Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive87

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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
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
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] Blu Aardvark: I recommend a permanent ban

Blu Aardvark (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), of late, has been increasingly trolly, in reaction to the dispute over the {{user review}} userbox. He was recently blocked for personal attacks, and has responded by creating a number of sockpuppets which he has used to blank articles and to continue his personal attacks. I am blocking him indefinitely and recommend that he be considered banned by the community. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I have blocked Blu's ISP (72.160.0.0/16) for 1 hour; his response to this block was to create even more sockpuppets and vandalize even more of Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a lie, Kelly. After my page blanking and a reset of my modem, I made a single statement on your talk page. That wasn't "vandalizing more of wikipedia", but mis-representing facts.... well, you're good at that. After the range block, I wasn't able to get an IP outside of that range (although if I was determined enough, I could have), so any vandalism that occured during the hour block was not from me. --72.160.87.87 14:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I am convinced at this point that this is an editor who has no place editing here any longer. His presence serves only to cause harm to our encyclopedia, and I fully support the ban. Dmcdevit·t 05:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

My spidey sense started tingling, so I checked meta on a hunch and caught him in the act of massive vandalism. Good thing he'd only been at it 4 minutes. Raul654 05:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Commons Raul654 05:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
In light of [1] I see no reason why this individual should not be banned from all projects. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't really care if you ban me from all projects. Really. I have no intention of ever contributing to your "encyclopedia" again, after the way I have been treated. Numerous admins have been rude, unreasonable, and unresponsive to reasonable requests. Don't act all surprised that I got pissy and went on a vandalism spree. You block my account for a month, for no reason other than that I called a few users, who happened to have made some trollish statements towards me or about me, trolls. I respond, quite upset, and eventually I'm able to negotiate an arrangement to solve the dispute. Then a single admin decides, "Oh, I'm not going to let that happen", misquotes one of WP:ALPHABETSOUP, and reverts and protects my page. I am quite pissed about this, so I take it up with the admin in question, who not only ignores my complaint, he reverts my statements and blocks the accounts. After about four or five tries, I say "fuck Wikipedia", and I Special:Randompage it. But why does this surprise anyone? You treat a person like you have treated me, and legitimately expect me not to bite back? (Yeah, I know some cunt is going to revert this statement and block this IP, probably for some ridiculous amount of time, but seriously, what is it going to accomplish for your wannabe "encyclopedia" to do it, other than alienating me, and possibly some other members of your community? It will accomplish the "NeedToPowerTrip", but what does that have to do with writing an "encyclopedia"?)
For one, it'll get rid of a child throwing a temper tantrum and wanting his diaper changed for him for a while. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Nice. You make a lovely little personal attack like that and then block my IP indefinately, blocking me from responding to it. Oh, that's a dynamic IP, BTW. You might want to reduce or remove that block, because it's possible that a legitimate user may end up with it at a later point. --72.160.73.242 07:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
An all-project ban certainly seems appropriate. Vandalism sprees are never justified, and users that engage in such activity are harmful to the project. Indefinitely blocking users who engage in petty vandalism is a long-standing practice and an appropriate action, in my opinion. Are you really asking what purpose blocking a vandal will serve the encyclopedia, Blu Aardvark? It may alienate the vandal, certainly, but will also help us fight vandalism, which is more important, in my opinion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The vandalism was a foolish thing to do, granted, as were the sockpuppets, but seriously, I felt like I was being attacked and mistreated, and I fought back with the limited tools I had. When you treat a user like you have treated me, and then block all avenues of dispute resolution, you effectively escalate the dispute. I suppose the assumption was, "Well, we'll just make it so that he can't talk about it, or otherwise resolve the dispute, and maybe it will go away. Besides, there is no dispute, because he's not in the first group referred to by Raul's first law, and therefore is in the second.". I didn't vandalize until I was alienated, and all avenues of resolving the dispute had been cut off. I'm not very appreciative of the fact that, when I was actually making some progress in resolving the conflict, someone cuts the process short and says, "We don't do that here". --72.160.73.242 07:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you felt attacked and mistreated, but if your fighting style involves damaging the encyclopedia, then I don't believe you have any place here. I am not familiar with your dispute, but forms of dispute resolution available to blocked users include e-mailing the mailing list or e-mailing administrators asking them to review the situation. Vandalizing is never appropriate. I have not treated you in any manner, as far as I recall. I don't believe we have ever encountered you before. I am sorry you felt alienated and I don't wish users to be in such a position, but if this is the way you respond to alienation, then I would ask that you find some other project of which to be a part. I don't wish to be rude, but in looking at the edits you have made, it appears you are more interested in some sort of revenge than in improving Wikipedia, and that's really not the sort of editor I'd like to see here. Your comments above imply to me that you still feel your vandalism was somehow justified. I am sorry that matters came together to such an extent to cause you to feel it was appropriate to respond in this way. