk • contribs • logs), 200.55.87.45 (talk • contribs • logs), Carlatf (talk • contribs • logs)SirGrant 04:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Conduct Unbecoming an Administrator by User:Seabhcan

Moved to User talk:Seabhcan - brenneman {L} 05:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I consider this ANI notice as a bad faith personal attack by those same Admin-trolls that I had been complaining about. Something needs to be done about this abusive and bullying cabal - Mongo, Jersey Devil and others. I am considering quitting Wikipedia altogether if their disgraceful behaviour continues uncorrected. A wikipedia which allows this to continue does not deserve my time. Seabhcán 09:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Jersey Devil is not an admin...I am not a troll.--MONGO 18:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Repeated vandalism of article maggot

What looks like one user (possibly two) has been repeatedly adding things like "Mysogynists" to the article maggot, using multiple IP addresses and one account (user:Sweet Pinkette). Mo-Al 05:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's somewhat long term addition of nonsense. I'm not sure it's vandalism, per se, but it's repeatedly adding unsupported private usage. (Misogynists do not turn into houseflies.) Geogre 13:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I've looked at the page now, and no wonder the user keeps inserting it: the article is a wiki-mess! People are just adding every "maggot-" to it. Our dab pages tend to be undisciplined, but this one's just a dump. We really ought to disambiguate things known only as "maggot." Everything else is "me too." Further, the page hasn't a single reason for anything lexical, and yet a lot of lexical stuff is on there. Blug. Someone needs to come down like Thor from the mountain, kick out most of the stuff (not just the misogyny ref), put some hierarchy on the disambiguations, and then, on the talk page, explain to people what should and should not be disambiguated. Aren't there dab-warriors out there? (I ask honestly. There were some people who were attacking dabs rigorously and trying to make them have some sense.) I hope one sees this need and steps in. I just tried to organize Inspiration so that it moves logically from concept to specific item to artwork. Geogre 16:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Israel Shamir editing despite indefinite block

Although Israel Shamir was placed on an indefinite block on 18 June 2006, by 28 June he was again editing and reverting the article "Israel Shamir".RolandR 09:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reblocked him. His block log does not show that he was unblocked so I don't know what happened there. Homey 09:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Impersonating sockpuppet: User:NikosPolitis alias User:Erdogan Cevher

(Sorry, moving this down here because it escaped notice yesterday.) Can somebody please block NikosPolitis (talk • contribs)? He is an obvious sockpuppet of Erdogan Cevher (talk • contribs), continuing a campaign of nationalist POV soapboxing over Cyprus on Talk:List of unrecognized countries. His new username is an attempt at impersonating Politis (talk • contribs) and/or NikoSilver (talk • contribs), both Greek contributors who have been opposing him on the same page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This should be filed at WP:RFCU. Mackensen (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, will do. Only I thought CU was not for the very obvious cases. This one is, if you look at the edit patterns. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Editing other editors comments in AfD

I have no idea of how many others he has edited, but this editor is editing my reason for deletion here: Please contact me on my talk page. Or in bootcamp.

Diffs editing my words:

Poster Boarding only:


Ste4k 12:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that would fall under behavior that is unacceptable on Wikipedia (also see context "swizzling") but also likely Wikipedia:Harassment since it appears that you have been specifically targeted. If you haven't been specifically targeted then likely a warning is in order... but if you have then a block seems appropriate. You might want to notify that editor of your post here. Netscott 12:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay I am putting the list I found above. I would appreciate not speaking to him at all. He has been harrassing me about his articles over a few days now. I am too new to know if this should be handled at a higher level, or what level that would be. What I find detestable about what he is doing in articles of deleteion is: "How can anyone trust the words written on the page of those dicsussions now??" Ste4k 12:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
He has made comments that are gender related, but that is probably because he believes I am male. I don't believe that he is doing anything more than taking an impersonal matter personally himself, getting excited about it, etc., and misbehaving as a result. That's just my guess. He believes that I am acting in bad faith, I think he actually believes that. Ste4k 12:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Not sure about your commentary here but if you yourself have been systematically targetting his articles (I'm guessing articles he created?) for deletion then your own behavior may fall under Wikipedia:Harassment. This of course wouldn't be the case if you were to have found an article created by him/her that was nonsense and from following their contributions history found other corresponding nonsense articles that merited deletion. This'll have to be properly reviewed to understand the full story of what has been occurring here. Netscott 12:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I have been looking closely at the entire category. It appears to be recursively linked and resting on very weak sources. There is a difference between a category and personal attack. I do not know if he created all of those articles, but I do know that he should be much less abusive. Ste4k 13:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Please do not accuse other users of targetting other users articles. No one owns articles on wikipedia. Kindly assume good faith, until and unless you have reason to believe that the user is really harrassing someone. Most of the facts presented here are vague and clarity is required so that some valid action can be taken. The user here (Ste4k) needs to present all the diffs. Thank you. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
And also where the same user has targetted valid articles made by the other user. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Nearly Headless Nick, get your story straight, I didn't accuse anyone. I merely mentioned the possibility. There's a very significant difference. Netscott 13:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Sir, with all due respect to you; I suppose the possibilities that a user might have targetted should be substantiated with diffs. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I made my (unsure) commentary based entirely upon Ste4k's response to my first post but in particular this statement, "That's just my guess. He believes that I am acting in bad faith, I think he actually believes that.". If an editor was going around submitting article after article for deletion that I created you can be sure that I'd be thinking that person was acting in bad faith, particularly if the articles weren't examples of nonsense. Netscott 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Warned Andrew Parodi (talk • contribs) re editorialising of AfD debates. If this is a crusade by Ste4k then it's one I can get behind, since this group of articles is a walled garden concerning an apparent cult. Just zis Guy you know? 14:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It looks to me that Andrew Parodi (talk • contribs) has now decided to make personal attacks against me by putting my name in topic headers and accusing me of a crusade against his ideals. Talk:A_Course_in_Miracles this has been going on long enough and I will put a notice on the adjacent Admin board. Thanks. Ste4k 06:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Threats by anon. user

I'll try my best to summarize. I am a registered user since mid-April. I have worked exclusively on Greg Bravo (Gary Scott) and the related article Steam (band). The former article was recently deleted because of lack of evidence to support this musicians claim to fame "Na Na Hey Hey". (In fact, newspaper articles and books indicate that the lead singer was another musician.) During discussion and mediation, the editor(s) who supported the Greg Bravo article ended up being blocked for vandalism.

Other editors have popped up to change the related Steam (band) article. I had revised this article to clarify who the lead singer was (I did this in response to the Bravo hoax). I added the newspaper and book sources. I am now being harrassed by an unregistered user on my talk page. There are veiled threats of legal action because he claims that I am cyberstalking. Another statement was that I would be easy to find. --Fortheloveofhampsters 14:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, unless you have given out personal information like your real name, address, etc, you are definitely not "easy to find." Unfortunately, threats coming from AOL accounts are hard to deal with because AOL IP addresses can not be blocked for any significant length of time. I'm afraid you'll just have to ignore it. If registered users make threats, or act in a way that ties them to inappropriate activity by anons or previously blocked users, you can report it here and they can be blocked if needed. It's hard to do anything helpful with AOL anons. Thatcher131 15:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • What a lovely welcome for a new user. :-( Starting with a fake indefblocked template from an AOL IP we have seen before, the Edit Summary Vandal (this is one of many edits to the Main page article yesterday) as the very first edit on Hampster's talkpage, and followed up by a legal threatster, also from AOL. :-( And still no wikimedia software solution to the virtual unblockability of AOL vandals has been found. Or prioritized? Bishonen | talk 15:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC). P. S. I have done the obvious: semiprotected the user talkpage so new and unregistered users can't edit it. All established users still can. Fortheloveofhampsters, please let me know if you'd rather have your page unprotected, and feel free to remove harassing messages from it. Bishonen | talk 15:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC).
      • Look at the bright side. As soon as 550 is accomplished and implemented, we can just block the whole range and force registration. Until then, oh well. Use regex and blacklist the whole lot in VandalProof, VandalFighter, Pgkbot... Etal. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 22:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Constant picture adding

MaindrianPace (talk • contribs) has constantly added pictures to the Gone in 60 Seconds article. He's uploaded about 25 unsourced images and keeps inserting them into the article, causing the page to become cluttered and out of format (see here). Repeated messages on his talk page have gone unanswered. I'm not sure how to proceed, but MaindrianPace was previously blocked for copyright violations on the Serpico page. PBP 15:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. As far as I can see the only way to proceed is to get tough. He has ignpored numerous warnings about image tagging - I say we simply delete any image he uploads without a tag until he gets the message. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Portugal

Jose Manuel (talk • contribs) keeps changing the infobox in the Portugal article, introducing 1910 as the date of formation of the country. That makes just no sense. I won't revert him anymore, he is a newcomer, I don't want to bite him, however, Portugal is an independent country since 1143, he is ignoring that, 1910 is the date of the Republican revolution. He also introduced some links of minor importance for the article in the external links section. What should I do? Afonso Silva 16:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Solved. Afonso Silva 16:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 999

  • Yes, Ordo means Order. But these are the names of organizations and like the titles of books, are exact. There are TWO FUCKING DISTINCT ENTITIES AND THIS REQUIRES TWO ARTICLES. DIDN"T YOU EVER LEARN LOGICAL DISTINCTIONS? -999 (Talk) 19:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This user is having a problem on the Ordo Stella Matutina talk page. I'm requesting something, if anything, can be done about him. Thank you. Zos 21:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

    • User:999 has now AfD'd the article (which he started himself). I admit to having a little trouble understanding the ins and outs of the conflict and the anger, but I have voted opined "Speedy as copyvio", as the article is entirely made up out of quotes—some acknowledged, some not—from external websites. Bishonen | talk 22:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC).


[edit] User:Raven Symone

Raven Symone (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) registered and made all of her contributions so far on June 1. She rather touchingly put a "this user is a kid" userbox and a picture of Raven-Symoné on her page, wrote that she was Raven-Symoné's biggest fan, and enthusiastically edited some pages. The next day, along comes this mean old admin, me, and tells her, with a rusty, unaccustomed attempt at sounding reassuring, that she can't use the name of a real celebrity as her username. Somebody else deleted the fair-use photo. It probably didn't matter, any of it, as she had already stopped editing. Unless she stopped when she logged on and saw my message [swallows]. Anyway, what's next? Do I have to be a monster and indef-block the username so the kid feels unwelcome when/if she next drops in? :-( Bishonen | talk 22:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

I suggest that no action should be taken for now, but if you really want a block to be done, I'll fall on the sword so yall don't have to. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Heh, thanks, Zzzscout. No, *I* don't want any block to be done, personally. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC).
It sometimes helps to be able to say "We really can't let you use this name, but if you'll tell me another one you'd like to use, I'll change it for you." In future, if you'd rather not have to tell them yourself, I'll be happy to do it for you, since I can click "rename" and do it straight away. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Rose State College and vandalism

Could someone consider blocking 72.198.39.16. There has been silly vandalism edits for several days which I have been reverting. --Bduke 23:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This anon is continuing to add the same vandalism to this article. --Bduke 23:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Repeated personal attack by User:Rjensen

I'm getting a little tired of being called pro-slavery.

Rjensen (talk • contribs) removed sourced material from Alexander Hamilton, alleging a pro-slavery POV.[30]. He repeated on the talk page that I was a pro-slavery editor.

The disputed text summarizes some of Hamilton's views, as expressed in this letter; I do not agree with Hamilton, and have said so.[31], last paragraph of diff. Jensen replied that pro-slavery agitators would have minimized Hamilton's work, so I must be one of them. [32].

Not satisfied with removing Hamilton's words, he has now reverted, as proslavery, a direct quotation from James Oliver Horton, Benjamin Banneker Professor of African History[33]. For the source, see the diff or here.

Would someone please deal with this. Septentrionalis 23:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Armhead!

I've blocked Armhead! (talk • contribs) indefinitely. While he supposedly was a new user his behaviour strongly leads me to suspect that he is a returned blocked or banned user on a serious vandalism spree. Specially he redirected every page he touched to a totally unconnected topic (an article on a British constitutional topic was directed to some town's article, for example!). Newbies don't start editing on WP by doing mass redirects. Usually they don't know how initially to redirect anything. The user seems to me to be someone with plenty of experience and to be deliberately trying to do serious damage, with a number of articles being wiped out and replaced by circular directs, so that they simply would redirect to each other ad infinitum. The fact that he had experience, knew what he was doing, and was deliberately making nonsense redirects, led me to think that this was no first time user, or first time user just messing, but a deliberate serious attack on WP by someone with a vendetta, as so probably someone blocked or banned, hence the block. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

vandalism spree, armking3, armking, armking4, armsworth, etc... -- Drini 00:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
User_talk:Armsnacks ... Pete.Hurd 18:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I blocked a few Armking accounts yesterday for the exact same behaviour. -- Longhair 18:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 64.229.64.184 making a legal threat

This is how this user responded after being blocked for vandalism:

[34]

What shall we do? Should we block this IP longer, lock its talk page, or both? 69.117.4.237 02:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It does not read as a serious threat, and has been recanted in a similar tone of voice. Give them a chance to behave, I say.Tyrenius 02:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] War at Warren Kinsella

I've got a serious revert war + 3RR + litigation situation at Warren Kinsella, between user:Arthur Ellis and user:Pete Peters. See my talk. I blocked Arthur for 24 hrs for 3RR yesterday, but not Pete, b/c he didn't revert enough times. They're back at it. I need help - I am simply not experienced enough to know what to do with these guys. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to full protect the article in question so the two can come to a discussion instead of revert-warring with each other. If you don't want to yourself WP:RFP would let the possibilities of that be evaluated by other sysops. Cowman109Talk 04:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
After attempting mediation with little effect (accusations of sockpuppetry continue to fly and both users are pulling some variation of "Block him!"/"No, not me, him!"), I'm ready to recommend that both user:Arthur Ellis and user:Pete Peters be precluded from editing Warren Kinsella. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sneaky vote spamming?

Someone might want to keep an eye on 72.9.105.18 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). -GTBacchus(talk) 03:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Be on the lookout for circle vandals

Just a guess... see Armhead! immediately above... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:His excellency