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid we never had a dispute, you and I. Primarily, my dispute was between Raul654, SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and NicholasTurnbull, and a few other users. In other words, the High Cabal, and SlimVirgin and Friends™ - admins who think that they are above the rules, because none of the policies and guidelines matter if they pretend that they are interested in the "encyclopedia".  ::::::::Again, I'm not really concerned if I am banned or not, which is why my mini vandalism spree doesn't greatly concern me. I cannot expect to get sufficient respect from the High Cabal so long as I contribute under the name "Blu Aardvark". If I do eventually decide to come back, it will be as my sockpuppet - the only one I haven't abused, or even used in recent weeks (which is why Raul couldn't find it in his obsessive CheckUser search). A fresh start may do wonders for myself and for the encycloblog. For now, an apology from SlimVirgin for libelling me in every damn place she could would be in order - that's where my dispute primariy lies. --72.160.73.242 09:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with a permanent ban, on the grounds that the initial ban 36 hours ago was done in poor faith. --Golbez 07:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So do you believe then that if a block is done in poor faith (I'm not going to agree or disagree with you on that), then the user is quite justified in evading that block to vandalise wikipedia? Is that an expression of good faith on the part of the blocked user? --pgk(talk) 08:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying there was a rapid escalation of action and bad faith on both sides, and this needs to be addressed, rather than simply walking away happy to have banned him. --Golbez 18:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like someone involved to respond to this. --Golbez 18:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark has some good edits in the past with vandalism reversion, and I agree with him that policy is not followed enough these days. However, his personal attacks on DRV against SlimVirgin in particular are way off the rocker, and his sockpuppeteering displays a lack of sincerity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Having read, on Wikipedia Review forum, his admissions of sock puppetry, and witnessed his vandalism on Wikipedia, I don't think the good faith that was extended by me and others towards this editor in the past was merited. He is still openly boasting about having one undetected, unblocked sock. He also boasts about four undetected socks that are blocked, which suggests that he always abused Wikipedia while using the Blu Aardvark account for legitimate edits. --Tony Sidaway 15:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is very damning. --Golbez 18:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
begging the question, if a user splits his editing behaviour between his socks to the point of schizophrenia, should he be considered a single editor, or several unrelated editors? I agree that Blu's behaviour on that forum ("wikipediareview.com"? o_O) merit a permanent ban. If he has any interest in continuing good faith contributions, let him use his undiscovered socks: that's the good thing about anonymity here, you can always start over with a clean slate. dab (ᛏ) 15:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Edit Conflict Mis-representative. The four "undetected" socks were blocked by Raul654 for being Lir, in a bit of a WP:POINT action I was taking that, IMO, improved Wikipedia, because it reminded admins to act with a little caution when reverting edits. Yes, I'm my own "friend". Meet User:Orange Flowerpot, User:Another Orange Flowerpot, User:Yet Another Orange Flowerpot, and User:Neon Orange Flowerpot. Whatever. It doesn't really matter now, so I'll just let the secret out of the bag. --72.160.78.81 15:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Damned by his own words. --Tony Sidaway 16:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised at Blu Aardvark's behaviour as demonstrated above. He always seemed like a reasonable guy on IRC and on the old Wikipedia Review. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You all went about this thing the wrong way in the first place. Are you that surprised that someone lost faith and sanity in the project when they are attacked and question from 500 different angles by a dozen different admins? His own talkpage was protected while he was blocked, effectively making him unable to defend himself, so the only way he could was through anon IPs and sockpuppets. His past messages, most of which consisted of relatively normal conversation, were erased from his talkpage by admins. Maybe you need to re-examine the way you approach these bans and blocks, because when you accuse someone of being a troll or a vandal, erase their messages, and then you don't give them the chance to defend their character, chances are they will become a deviant, because they have nowhere left to speak, no one to speak to, and no way left to speak. You admins are the ones who set an example for mere users like Blu and I, but in this situation, it seems like all you did was sink to his level, and when that failed, you sought to ignore his plight. Blu Aardvark really can't really be spared now, he's not what he used to be, but don't think that he, and only he, did this. Next time, you take one or two admins to straighten it out, not a mass brigade of sysops.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 22:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kim McGinn

Request an admin to look at this history page of this non-notable bio where the original author insists that the subject (presumably herself/himseld) is notable. The respective {{db-bio}} and {{afd}} tags are constantly being removed inspite of talk-page attempts by User:Stollery and myself. --ΜιĿːtalk 12:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted and protected as a temporary measure. No reasonable assertion of notability in my opinion. Request review from other admins. --kingboyk 13:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


The entire response to this article from top to bottom has been a debacle.