I blocked this user for a week for several reasons. First of all, he was just coming off of a 4 day block. Secondly, he went right back to attacking others users here and here. We also have him putting Dhimmi up for deletion. It's an article that has been up for over 2 years now. Asking that an article be deleted to resolve a dispute is completely against policy and disruptive. And these are just the first few posts that I ran into when I looked through his contribs. He has an attacking style that I don't think we should tolerate here. And he has alot to learn in terms of civility. His email to me requesting an unblock talked about how he wasn't attacking others. The subject line? "Unblock me, you moron". --Woohookitty(meow) 04:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a discussion we had on PAIN regarding this. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This would actually be a significantly better link. :-) Netscott 06:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Either one works. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
True, true. Perhaps significantly was hyperbolic. :-) I just like links that zero right in on a discussion. Netscott 07:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This discussion on Woohookitty's talk page is quite pertinent as well. Netscott 07:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
HE's latest gem on his talk page (in a reponse to Woohookitty): "Yes, I called you a moron in my e-mail to you. Quit whining about it; WP policy doesn't extend to anything off WP". [35]. In the same diff, more personal attacks: "That Islamic articles would be flooded by people like yourself who fill articles with polemic rants masquerading as fact" which is directed to me; he even attacks Aminz: "Even Aminz is more concerned with not disappointing his Western friends." It doesn't appear as if there is anyone left in Wikipedia who he has not attacked. Perhaps he can go after Jimbo Wales next? - Merzbow 07:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Well that's the thing. In and of themselves, his diffs are not extreme personal attacks. But almost every post of his includes some sort of personal attack. We can't tolerate that. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Enough is enough. I'm going to indef block him momentarily. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, wait a minute! That's not enough evidences, I think! He is a helpful editor. It is not fair to block him indef. --Aminz 07:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
There's tons more we can offer, Aminz. We aren't objecting to what his views are. It's how he expresses them. He's a helpful editor to those that believe in the same things he does in regards to Islam. To everyone else, he attacks, attacks and attacks. And he's been given chances. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
No! Why is he blocked? He is just sincerely expressing himself. He says of what he really think of. His sincerity should be appreciated. Many of us have put a mask on our faces (that is our thoughts and words don't match), he hasn't. That's a point. --Aminz 07:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes and it's a violation of no personal attacks and also of our civility guidelines. If we allowed his kind of behavior, we'd become nothing more than a message board. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Amibidhrohi (talk • contribs)/His_excellency (talk • contribs)'s sincere expressions range from hostile trolling to outright libel, with a generous complement of racist and sectarian slurs.Timothy Usher 07:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
If you cannot see why he was blocked then I seriously doubt that any amount of explination will help. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, That's all true but I am trying to show his positive side. We should also consider his hard work. Most of his edits are lenghty showing his interest in wikipedia. He is putting much time on wikipedia (which is also confirmed by his making another username). That's another point. He can be ""potentially"" useful, if he remains civil. But by blocking him indef, wikipedia is losing a "real" 'potential' contributer! --Aminz 08:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
He's been given chances to be civil and if anything, he's digressing. I dunno. I can see scaling it back to 1 week but I just don't see any push towards change here. The 2 posts on Netscott's page were just yesterday. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I dunno and don't have enough evidence to believe he will become civil either. I haven't followed his edits closely. But Jeffrey O. Gustafson seems to have done so and accordingly he is very confident that H.E. is doomed and there is no way back for him. I am personally unexperienced and can't make a good comment --Aminz 08:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
He has had enough time on Wikipedia to demonstrate his usefulness, which he failed to do. Thus, the potentiality argument is beside the point. Just out of the most the recent block, he has resumed personal attacks and incivility, also adding a WP:POINT nomination for deletion of Dhimmi to his record. Pecher Talk 08:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at his edits in and around the Dhimmi fiasco, I agree with this block. --Golbez 09:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the Dhimmi fiasco"? --Aminz 09:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
User:His excellency's frequent lack of civility is problematic. His pointed commentary regarding User:Pecher, User:Timothy Usher et al is also very problematic as it sets up a battleground on Wikipedia which no doubt is disruptive (one can be sure that if I were in their positions I'd likely be making efforts to see his full departure). In my view his recent tendency to discourage Muslim editors from contributing to Wikipedia is additionally problematic (the way I see it when a person repeatedly does this it becomes rather trollish). I think it is wrong to think that his recent AfD for Dhimmi was done in bad faith. As I mentioned in the above discussion I have seen much good come from the AfD process in terms of article improvement. If there was such thing as a AfRC (Article for Re-Creation - essentially starting over from scratch on an article) I'm sure he would have gone that route as such was his goal... but there isn't something like AfRC so he went the AfD route. As I mentioned on Woohookitty's talk page I honestly believe that User:His excellency was acting in good faith in following User:Aminz lead in helping to improve the Dhimmi article of late and that I thought it was a pity that he was blocked in this regard. At this point this discussion may not matter as he may have already decided to just leave the project but if he expresses a desire, based upon what's happening on the Dhimmi article I think he should be given one last chance and have his block reduced back to 1 week. Given his "moron" comments I will understand if this suggestion isn't followed but under the circumstances I think such commentary isn't surprising being that he wasn't warned prior to this last block and he was not notified of his being discussed on WP:PAIN. Additionally it is true that his commentary on my talk page was a bit excessive but in the light of my own last semi-censored commentary on his talk page I feel that his response was relatively civil. Thanks. Netscott 11:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
His excellency disputes the NPOVness of Dhimmi. Instead of going through dispute resolution like you are supposed to, he put the article up for deletion. The deletion policy page makes it pretty clear that articles that one feels aren't NPOV should be edited so they are NPOV. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I know, but that's not "the Dhimmi fiasco"! --Aminz 10:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is. I can call it what I want. I can call it "the Dhimmi kitty" if I want. It's my term. --Golbez 18:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
That's your opinion and I have no problem with that. For our purposes, it's disruptive. And after he was told that this was not something he should be doing, he responded with a sarcastic comment. AnonEMouse tried to explain to his excellency that violating NPOV was not a reason to delete an article, H.E. misquoted the AfD policy. AnonEMouse then nicely explained that His excellency was mistaken. His excellency's response was to take another shot at editors. My point here is that we have a user who was warned for no personal attacks, did it anyway, was blocked...came back...attacked people again...put an invalid afd vote...when it was pointed out to him that it was invalid, he misquoted a policy and then instead of responding back to Anon's note, he just attacked others again. It's very troll-like. It's disruptive. and we can't tolerate it here. I don't think he has any intention of following our policies. The users who tried warn him that his afd was incorrect were an admin (CrazyRussian) and a very good newer user (AnonEMouse), who both know what they are talking about. In other words, they didn't have an axe to grind. In fact, they were both trying to be helpful. And yet he ignored them just like he ignored the warnings and the blocks. He knew that what he was doing was against policy and yet he kept at it anyway. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Something that hasn't been mentioned

Before June 7th, His Excellency was contributing as User:Amibidhrohi. I just mention this because Amibidhrohi was blocked 5 or 6 times going back to January 7th, 2006. So this isn't new. It may look like this is a relatively new user but it isn't. He just changed usernames. So he's had lots and lots of chances. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This is true and you are correct that he has already been given a decent number of chances but to his credit rather than do sockpuppet mongering with his new account he did identify it as being a new account (I think sockpuppet's probably a bit of a minomer now as his last edit under that account was 05:33, 7 June 2006 which inclines one to think that account has been abandoned). Netscott 12:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Not sure we can give credit to someone for not violating policy. --Woohookitty(meow) 13:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, WP:SOCK says, "A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name". So if the other account was effectively abandoned and wasn't subsequently used to edit does it still qualify as a sockpuppet? With that line if a person ceases editing on a previous account then if they start a new one, where's the policy obliging that person to refer to their previous (and abandoned) account. Am I wrong here? Netscott 13:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
He didn't even edit under his new account until a week 16:34, 14 June 2006 after his last edit (05:33, 7 June 2006) as Amibidhrohi (hmmm sounds outwardly respectful of the 1 week block User:Tom harrison gave him on 13:06, 7 June 2006). Netscott 13:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
My main point isn't that he was using a sockpuppet. My point was that this isn't something that just started on the 14th. He's been blocked for various offenses going back several months. I think it's a moot point whether this new account is a "sockpuppet" or not. Honestly, I don't really care. I was pointing out that his history goes back much longer than his time as his excellency. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. I also don't think that we should give someone credit or "points" for not using an account as a sockpuppet. Points for making good contributions? Sure. But for not using a sockpuppet when he could have? I don't think we can. --Woohookitty(meow) 15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Not consensus for this block

There is not consensus for this indefinite block. I for one disagree with it, and I appeal to the people who want to keep His Excellency indefinitely from contributing to the encyclopedia to at least do it right: unblock him and request arbitration, with a writeup of actual evidence. What I see at present is a week-long block on the basis of listing an article for AFD (a listing I can't for the life of me see as trolling) and two instances of speaking sharply/sarcastically to a guy who was yelling at him (the "victim" Netscott seems to be in agreement with this view). And next I see an extension to an indefinite block, without any further specific evidence adduced. That's not the way to do it. Please use the dispute resolution process. What is the Arbitration Committee for, if not for things like this? Bans for exhausting the community's patience aren't for productive contributors with a sharp tongue, they're for people like this. Bishonen | talk 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

I will restore the 1 week block. I am not bending any further than that. honestly, that's all I wanted in the first place. --Woohookitty(meow) 14:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Btw, please read through this discussion, Bishonen, if you haven't done so. Lots of evidence here. --Woohookitty(meow) 14:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm done. Woohookitty, I've spoken civilly to you. I wouldn't have expected you to advise me to "read through" a discussion I'd just commented on. Bishonen | talk 14:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC).
Well Bishonen, last night you posted on my user page and suggested that I could possibly have been influenced by Timothy Usher's statements on PAIN even though I hadn't been. Not sure what the difference is. You were suggesting the same thing, i.e. that I hadn't looked through His excellency's edits. --Woohookitty(meow) 14:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
"two instances of speaking sharply/sarcastically"? You can't be serious Bishonen. Just last night on his talk page (before his new block) he attacked three people in one edit. Did you see all the cites posted in PAIN here? What about all his previous personal attacks under Amibidhrohi? The number easily runs in the dozens. - Merzbow 17:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
What about them? The Amibidhrohi account hasn't edited since June 7. The list Timothy Usher posted on WP:PAIN is pretty old, too. Blocks aren't supposed to be punitive, they're supposed to stop something ongoing, and be based on something recent. Woohookitty's block was—on an AfD listing and two particular edits—that's fine, but I suppose I may have an opinion about the substantiality of the basis. I'm perfectly serious. Woohookitty, I'm sorry you don't see the difference. I was not suggesting the same thing, as I don't think it would have been in the least discreditable for you to be influenced by TU's list and his (actually untrue) claim that it was recent. It's good to assume good faith. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC).


[edit] Move of an in-progress requested move poll by an anon.

An anon, 72.60.226.29 (talk • contribs) cut and pasted the polls from Wikipedia talk:Central discussions/Apartheid to Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid. That lost the edit history, which is needed for vote checking, and broke some links, so I reverted the page at Wikipedia talk:Central discussions/Apartheid and edited Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid to explain what happened.

I don't think this was vandalism; more like overdoing WP:BOLD. The other edits by that anon look fine, although this anon seems to know Wikipedia rather well. I've left a note on the talk page for the IP address, but the anon may not see it. So I'd like to ask that that IP address be watched for unusual activity, and given a brief block if necessary to get the anon's attention. Thanks. --John Nagle 05:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I am Experiancing Continous Personal attacks

I think I am having bad luck, because I already contacted two absent admin and left a message on a possibly wrong board? The user:Grandmaster has some sort of problem with me and insists on defaming me to other editors. He also leaves a angonictic message next to mine on talk pages or makes uncivil attacks. These are attacks are baseless and notting can validate uncivil behaviour and trolling!

These accusations have no sources and I even let them go out of good fiath originally, but they persist against me and now include user:Baku87 As show here for example.[[36]]. The user who made this also did not sign which put together with an anoymous comment is not a good sign.

I would like to know on what grounds user:Baku87 and user:Grandmaster are making these claims and how they can justify outright attacks. I have never made any negative comments or contributions. I notice also that one of the users has been warned continously to be civil. They continue to make these claims without any proof.

Here are more examples; [37] Once, again can this user please provide proof for these claims especially if he is going to continue to make them, especially the anti-Azari statments he keeps claiming I made??? I have already warned but he ocntinues.

user:Grandmaster is continuing to make unfounded accusations and attacks against me. As shown here again [38]. I left him a polite warning, but noticed that this has been a discourse of behaviour and that he has been warned for uncivil behaviour in the past. I told him once on his talk page to be polite and keep all comments directed towards edits and that he has no right to make such accusations and additionally no grounds; I said I will let it pass as a warning and act in good faith and consider it an honest mistake on his part. But after looking at his talk page and contributions I have noticed he is making accusations to other editors about me and is still continuing to do so as you can see above. Any comment I make on a talk page is labelled POV and attacked right away? It is automatically lablled anti-Azari! I have no idea how saying every human being is equal and that we are all brothers and sisters is bad or anti-Azari? These comments are groundless, uncivil and simple attacks.

Can an administrator please talk to him as an administrator. I do not appreciate this type of harassment. Like I have said and will continue to say again I am not here to fight, I am here to edit and to enjoy editing. Feel free to scutinize my contributions to Wikipedia and see if there is anything negative about them. I have expressed views that are commonplace amongst Iranian Azaris which I feel does not automatically categorize me as another user with the same views.


User:Grandmaster continues to accused me of being anti-Azari when I myself am a Azari!? I do not know what makes him an authority to make such attacks or conclusions? He is basing some of his rationale on articles I have edited and continuing to claim I am another user, which is okay as long as it is civil, but it is not civil these wrong assertions are expressed through actually uncivil attacks. Once again my views are a commonplace view amongst Iranian Azaris and that in itself does not mean anything. I have warned him and acted in good faith, but he still persisits with his attacks. I would like him to stop making uncivil comments about me to other users and on article talk pages. Can you please get him to provide proof about the anti-Azari statments I have made! I am pretty sure I would be blocked if I made any anti-anything statments! It is easy to make such assertions, but can he provide proof before attacking my name on talk pages?

His claims does not make personal attacks legitmate or okay nor do they allow uncivil behaviour. He continues to make them and say I am anti-Azari! I do not appreciate this type of trolling and personal attacks. Thank you all and my apologize for writting so much! 69.196.164.190

I suggest all the parties ignore each other, and keep discussion pages purely for discussion about an article's content, and not the article's subject. --Golbez 09:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] user:AlexWilkes

I've been watching this user for a couple of weeks. He is going through the Wikipedia entries for English football league teams and making amendments. His usual practice is to add a summary of some recent information about the club near the top of the article, irrespective of the content of the rest of article. Cue alarmed response and warning messages from an editor with that article on his watch-list. This is odd behaviour... I'm inexperienced here, but I doubt that most of what he's done counts as vandalism. He ignores all messages on his Talk page. From the photos he posts (which get deleted) he's clearly young and he's also pretty new to Wikipedia. Please take a look at his Talk page and review his contributions... be glad of some more experienced (and heavyweight!) input here. Many thanks. --Dweller 08:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Looks like a candidate for Wikipedia:Clueless newbies to me. If he still fails to correspond with other editors, maybe a short block will get his attention. - Mgm|(talk) 11:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Moved from WP:AIV...

  • 210.200.105.229 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) The yearpage vandal is at it again, this time under only one IP (this one wasn't blocked, apparently.) Please block the whole range (I've seen 226 through 232 used) for a long period of time. Grandmasterka 08:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I suggest the admins to read the information posted by Mikkalai at Talk:Heisei#Future Japanese dates yesterday before taking any actions in this matter, as well as this. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 08:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The problem is that this IP range has not discussed these changes anywhere, AFAIK, and their edits continue to be reverted by half a dozen editors. They are changing other things without explanation as well. Grandmasterka 08:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This IP range has been making edits to the Japanese future year categories on year pages (changing them to "unknown") without any discussion. They have also changed categories in certain ways (sometimes removing decade categories, or placing an asterisk in categories (this is a prime example.) I'm honestly not entirely sure what to do about it, because changing the Japanese years may actually be valid; but I wish the IP would, you know, discuss this with someone. Grandmasterka 09:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Permanently Banned Sockpuppeteer Jason Gastrich on Meta

Wikipedia's worst sockpuppeteer, Jason Gastrich, is now operating accounts on Meta. See [39] and [40] for his continued abuse of Wikimedia projects to push his POV. He is sockpuppeting and vote-soliciting on Meta, too. I would prefer to remain anonymous due to his off-Wiki stalking.