1. In the two minutes between the time I made the first edit and gathering information for the more detailed second edit, a speedy delete tag is added.

2. User:Stollery twice removes warning tags from his talk page.

3. Both Miljoshi and Stollery break the 3RR rule. In order to cover-up their acts, they apply to have the article deleted, which they succeed in doing. This is what Miljoshi writes on user_talk:Stollery page: "Have flagged...on WP:AN/I. To avoid WP:3RR by either of us, some injection can be expected, hopefully"

4. There is an AfD going on, and there have been three votes: 1 for Delete, 1 for Keep, 1 for Speedy Delete. Yet these votes are ignored when this article was deleted.

5. On the talk page a consensus was asked for: to temporarily remove the page from wikipedia until more information can be gathered on the subject. Did kingboyk respond or participate in the talk page? No he deleted the article and said that nothing new can ever be added about the subject.

I am disappointed in wikipedia. But I demand action and the reinstatement of this article, and the enforcement of wikipedia rules. Toysoy 13:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well hold your horses there mate! Give a fellow a chance. I had to attend to other matters first, like asking the other person involved not to bite the newcomers (although I now guess you aren't a newcomer at all), and I was then dealing with an unconnected vandalism report (which takes priority). Whilst you were typing this I was typing a message on your talk page and on the article's talk page. I have enforced Wikipedia rules: I speedy deleted an article on an apparently non notable person, I protected the page against recreation as an interrim measure because you weren't taking no for an answer, and I have requested review of my actions from other admins (with the possibility of overturning with no hard feelings). AFD is irrelevant if an article falls under the speedy deletion criteria, which to my mind this one does (1 speedy delete, 1 borderline speedy, and you; for the record). Note that no page is deleted forever and if you provide evidence of notability on the talk page or another admin decides to restore the page it can be restored with a couple of mouse clicks! --kingboyk 13:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me toysoy but you neglected to point you that you removed the Speedy tag three times and the AfD tag four times! In doing so you twice over broke the 3RR rule. Also you'll note that Miljoshi's note to me states "To avoid WP:3RR by either of us, some injection can be expected, hopefully" - note the part that says "avoid WP:3RR" - neither of us broke it (and even if we had it does not constitute a breach if reverting vandalizm - and even if deleted admins can see the history even if you can't so you assumption we had it deleted to hide our actions is false). My warnings to you (all FOUR of them) were placed after two warnings were placed on the article talk page - all of which were ignored. Besides all of this your note on the Talk:Kim McGinn page states "im the author of the article. why dont you remove the article now so that i can gather more info and make a decent article? then i can make the article again. is their consensus?" which is exactly what kingboyk did, so what's the problem? If you believe this person is notable then simply rewrite the article and request unprotection... you are quite obviously not a new user by any means so you should know to have done this anyway right? I believe everyone acted in good faith considering you removed deletion templates at least 7 times. Good luck with the article. ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€ŖγŤč 13:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

First, on behalf of User:Stollery and myself my apology to Toysoy (talk • contribs) for any unpleasant event. To me, the reason why this matter is being discussed here is: User:Toysoy's reverts (an admin may see through the past history) on the said article by ignoring all rational on notability and warnings, and then, attempts by the user to stall User-page and talk-page of the fellow editor [2]. It may be noted that subsequent to {{db-bio}}, the article was tagged {{afd}} - a gesture in good faith by User:Stollery to respect the editor's view (it is a different matter that the editor chose to keep reverting everything). While I may assume in good faith that the editor is new and the subject is indeed notable (25 google hits), neither of the above two cases qualifies for a pleasant situation. And I see merit in kingboyk's action and rational to size up the situation. User:Toysoy is very much welcome to assert notability to support the claims. I have created review section on the talk page for this very purpose, content of which can be later moved to the main article subject to qualification. -- Regards. ΜιĿːtalk 08:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


Those are great arguments, but really I think you guys are trying to excuse the inexcusable. You broke the rules. You can't break the rules in the name of stopping what you think is rule-breaking.

My rule breaking was to remove the damn tag LITERALLY 2 minutes after creating the article; as I was adding information in the first place. In your rush to gain edits on wikipedia you fail to see the consequences of your hasty actions.

These people were so eager to put the tags on the page that they put two on at the same time - the AfD tag and the speedy delete tag. It just doesn't make sense.

And the talk page had suggestions which you guys ignored. Instead you made 3RR violations twice over.

And then, to top it off, you conspired with each other to cover-up your acts and hide the truth.