  • a) Why are you telling us here? Wikipedia administrators have no special powers on meta.
  • b) Seeing as the account was created in January 2006, I don't see how this can be described as 'now operating accounts on meta'.
  • c) The accounts' sole contributions are to the user page and user talk page.
  • Are you trolling? Proto///type 14:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
He is using Meta to further his agenda, and spamvertise his website. Given that Wikipedia projects are NOT for self promotion, it is asinine for anyone, let alone a permanently banned POV pusher, to self-promote. Should he be allowed to use Meta to promote his agenda when he is permanently banned from all Wikipedia projects? He has used sockpuppets on Meta (the most obvious of which is Ruth Ginsling) to keep his self-promoting userpage in place, and round up a posse of meatpuppets, in typical Gastrich fashion. I posted this here because I am not familiar with dealing with problems on Meta. Surely there are WP admins who are also Meta admins.

I agree with Proto; if he's abusing process on Meta, take it up with the admins on Meta. It's not like we can round up a posse here and charge across the border in hot pursuit. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. We run into that on AIAV. "Someone's vandalizing the Korean Wikipedia". Great. Go tell them. :) Admins can be admins only on the project that they have been approved as admins on, no other projects. --Woohookitty(meow) 15:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no love for Jason, but reading his talk page on Meta, it looks to me like there are some users who just will not let it go, to the point of stalking and provoking him. This should not be spilling back over here, and really, shouldn't be happening at Meta either. · rodii · 16:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 160.94.224.179, Aluminium, Sulfur

Indef blocked User:Nokhc (aka User:160.94.224.179, User:128.101.29.12, User:Diched, User:RESURGAM, User:24.118.210.212) keeps returning to Aluminium, Sulfur, User talk:160.94.224.179, etc. Repeatedly blocked (currently 24 h), the IP has been static for a month with no other contribs, may I request a longer-term block on the most active 160.94.224.179 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)? Femto 15:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Problem with User:Stephen Hodge

I posted the following at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (edited for brevity):

User:Stephen Hodge attempted to invade User:RandomCritic's privacy by posting information that he believed would reveal User:RandomCritic's identity on User talk:RandomCritic.

In the course of discussion at Talk:Anatta#Response to RandomCritic I repeatedly told User:Stephen Hodge that I would not reveal personal information about myself and requested that he cease his demands that I do so. Further details are in the statement below.

In the course of a content/POV dispute at Talk:Anatta, User:Stephen Hodge began by criticizing my use of Wikipedia handle that was not my actual name:
"On the other hand, as you are one of these people who conveniently chose to hide behind a childish pseudonym..."
I responded by explaining why I did not use my real name:
"I am sorry that you find my handle childish, but it is a matter of no significance at all and I see no reason for you to bring it up. I am disinclined to provide any personal information on Wikipedia, as it easily opens up opportunities for abuse."
User:Stephen Hodge replied:
"I bring up the question of your pseudonym because it conveniently conceals your identity and prevents others from checking your credentials which, as in this instance, you choose not to share. Credentials are important when evaluating a person's articles and critiques thereof -- if one challenges the accuracy of some article, it would be nice to know what a person's qualifications are for doing this. [...] Unless one has real fears of persecution, this habit of using pseudonyms is rather childish in my opinion and more suited to informal chatrooms."
I again rejected his call for my personal information:
"As for your demands for personal information about me and my history, they are impertinent and immaterial, and I have no intention of satisfying your curiosity and opening myself up to hate mail, the entire spectrum of internet harrassment, and other forms of attacks. You may stop asking."
User:Stephen Hodge responded with the following two messages at User talk:RandomCritic:
"I also note from Fanart-Central Net that you and Yoji are known to each other outside of the Wikipedia pages, as well as giving your actual identity and some other interesting information about yourself, if that can be believed.--Stephen Hodge 22:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)"
"Gosh, got that down quickly -- but it was a only pseudonym ! Don't worry: I won't divulge your real name, though it wasn't too hard to find -- I'm only interested in your Wikipedia input. Still, nice pictures. Have you done any more ?--Stephen Hodge 02:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)"
As a note of explanation, "Yoji" is User:Stephen Hodge's nickname for User:Vapour, a person entirely unknown to me outside of Wikipedia. The person User:Stephen Hodge discovered at Fanart-Central is not me and is a person unknown to me. However, I do not believe this is relevant to User: Stephen Hodge's attempt to find and publicize personal information about me, which (he believes) is accessible at this site. I note that Wikipedia:Harassment states that posting personal information is harassment, "regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct". I regard this as a form of intended harassment, and I take his message on my talk page as an implicit threat to continue to try to find information about me and publicize it on Wikipedia. And although there is no actual link to any correct information about me, I am concerned that User:Stephen Hodge's message may lead, or may have already led, to harassment of the person he has incorrectly identified as me. Given that this attempted harassment follows my explicit request not to seek personal information about me, I have reason to believe that User:Stephen Hodge will not respond to my own requests to cease his efforts to find and publicize my identity, and therefore request arbitration.

This request was rejected for arbitration with the following comment:

  • Reject. The posting of personal information about other editors is already forbidden. Administrators are urged to handle this in the proper and normal way when it occurs, which may include the blocking of the offending user for a time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I am therefore bringing the matter to the notice of the administrators. RandomCritic 15:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  • You two are Buddhists, are you? Really? --ajn (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cicero Dog

I have now indef blocked Cicero Dog (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) for the second time (I shorted the first one, to give him a second chance), for disruption. A look through his edit history should make this fairly clear, here's a few, picked semi at random: [41] [42] [43] (that links to Wikipedia:Orange Order, which I speedy deleted, feel free to restore and sent to MFD if anyone wants) [44] [45] . There's also the sockpuppetry, and creation of other 'projects' that got deleted (I can't remember their titles right now, I'm sure they can be dug out if needed. Posting block here for review. Petros471 15:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I support this. I, Ian, and many CCD members have warned him for action at CCD. I have suspended him once, and have now expelled. Action elsewhere is also unacceptable. Computerjoe's talk 16:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This seems valid to me (however since one of those recently disruptive posts was made to my talk and aimed at me, it is probably best I be ingnored...) Ian¹³/t 16:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "Mouse Snuff Film"

An AOL anon has been persistently inserting a link to a "Mouse Snuff Film" to the House mouse article, which I've been reverting. I'd like to have an uninvolved party take a look at this, as it may not be obvious whether this should be considered simple vandalism or a genuine content dispute. (Also, if it's the latter, I'm running out of my three reverts.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's now sprotected. Gamaliel 17:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
They make films on that? Boy, the stuff I learn on Wikipedia... - Merzbow 17:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User reordering talk page comments

I don't have much time to review the following, can another admin attend to it? El_C 19:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

From my talk page: Hi El C, there are some antics occurring on the Fidel Castro talk page. No it's not a content dispute surprisingly, it's a user named User:Teemu Ruskeepää attempting a radical experiment in talk page restructuring. He's trying to have all comments pinned to his "discussion tree", rather than in the traditional chronological manner. He tried this on the blocked Cuba page which had some merit - but subsequently attempted it on the busy Castro page. Users gave it a go but universally became bamboozled by the lack of clarity and the apparent loss of comments.