Well the chickens have come home to roost. And to the wikipedia administrators, I say, punish these people and let the article run its course. We'll see how it looks in a week after some editing. Toysoy 10:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And it's funny how you guys haven't given any excuses for removing two warnings from your talk page. Toysoy 10:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I am growing really tired of this harrassment
I have addressed ALL of this on your talk page, though you are obviously putting on a big song and dance for the administrators (even after writing "Just forget about it ok? It's over with." on my talk page). But I'll play your silly game, and I am going to go through this VEEEERY slowly so you understand as I've now told you THREE TIMES:
  1. The warnings on my page were written by a user who (amoungst other abuse) wrote the following on my talk page:
"Now that I know who you are. I have a few words for you. Fuck you, you pathetic loser."
"I still think you're contentious AND pompous and biased"
"Beat it Stoolery. By the way your website is down, whats wrong with you?"
"your Outside View for Terryeo is full of claptrap lugged out of your despotic" [3]
He also wrote the same thing about me personally on at least three other people's user pages.
  1. If that's not enough - The warnings themselves were unfounded, wholely without any merit and, in the words of an Administrator "the warnings were clearly done out of harassment"[4] They were placed simply so (someone like you) could complain about their removal. If some random person went and placed half a dozen large unfounded warnings all over your talk page and expect you to leave them there? They were there, as the admin pointed out to harrass me.
  2. Wikipedia policy states: "It is generally acceptable to remove misplaced vandalism tags, as long as the reasoning is solid." [5]
  3. Even though I was 100% certain the warnings were not valid, to be absolutely sure I checked with another administrator to confirm I could remove the harrassment from my page, which he confirmed I could. [6]
  4. Regarding the warnings you left on my user page (which you vandalized as you are not permitted to deface other people's user pages) they stated "Please stop removing content from Wikipedia and kimigin (sic); it is considered vandalism" [7] - But I never removed any content all I did was add the speedy and AfD templates WHICH YOU REMOVED 7 TIMES!
  5. One the same basis as above (simply there as a form of harrassment so you could complain about me) I removed them as completely unfounded.
  6. You claim that we have tried to "cover up the truth" again is completely unfounded. For one we did not break the 3RR rule. There was no colaboration. Miljoshi's note to me stated "To avoid WP:3RR by either of us, some injection can be expected, hopefully" - note the part that says "avoid WP:3RR" - neither of us broke it (and even if we had it does not constitute a breach if reverting vandalizm - and even if deleted admins can see the history even if you can't so you assumption we had it deleted to hide our actions is false). My warnings to you (all FOUR of them) were placed after two warnings were placed on the article talk page - all of which were ignored.
  7. You claim "My rule breaking was to remove the damn tag LITERALLY 2 minutes after creating the article". Again, YOU BROKE THE DARN 3RR RULE TWICE OVER WHEN YOU REVERTED SEVEN TIMES AFTER HAVING 6 WARNINGS! And, again as you can't grasp this concept Admins can still see the history of deleted articles so why would we try to hide this fact... upon reviewing they will see your breach (twice!)
  8. Your call to have me "punished" is motivating me to have this looked into formally... Because I answered all your questions but you continually avoid mine. You came at me right from the start accusing me of deleting another persons warnings from my page before any of this began, and even complained to another admin wanting to know why I haven't been punished and I want to know why. Why do you even care about this? Who are you and what is your problem with me? You have come from nowhere (coincidently immediately after UNK was banned) and wrote about my citing confidential documents so are you a scientologist? Some admins suspect you are yet another sockpuppet of JimmyT/UNK (a scientologist) so please clarify why you are so motivated to bring me down. I await your reply. - Glen T C 16:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppet? Wouldn't surprise me, otherwise he's a very clued up newbie! I am however surprised this is still rumbling on as the article's talk page is quiet and no evidence of notability has been produced (nor I suspect will it be). The other matters are peripheral; warring over a properly deleted article achieves nothing. I'd suggest dropping the matter, not that I think anyone will listen :-) --kingboyk 16:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspamremover

I have temporarily blocked Linkspamremover (talk • contribs) as I suspect it is a bot (which doesn't have approval nor any information on who is running it). I base my suspicions on its single focus of edits and username reflecting what it does. I asked a few hours ago for more information but the user did not respond but carried on making similar edits. Could others help look into this? Talrias (t | e | c) 02:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Appears not to be a bot, has replied on his talkpage. Recommend unblock since he's doing a useful job here. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The block should already expired by now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a personal attack?

From Talk: Democratic peace theory:

Regarding Robert A West, he is real-world friend or relative of Septentrionalis. See their extensive collaborative editing of numerous Baron West and Earl De La Warr. They have extremely deep knowledge about this particular aristocratic family. The Arbcom included him in their decision. Ultramarine 23:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. West and I have known each other for some time before we began to edit. When he began to edit Lord Delaware and create related articles in time for the 400-th anniversary of his Governorship, he asked me, since I have access to a university library, to check out some details.

The three of us are under an Arbcom decision (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine) to edit Democratic peace theory by consensus; Ultramarine is justifying his removal [8] of text which the other two of us have explicitly defended. (see Talk:Democratic peace theory#1).

This incivility is not helpful. Whether it is a veuled (and false) assertion of sock-puppetry is unclear. Septentrionalis 04:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I fail to see anything remotely close to incivility or a personal attack. Ultramarine wrote that you are a friend or relative of Mr. West. You admit that you have known Mr. West for some time, so Ultramarine's comment appears to be accurate. Did you or Mr. West introduce the disputed material without Ultramarine's consent? --Mr j galt 05:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The material, as it stood, was the product of a series of rewrites by both Ultramarine, myself, and other parties not involved in the arbitration; the actual text was a condensation of an extremely verbose text of Ultramarine's, preserving the arguments. Robert West has not edited this section; I'm not sure he has edited the article recently. Septentrionalis 05:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Other jibes, on the same subject, include
Now this is interesting: both Septentrionalis and Robert A West has created and co-edited many articles about Baron West and Earl De La Warr. An old aristocratic family, who like the rest of the aristocracy lost their class privileges when democracy was introduced. Ultramarine 15:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
From User talk:Scaife; and Talk:R. J. Rummel:
The attempted deletion is even more strange when considering that they have created and expanded numerous vanity articles about non-notable relatives to a least one of them, various Baron West and Earl De La Warr. Why should persons whose only achievement were to born into a class exploiting the rest of the population be included, but not a a respected researcher who have spent his life on something as important as how war and mass murder.
This is attacking Robert West for a deletion vote, when in fact he voted to keep; just to add to the bizarreness of it all. Septentrionalis 05:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I suppose I should speak on this -- to me, it is clear that Ultramarine intends this to be understood as a negative remark, else his dark and portentious tone makes no sense, but the point escapes me. I am reminded of the old story where the politician announces that his opponent's sister was a public thespian. I hope that Ultramarine will either drop the irrelevant discursion or clarify his intent. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user:Bakewell Tart and user:Count of the Saxon Shore

I wonder if someone could please look into both of these accounts. Count of teh Saxcon Shore was, until recently, called Crusading Compoiser - both the name Crusading Composer and Bakewell Tart and intended as personal digs at me - I work in the town of Bakewell and, as a composer who often uses music to camnpaign for certain issues, it is an epithet which has been used to describe me. BT and CC (now CotSS)'s behaviour shows them to be rather fixated with me - initially attacking the page created by someone else about me Robert Steadman and then, when I began to edit on WP attacking me. I strongly believe they are stalkers from another internet forum who wage a campaign of hounding and harassment for months on there and have now transferred this to here. Despite a handful of other edits they are both clearly single issue editors who seem to be on a mission. What can be done? (By the way, despite claims to the contrary I have never edited the page about myself and the accusation of sockpuppets against me is false (I am asure this will come up) - I'm afraid that user: Jayjg was wrong in his actions to block me for this and I would like this recified and the claims that I used sockpuppets removed from WP as it is defamatory). Robsteadman 13:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Bakewell Tart seems to have no interest in adding content to wikipedia - the only real reason for anyone to have an account. User:Count Of The Saxon Shore has made some useful edits but doesn't seem to be able to keep away from Rob despite being encouraged by myself and AnnH. As for the sockpuppet accusations against Rob - just from the edit histories of User:Robeaston99 and User:Vhjh I can see why Jayjg made the decision he did but in the light of the strange folk Rob seems to attract I don't think this can be taken as a simple case. Jayjg himself was happy for other users with checkuser privilige to discuss this with him at the time but I think Rob was hoping it would all just blow over. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 13:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
User:Bakewell Tart did not conduct himself in the manner of a Wikipedian- when I was reverting his edits to User talk:Robsteadman he began to start insulting me in his edit summaries and began gaming the system by making unique edits to the page every time. He still made 6 full reverts to the page in 24 hours, and was eventually blocked under 3RR, after me filing a report on the WP:AN/3RR page (admittedly badly formatted, as I was in a rush to get Bakewell Tart blocked as we were in a huge edit war with him). In the end I took to reporting him on WP:AIV. That's all I really have to say on this matter. --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The words pot and kettle spring to mind. Another over reaction from the man whose favourite word is outrageous. Why does he have to see everything in terms of 'cabals' 'conspiracies' 'friends' and 'foes'? Should I respond by making him the subject of a RfC - his conduct would certainly merit an investigation?