Teemu took this badly. He tried to move everyone's comments to various points of the page - unilaterally rejected the concept of archiving and insisted that he had the answer to wikipedias problems. Of course, a consensus poll proved otherwise. This has not deterred young Teemu, and he is now adding lengthy polls to each discussion! With some rather uncivil comebacks to users calling for him to come down from his "discussion tree". I've laid out a programme of response if he continues causing talk page chaos [46], but need an administrator to enforce the will of the people if he continues. Do you know of any such admin?--Zleitzen 12:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Zleitzen. That sounds like a misuse of the talk page. I'll place a note on WP:ANI about it. Regards, El_C 19:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Phony account created to appear to be me

I'm user Nagle (talk • contribs). On 25 June 2006, someone created NagIe (talk • contribs). (The second from last letter in the phony is a capital i, not a lower case l, which look the same in the default font).

They then copied my user page (User:Nagle) to the phony account's user page (User:NagIe), making it clear that this is a phony user. Then they used the new account to remove a "prod" I'd placed on Kwin Alexander Dark. No useful edits have been made with the phony account.

Please block this phony as a vandalism-only account. Thanks. --John Nagle 19:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User 204.56.7.1 / Reddi

I've blocked [47] user 204. as a Reddi incarnation violating the arbcomm 1/7R ban placed on Reddi. Pjacobi is also fairly convinced its Reddi [48]. But I'm noting it here because I think I ought to William M. Connolley 21:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Baskervilles Vandalism

While the vandals are still being dealt with at WP:AIV, I think that this may require a greater knowledge of the incident. On a boredom-influenced visit to the vandalism intervention page, I checked the contributions of some of those listed to make sure that any edit that was on top was not related vandalism. One vandal, 195.93.21.136 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) led me to a slew of other IPs that are doing the same sorts of edits.

Which then lead me to the possible IP puppetmaster: Frombubblegumtosky (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), mostly because his user page was editted by one of the IPs and contained the same Baskervilles information. I reverted all of the vandalism related to the users by checking the inclusions of Image:105452747 l.jpg into articles, such as Donation[49] and even New York[50]. While these are IP addresses used by anonymous AOL users, such rampant similar vandalism in a few hours is notable. I have listed the image for speedy deletion (and put the page on my watchlist), but I don't know how well that will work out if the puppetmaster creates a new account and uploads the image, again. Ryulong 22:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wheel War over DRV result

DRV result [51] and the wheel war [52]. Can we stop this bickering? Hort Graz 20:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the applicable policy WP:ASR. --Cyde↔Weys 20:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects should be deleted. If they aren't deleted then somebody has become very confused about the concept and goals of the project. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the people. The number of readers vastly outweighs the number of editors. Mackensen (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, excuse the repetition) The topic is not notable, a self reference, and a cross namespace redirect. The page shouldn't exist. Wikipedia is created with the reader in mind, not the editor, so this page really shouldn't exist. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 20:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No one is addressing the wheel war. Are you saying it is ok to wheel war as long as you are right? Hort Graz 20:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wheel warring is wrong. There is no deadline to meet. Just zis Guy you know? 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I am saying the page shouldn't be recreated. There should be no wheel war. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying, if you are right your action is not wheel warring, and if you are wrong your action is wheel warring? Regardless of who is right this time, is this the general definition of wheel warring we want? Hort Graz 20:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Ha, wow. That's pretty ridiculous. (And don't forget this related wheel war.) I think it's more like, no one's going to jump in and stop them because the entire thing is too silly. Cyde, or anyone else with a bot-minion, can Cydebot change all the old [[Be bold]]s and [[Be Bold]]s to [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|Be bold]]? Regardless of the result of this argument, that'd reduce collateral damage in the interim. JDoorjam Talk 20:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Various AWB bots have already done/are working on this. --mboverload@ 22:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That's already been done. Any collateral damage that might exist is due to talk page archives (some of them protected) and new uses of a deprecated redirect, i.e. trivial. — Jun. 27, '06 [20:38] <freak|talk>
This is no more silly than the pedophile wheel war. Should we temporarly deadmin Cyde, Xolox, Kelly Martin, and Shanel so they stop wheel warring? Hort Graz 20:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't wheel war. Nothing you have linked to provides any evidence of me having wheel warred. --Cyde↔Weys 20:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Nor I. I merely deleted two blatantly stupid and out-of-policy cross-namespace redirects. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I already did run Cydebot on those two redirects ... they used to have 3,000 pages linking to them, now it's just a couple dozen that the bot can't fix because they're either protected or malformatted. --Cyde↔Weys 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that your bot uses your account for protected pages. --mboverload@ 22:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The pyWikipediaBot Cydebot has that functionality, the AWB Cydebot doesn't. I used AWB to make these replacements. --Cyde↔Weys 00:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We have a very limited number of cross-namespace redirects and we should try to delete new ones quickly when they show up. But there was some historical justification for keeping this one and since that seems to have been the will of the DRV I don't see why admins should feel the need to override that - even though they've got a cool button and an opinion. It's a redirect, it's not worth it. Haukur 20:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Temporary desysop? No way. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 20:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, this is the central place for the discussion. Well, I just want to say that I support Xoloz's actions. He closed a DRV, and the people who voted in the DRV did so while considering WP:ASR. I disagree strongly with people reverting him and sending him outraged messages because he is simply closing a DRV within the DRV process. That being said, I made my opinions in DRV, and I simply don't care where Be bold or Be Bold redirects to as much as the edit warriors involved apparently do, so enjoy your edit war, but please don't go flaming an admin who is simply closing a DRV according to consensus. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

DRV isn't the end-all be-all. Lots of people have opinions, and those opinions don't just disappear because they happened to miss a limited time frame window on a DRV discussion. --Cyde↔Weys 20:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo's message in February didn't sink in, you guys are still wheel warring first, talking later. Hort Graz 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Without any direct comment on this "wheel war", we should never attack the person who carries out the thankless job of closing deletion debates. That is my opinion. Yamaguchi先生 20:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Even when they fail to exercise any degree of sense when doing so? Xoloz's decision was without any basis in policy, sense, or reason. We don't let robots be admins, and if Xoloz is going to pretend to be a policybot, he should be desysoped forthwith. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This is pretty close to a personal attack on Xoloz. Use more temperate speech, please; if your point has merit, all you're doing is weakening it by acting this way. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it's a direct attack on Xoloz's competency as an admin. I think Xoloz is a consistently poor admin and feel that we'd be better off if he weren't one. I will no doubt be accused of personal attacks for having the temerity to express that opinion, however. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
There's a difference between saying "Admin X made a bad/stupid decision" and "Admin X has no sense or reason". The first addresses an action, while the second addresses the individual who performed the action, and as such is a personal attack. As I stated earlier, there are ways to make the point you're trying to make without speaking the way that you are, and your language here is not conducive to a reasoned discussion. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
And, if you will actually read what I wrote, you'll see that I said that Xoloz's decision lacked basis in policy, sense or reason. Thank you for demonstrating that I have not, in fact, engaged in any personal attacks. Quite clearly, my comments were in the form of "Admin X made a bad/stupid decision". Will you now withdraw the accusation? And perhaps stop trolling in this forum? It's really irritating. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
If you take another look at what I wrote, you'll see that I said you were "pretty close to" a personal attack on Xoloz, not that you'd committed one. You could've said what you wanted to say in a much less confrontational manner, if you'd been so inclined, and with people's feelings running hot on this already there's no point in ratcheting up the tension (my opinions about your "trolling" remark are of a similar nature). If you feel that Xoloz is a "robot" who "shoud be desysoped", he's an "admin open to recall". Find five other people and drop him a note on his talk page, instead of muddying things up here, where the discussion should be focused on the redirect (or lack thereof). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
As one who has done plenty, there's also no excuse for closing a deletion debate in direct contravention of policy, accepted practice, and common sense. That is, the real problem here, as Kelly said, is that DRV is broken. The decision that Xoloz made was completely incorrect. Mackensen (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Why was it wrong? --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 20:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
First of all, because it was a cross-namespace redirect. Those are bad and shouldn't exist. I imagine there's some policy somewhere backing up my blatant assertion of common sense. Second of all, see Freak's comment below. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mackensen (talk • contribs) .
Believing DRV is broken is not an excuse to wheel war. Or do you think otherwise? Is being right and forcing what you think is right more important than working with each other? Hort Graz 20:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Being unable to excercise judgement is no criteria for being an administrator either. Mackensen (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that WP:RFD produced a unanimous decision to redirect these to the article Boldness. — Jun. 27, '06 [20:40] <freak|talk>