I'll just make a quick summary:

  1. Yes, I initially created my account with the intention of removing the gush and autiobiography from Mr Steadman's article. The original article was heavily POV and unacceptable. I also wanted to add links to Mr Steadman's activities on other internet forums.
  2. I got into a lot of arguments with VHJH (later alleged to be a sockpuppet of Steadman) and some of these were not pleasant and I'm sure that I broke rules re: personal attacks, AGF and civility - but I'm not that fond of being called 'liar' and mentally ill.
  3. Once the gush had been removed, I let it go. I used Wikipedia to research my interests but I didn't edit for a while.
  4. Then the whole sockpuppet issue arose. Still smarting from VHJH's vicious personal attacks, I couldn't resist gloating and adding a 'Ha ha' to his userpage - although if anyone reads that, it was perfectly in context, considering VHJH's last comment to me.
  5. My AfD, although, unsuccessful, was not a bad faith nomination as Mr steadman, if he was indeed editing as VHJH, would have broken policies on vanity articles and biographies.
  6. I have NOT engaged in any further personal attacks, I have not joined in any of the many arguments that Mr Steadman has involved himself in. I hardly see how I can be accused of harrasing or stalking him (not in the last 2 months anyway). In fact, the only time that I involve myself with Mr steadman is when he makes attacks on me. I politely asked him to remove personal attacks from his userpage and he mocked me then ignored me. I am more than happy to have nothing more to do with him now that he has removed the offensive comments. Quite frankly, he does more to harm himself and his reputation than any of his 'enemies' ever could.Count Of The Saxon Shore 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

And again, repetitions of lies, abuse and stalking - at least here is an admission that this stalker has carried his campaign over from other web fora. I did not and have not use any siockpuppets - that is a lie. I do hope something can be done about this stalker. Robsteadman 19:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that Robsteadman has removed the comments from his talk pages (Thanks for that), you two can try and leave each other alone, surely? Wikipedia is a big place. I suggest you simply put your differences aside, forget about each other, and move on. That's what I am attempting to do. --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is any justice ALL vandals and stalkers would be banned. Let's see how long before this particular stalker starts again - or will it be as another new name? Deskana, if you had been stalked by someone for a year over different net fora and involving real-life events would you be hjappy to just let it drop because they felt the heat was on them? I somehow doubt it. Robsteadman 20:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

.......and if he continues with the stalking I will put back the naming and ashaming on my talk page because others should be aware of this sp-called editor's behaviour. Robsteadman 20:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, whether or not he stalked you, if he wishes to move away from this issue and his past, and edit on Wikipedia, he is welcome. The same is true of you. He certainly does not seem to be stalking you now, at least. Quite the contrary, he has expressed that he wishes to move on from this issue. --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

He has expressed this wish months ago, and yet continues, he keeps expressing it.... what sort fo behaviour is that? Ummm... let me think! If he wanted to move on he would - as it is he doesn't and hasn't. Actrion should be taken - stalkers should NEVER be welcomed on WP or anywhere else.

The heat is on me? Just how, robert? This silly RfC is likely to backfire big time. Could you please stop referring to me as a 'stalker'. I am not a stalker in any sense of the word. If I was a stalker, then surely I'd be following you around. I happen to have edited on 2 sites which you have also edited, big deal. I edited an article about you because It was misleading. You have not undone any of those edits. Your article, as it stands, owes a lot to my contributions. I have had nothing to do with you on any forum for months - is that the action of a mentally unbalanced stalker? You seem far more interested in me than I am with you.Count Of The Saxon Shore 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman, you are not letting him move on by repeatedly commenting about how he is a stalker on your user talk page. It is difficult to move on if someone keeps repeatedly calling you a stalker. If you let him move on, he might well do it. You need to try, otherwise you'll get caught in a deadlock constantly blaming each other for blaming each other (for blaming each other for blaming each other....). Count of the Saxon Shore cannot be blocked simply because you insist he is stalking you. --Darth Revert (AKA Deskana) (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 69.95.86.73

69.95.86.73 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) seems to have difficulty with WP:NPA and it appears the vast majority of the edits from this IP are either article vandalism attacking the subject or attacks on another editor that attempts to reason with the user of this IP. I've blocked for a week because this is the 7th block for the same reasons -- if anyone thinks that needs to be changed, please feel free :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 206.183.140.244 (talk • contribs)

206.183.140.244 (talk • contribs) is constantly inserting the words BIG POOP (not kidding!) into the article on the European Union. He is a known vandal, having been blocked several times before (see his talk page). Could somebody with blocking tools take a look?

Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 14:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if this is any relations to the feces vandal that struck a few days back... If not we should set them up on a date together, they'd be perfect :) Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 14:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Haha! I'd hate to see them make out though! :-) The Minister of War (Peace) 14:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Question: when does it reach the point when indefinite blocking is in order. All his previous edits are vandalism as well, and he's bound to return (he always has). Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 17:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Indefinite is a very long time, and in a "very long time" IP addresses can be reallocated. --kingboyk 17:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
So how "very long" would seem appropriate? To my mind, a ban of a year or so should do the trick, or is this considered overly harsh? Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 19:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hijacked AfD

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Licking has been hijacked by User:Musical_Linguist. She does not like the concept and she has protected this page after voting for delete herself and getting a few of her Catholic friends to also vote for delete. What is Wikipedia coming to that an admin is not significantly punished for such a flagrant abuse of her admin prviledges?!? Wikipedia is not her personal cathedral where only the sacred and blessed even get a turn to speak? She has a million other articles to work on and yet she had to

  • deeply reverted the "Licking" article itself
  • deleted other comments
  • tilted the vote in her favor
  • Hide perfectly valid criticism of an error that her fellow female User:FloNight made
  • use her admin priviledges to protect an AfD page to force the outcome in the way she just happens to want it to go?!? -- WaitingForTurn 14:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The above user is a sockpuppet of a banned user who has been harassing a number of editors. JoshuaZ 14:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
This is VERY interesting. Thanks. Robsteadman 14:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
For more information one should ask Flonight. Flo and Musical seem to be the name targets of this individuals harassment. JoshuaZ 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I am more interested in thebehaviour of Musical Linguist. Robsteadman 14:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
As someone who has been following but did not comment on the AfD either way, I don't see her as having done anything wrong. What is your concern? JoshuaZ 14:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Andrew William Morrow has a long history of problem behavior concerning what he calls "a certain demographic" (meaning, female Wikipedians). He has also cyberstalked at least one of them off-Wikipedia. He has been blocked under several sockpuppets, most recently for this edit. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
It's only semi-protected. Full protection would be highly irregular. Nonetheless I'm not sure it sets a good precedent. Best to block the dispruptive editors or close the AFD early than to protect a debate I would have thought. --kingboyk 14:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict)
User:71.156.102.142 has already been blocked. I'm going to unprotect the article and add it to my watchlist. --kingboyk 14:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
And I've perma-blocked WaitingForTurn for personal attacks, although sockery is also a valid reason. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Woops, Musical Linguist beat me to it by a minute. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that this page itself is currently semi-protected, which it really shouldn't be for a long period of time. --kingboyk 17:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I should point out - I am the one that started the delete process, by tagging the page for speedy deletion as patent nonsense (which it was not, I realize, after reading the article.) No one had directed me to it - I linked from a user page I was on, and it happened to be one of the first articles I came to that I thought was un-encyclopedic after I learned about AfD's. My speedy delete tag was removed, and changed to an AfD - but NOT by User:Musical Linguist. When I went to vote on the article, I struck out some abusive text by User:71.156.102.142, not realizing he was the banned Andrew Morrow; and was hit with abusive comments on my user talk page (I have since removed them - you can see them in the history, some negative comments at the AfD for Licking, and then further comments on my talk page by the same user using IP User:71.141.19.94 (the same IP used to start this section). I had no personal vendetta when I started the delete process - I have periodically come across articles I think drastically lower the educational/professional standards of Wikipedia, and learned about AfD's in order to nominate them - this was one such article I came across shortly after learning about it. The attacks on Musical Linguist are, as near as I can see, totally unwarranted, as a number of other editors (myself included) played the primary role in tagging the article for deletion; a process Musical Linguist had nothing to do with. She simply deleted article updates/AfD vote by a banned user, something any editor, let alone administrator, is permitted to do. Hope that helps clear up any confusion as to the origins for the AfD.DonaNobisPacem 21:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link spam by user SykoByte

User SykoByte is repeatedly adding links to his own website, in violation with the guidelines on WP:EL. Despite the efforts made by other wikipedians to make this user understand that linking to your own website is not allowed, he continues doing so. This user consider himself and his site to be above these rules, and refuses to comply with the guidelines of Wikipedia. When his spam links are removed, he adds them again, and complain about being harassed by other wikipedians. In my opinion, blocking this user and his IP would be the most suitable solution. An administrator might be able to set him straight, though, since he - despite the efforts made by other wikipedians - doesn't seem to understand that rules apply to all who publish on Wikipedia. Articles in which this user continues to link to his own website are:

In my opinion, this matter is way beyond a simple misunderstanding. SykoByte have been made aware of the rules and policies a number of times, but dismisses that as harassment. Now he needs to be made aware that the rules and policies are real, and meant to be followed, not bent or broken.