And DRV produced a different decision. Like I said, I could care less what happens to those two bloody articles, but I support Xoloz in his action of closing the DRV. Now go ahead and redirect those two articles wherever the hell you want it to go, but please don't go flaming Xoloz for closing the DRV. If DRV is broken, then fix it, but don't kill the worker who is working with the broken machine. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I will kill the worker because it's his fault it's broken. Administrators are expected to exercise their own good judgement. Blindly following the lead of a broken process demonstrates a lack of judgement that is palpable, even gross. Xoloz should have closed this in the other direction, based on the RfD and common sense. Mackensen (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Mackensen means that metaphorically, by the way. --Cyde↔Weys 20:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
IT'S A TRICK! RUN FOR IT, XOLOZ!!! -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Mackensen is right, our policies are created with an assumption of a basic level of sanity and intelligence. If our policies fail when someone is stupid, we should change the user not the policy. --Gmaxwell
Are you suggesting that I'm stupid? Just wondering... Xoloz 21:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete it then? — Jun. 27, '06 [20:47] <freak|talk>
(edit conflict) Do whatever you want with it. I'm not going to lose sleep over what happens (but I am not going to heartily endorse this event or product). --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Whatever we do end up doing with it, we must follow policy and prevent the recreation of the cross-namespace redirect. A few people on DRV can't override policy. --Cyde↔Weys 20:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
You can't claim administrators aren't responsible for performing actions in violation of policy, just because DRV supports them. -- SCZenz 20:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This raises an interesting question though, what to do when two policies conflict with each other, and the community disagrees on what should be "common sense". Yamaguchi先生 21:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Whatever the correct answer to that is, we already know what some admin's answer is: WHEEL WAR! Hort Graz 21:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Let's put the buzzwords down and back away from them and have a serious discussion. What we've got here is a classic conflict between process and policy. That is, an approved process came up with a result which violated policy. In that case, the best thing is for the closing administrator to exercise good judgement (as I said above), and close the discussion in favor of policy over process. It's that simple. Mackensen (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
You still put all the focus on one admin making a correct decision abour closing, but not all admins will make correct decisions, so the horse is out of the barn. You don't seem to care about the decisions made by the other admins, the ones who decided to start a wheel war instead of talking things out. Why no serious discussion from you about wheel warring? Hort Graz 21:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This is insane. It is not possible to achieve real consensus on DRV in many cases, unlike *FD, because DRV is only of interest to deletion/inclusion partisans and DRV process cogs. At least the *FD processes will attract the attention of interested parties. I would never have supported undeleting those redirects, had I been aware of the discussion... and I have no doubt that many other users would hold the same position. It was no appropriate to undelete these reader confusing self references (BOLD->WP:BOLD? Come on! the sort of person who would type with their caps on is in the least need of the confusion of being redirected into sausage making space). That the people arguing against the redeltion are leaning on an expectation of people to blindly follow DRV policy even when it violates our written guidelines and longstanding community behavior ... well, that is just shameful. --Gmaxwell 20:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- this is rather loony. I closed a DRV. In the DRV, some people were hard-line on ASR, some said we should override it per IAR. The latter were greater in number, and -- in my view -- made more sense as well. For my reason extended, see my conversation with Cyde at his talk page. I take some exception to Mackensen characterizing my judgment as grossly in error. I did not count numbers -- I weighed two conflicting interpretations of policy and went with that one most compelling in this instance. This is what discretion means. Apparently, some folks do expect robotic admins, and God forbid the robots weigh arguments for themselves. Xoloz 21:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute... A thought DRV reviewed process. You're saying you supported new arguments to overturn a valid MfD. What's going on? -- SCZenz 21:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
As Mr. Sidaway always reminds us, DRV is open to new evidence, so your characterization of it as a process-review only forum is incorrect. The argument was over whether the RfD failed to consider user-friendliness and the advice of WP:IAR -- that is within the purview of DRV. Xoloz 21:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That is not new evidence. WP:IAR is not intended to enhance "user-friendliness" in the face of polices that are enacted for a specific, highly-relevant reason. -- SCZenz 21:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
By the same logic, you could argue that WP:DRV could override the Keep-vote of an AfD because it "failed to consider" that the subject was non-notable. DRV is not a supreme court, and it is not a higher expression of community consensus than either policy or RfD, let alone both together. -- SCZenz 21:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when did style guidelines--such as WP:ASR--get upgraded to the status of policy? Are we going to start deleting pages that do not comply with the manual of style? Oh wait, that would be absurd... just like this wheel war. Even if you say that ASR is policy is is pretty light in the pants They should at least be acknowledged or marked as self-references but not necessarily be deleted as they serve their purpose here on Wikipedia. What exactly is the harm done with this redirect, so long as it is tagged as a self reference? On a somewhat related note, {{deletedpage}} is not tagged as metadata either, and plenty of mirrors blissfully display it. The claim that all cross-namespace redirects are deleted being "common practice" is partially rebutted by RFD's precedents. Kotepho 21:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirects from article space were all deleted or modified, I see from that page. Those are the ones that interfere with the encyclopedia and are self-references. -- SCZenz 21:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
However, after taking a bit more time to look over ASR, I see (to my surprise) that it's not as insistent about cross-namespace redirects as I had thought. Well this doesn't change my opinion, I think I've been overly-agressive in my comments, and I apologize. -- SCZenz 21:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a different definition of "all"? Wikipedia is not paper has not be deleted for modified (yet), and the ones that are red now were in the keep pile because they survived an RFD. I am also not sure how Be Bold and Be bold are getting in the way of encyclopedic content, at least more than deletedpage does. Kotepho 22:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I missed that one because it started with "Wikipedia" so I thought it was a redirect out of the WP space. -- SCZenz 22:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know why self-references are bad, usually. All the good examples are at WP:ASR. But does anyone care to explain to me what horrible thing a redirect such as be bold does to this ecyclopedia? I personally don't really care whether this is a redirect or not, but I also don't see any real harm in it being a redirect. I'm really just curious, maybe I missed something. Currently, be bold has {{deleted page}} on it, which is one huge self-reference, by the way. Kinda ironic. Oh, and I just noticed Original research.. --Conti|✉ 21:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a big list at User:Invitatious/cnr. Kotepho 22:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(several edit conflicts) I agree that cross-namespace redirects and other self-references should be avoided, but I don't see the harm in have a very limited number of them when the is no chance of them being mistaken for an article, especially when they have been around for a long time and deletion will break a lot of old links (I don't know if this is the case for this particular redirect). But, if they are to be deleted entirely, so be it. However, the absolute prohibition should be noted (an absolute prohibition is not given on (WP:ASR]], "...but not necessarily be deleted as they serve their purpose here on Wikipedia") and perhaps even made a speedy delete criterion. -- Kjkolb 22:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen has just given me some kind of boner. If more admins closed AfD discussions in favor of policy over process, we might actually see all those garbage articles that fail WP:NOT, WP:V, and/or WP:NOR actually be deleted, instead of an endless sucession of staid vote-counting 'no consensus'es. Kudos to that Mackensen dude, he knows what he's talking about. Oh yeah, WP:ASR only being a guideline doesn't mean it's a poor idea that we should only adopt when it suits. Proto///type 12:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh, you're definitely not a speaker of American English, right? Because I am & that's not the meaning of "boner" that first comes to my mind. (No, I'm not trying to start a language war, just trying to gently warn Proto over the unintended meanings words can sometimes have.) -- llywrch 21:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
No, he is a speaker of American English, and he meant it exactly as he said it. I'm not even aware of any other definition of "boner" than erection. --Cyde↔Weys 18:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
boner. ~ PseudoSudo 01:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

One thing nobody has pointed out yet: Xoloz is a relatively new admin, as of May 17. And he had a lot of support, making it to WP:100. However, being a new admin, he has the potential to make mistakes. Just as we have a WP:BITE policy to avoid biting newcomers, we should apply the same logic to new admins. In this case, some reasoned education would have been more appropriate than remarks like "bad", "stupid", "no basis in sense", and so on. --Elkman 15:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing out of process with Xoloz's decision. Cross-namespace redirects are not against current official policy. There is in fact quite a community split over the issue at the moment; read through WP:RFD right at this very moment and that will become obvious. With that in mind I completely fail to understand Kelly Martin / Mackensen's arguments that Xoloz made an incorrect action. ~ PseudoSudo 17:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, there really isn't a controversy over this one, and saying there is is nothing more than trying to manufacture one. It's long-standing practice that self-references are not allowed in Wikipedia because we are writing GFDL content for a free encyclopedia that is used in many places; we aren't writing merely to perpetuate Wikipedia. As a direct consequence of this we don't use self-references in the encyclopedic content. If you look at Wikipedia it uses external links to refer to itself, because we are not writing Wikipedia articles, we are writing encyclopedia articles, and any sort of cross-namespace internal link is broken on every other site that hosts our content. Not having cross-namespace links (or, even worse, redirects), is a simple no-brainer. There's no real controversy because anyone arguing for them is basically arguing against the fundamental goals of the project. If you want to go work on an encyclopedia whose goal is to perpetuate itself you can go do it ... you always have the right to fork. But Wikipedia isn't the place for that. --Cyde↔Weys 19:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
No, no, there is very clearly a controversy over this matter. I count many (Art LaPella, Chicheley, Jgp, Kusma, Shreshth91, Kjkolb, AndyJones, KeithTyler, 23skidoo, Osomec) editors voting keep in RFDs of cross-namespace redirects in just the past five days, not even attempting to take into account this highly-publicized DRV that ended in a keep. To deny this fact is to perpetuate exactly the type of behavior we are trying to condone in this thread. The point of my post, aside from vanquishing the ridiculous claims that Xoloz was at fault in any sense, was to re-iterate what I've said previously in these discussions: policy on cross-namespace redirects needs to be formed, else the same two-point debates on RFD that occur on a daily basis will not ever end. ~ PseudoSudo 20:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
None of those people you listed are in charge of setting policy though. In a project the size of Wikipedia there's always going to be dissenters. That doesn't mean they get any say in changing our fundamental goals away from what they currently are, though. --Cyde↔Weys 20:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This seems a bit misleading, as the cleanup-style templates are self references, for example. (of course, that can get interesting as well - see Template:POV-tag) RN 19:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, those are marked in selfref categories so they can be excised before going up on mirrors. --Cyde↔Weys 20:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I was just going to complain that Wikipedia mirrors now will have the deleted-page template with half a dozen cross-namespace-links instead of a cross-namespace-redirect, which doesn't look like any improvement at all. But now I see this instead. This looks quite acceptable to me, although the link to WP:BB should be an exernal link, just to be extra correct. --Conti|✉ 19:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Rich Doctors For Choice

I blocked this account as an inappropriate username. Requesting review. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a good block. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm. Not sure I agree. Pushing a POV in a username is against policy?? I didn't think it was. --Woohookitty(meow) 15:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It's inflamatory (blockable per policy), in the same vein that Billionaires for Bush is... If one ignores (the whole 3) POV edits supporting this position, one could say the name is representative of a role account (which are, of course, blocked on sight). It's a good block. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course it is. Offensive usernames are unacceptable. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Raymond Cruise

Raymond Cruise (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) has recreated variants of Category:Spanish-British (edit|talk|links|history|logs) and Category:Spanish-British people (edit|talk|links|history|logs) repeatedly and again most recently. He's not a new user, yet has still been warned last month by Syrthiss about removing CfD tags from categories. The folks at CfD have asked that somebody slap him on the wrist. Meanwhile, I'm cleaning out the category (again), and will {db G4} when I'm done.

--William Allen Simpson 02:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Tort Reform - Editor calling for "war"

As you can imagine, the subject of 'tort reform' is very controversial - on Wikipedia as in the 'real' world.

Several of us are collaborating on this article. There is not an edit war. It is taking time to revamp the article, since we so disagree, but we are working together. However, someone named Jarod wrote outageous posts a number of times, and finally wrote this:

::'Sorry to interrupt ' .,,but this last exchange got my dander up again. Dali, listen up. You seem okay (basically sane, sober, clean-shaven, etc), but you're completely and totally nuts. Why are you even having a conversation with these beautiful, amazing, flawlessly reasoned people? After all, isn't it clear that the TTP, since it was contracted by insurers, is hopelessly biased (as opposed to trial attorneys and their consultants, who have no vested financial interest in tort reform whatsoever, and therefore are free to quote studies as they please?) A slice of advice, my friend - this arguement is completely absurd. With a straight face, they are arguing that civil trial lawyers and their backers don't have any financial interest in enforcing strict caps on punitive damages and contingent fees, then in the next breath, say that insurers and their countless minions do. Ga-huhhh??? (Actually I don't know if they have a straight face. They may be giggling psychotically. In a bathtub full of tobacco money.) The point is, at least one has already admitted to being a trial lawyer, and therefore probably has more money then 6 rooms full of me and you. She argues for a living, and will argue, inanely and illogically, forever. Her condescension is emblematic of why we need tort reform. Trial lawyers have forgotten that all citizens in a free society create law. They just practice it. So stop being so sycophantic and start kicking some tail, buddy. A mildy special third grader could dissect the nonsense about "factoring in the value of life" (of course its an editorial comment Molly - are you even SERIOUS?)

Now watch this magic trick. I'm serious watch... In about forty-five seconds, what I just wrote is going to be interrupted at least four times, and will include howling appeals to censor me, claims that I'm a Republican operative or a child and at least one sentence with a subtext of I know much more about everything than you. It's their livelihood their fighting for. I get it - even respect it - but that respect is not mutual my friend. This is why you must stop sitting on the fence and fight. Love, Jarod--65.135.43.33 02:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a call for fighting and warring, and anything but civil (not to mention atrributing things to me or Gfwesq that nobody said). I fear that this is a troll, or a vandal that will completely undo any attempts at collaboration.jgwlaw 02:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tort_reform

Personally, I don't mind being called "nuts", but I do have a sickening feeling when some stranger (especially one who can't even spell "argument") addresses me as "my friend" or "buddy". So I'd agree, this looks bad. Well, hang on a little and see whether this really is a vandal who will completely undo any attempt at collaboration. In the meantime, perhaps the best thing to do is just to ignore the provocation: as long as you think he might be a troll, don't feed him. -- Hoary 03:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/m/Wikipedia%7EAdministrators%27_noticeboard_IncidentArchive114_6694.html"