/Magore 16:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

While not the end-all and be-all as a guideline for spam, the site he attempts to add has no Alexa rank and Google PageRank, so this site is little more than a personal web site. If it keeps up, spam1 to spam4 warnings might be appropriate. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Although the links currently given are more than adequate evidence of the problem, I got involved in this issue on DreamGuy's Talk page ("What is wrong?"). Never once did SykoByte acknowledge that he had read WP:EL. EVula 19:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you guys are right. I read WP:EL and I will stop adding my links to the articles. I do not want to be banned from Wikipedia. I'm just glad I was able to add the 2 articles that I did without them being deleted. However, I do think DreamGuy needs to be told to stop being so rude to people on here. I did a search on him and I couldn't believe the amount of problems I saw with him and other Wikipedians. He may be a good editor, but he is downright rude and hypocritical. The other editors were overall kind about the situation.SykoByte

[edit] User:Joycie 15

Joycie 15 (talk • contribs) is continually adding articles about non-notable amateur football (soccer) players who play in their local league to Wikipedia. Most have been had been deleted, via prod or speedily. Despite request on user's talk page to stop adding them and read WP:BIO's guidelines on notability for sportspersons (i.e. that in professional sports such as soccer, being a full-time professional is the minimum for notability), user persists in adding dozens of new badly-formatted articles. Can someone please warn and/or block them? Thank you. Qwghlm 23:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Attempts at communication have totally failed, so I am blocking them for 48 hours. Ashibaka tock 23:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Jason sock needs blocking

207.160.71.134 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) JoshuaZ 01:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Security Archive

The article National Security Archive has been a focus of much contention lately. There is a user, User:Tbeatty who continously debates the usage of Wikipedia's copyright policy on the page's talk page when it is not the proper forum. He refuses to submit to logical and reasoned arguments and continues to change material when arguments clearly prove him wrong on the point of copyright and POV. He has been hostile and is borderline on the violating Wiki's policy on civility. Please also note that an administrator, User:Gamalielis involved in the dispute. --Strothra 02:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings

Can users violate a Wikipedia policy by erasing warnings from talkpages just because admin says he can do it? --Nikitchenko 03:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The "warnings" he is complaining on my talk page about were from UNK who now is now banned as he is a sockpuppet of JimmyT: a permanently banned user who made numerous personal attacks (borderline threats) repeatedly on myself and at least half a dozen users as well as legal threats.
  1. The warnings were completely without merit and were made over and over again on my talk page in attempt to vandalize them
  2. Included was the following: "Fuck you, you pathetic loser." "I still think you're contentious AND pompous and biased;" and "full of claptrap lugged out of your despotic" [9]
  3. Wikipedia policy states: "It is generally acceptable to remove misplaced vandalism tags, as long as the reasoning is solid."
  4. The warnings were not valid, but to be sure I sought administrator approval before removing here.
Hopefully this shines a little more light on the circumstances behind this situation. - Glen T C 03:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy from talk:Stollery for references

I went and looked. You call someone anal, it's a psych-oriented personal attack on a person who INSPECTING details.:) If you disagree, so be it. All cultures have different values. Have a good day. --Nikitchenko 03:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I did not call someone anal. Read it again, the click the wikilink for "this cultures" definition. Sheesh. - Glen T C 03:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You suggested someone was anal, a personal attack is uncivil and unnecessary for talking about contents. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWikipediatrix&diff=46304631&oldid=46303381 --Nikitchenko 04:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Just forget about it ok? It's over with. --Nikitchenko 04:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
"if RadioKirk is going to be [[Anal retentive|anal]] I have uploaded..." - Glen T C 04:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


I cant find ChrisO (admin who banned UNK) discussing anywherein WIkipedia that UNK is sock puppet of JimmyT. --Nikitchenko 04:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

David Gerard, an admin, has determined that UNK and JimmyT are sockpuppets who harassed Stollery on his talk page and made a big fuss about removing warning templates (just as you are doing now, interestingly). You may not be aware that in the USA the term "anal" is commonly applied to overly meticulous people who make a big fuss over inconsequential matters (just as you are doing now, interestingly). wikipediatrix 04:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The following was posted on my talk page (Nikitchenko it seems you didn't look very hard)
Stollery, FYI - UNK has been blocked indefinitely as a block-evading sockpuppet of the currently blocked JimmyT. -- ChrisO 00:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Seems strange that you put a post on my page saying:
Just forget about it ok? It's over with. --Nikitchenko 04:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Then right up an incident report over it. I'm curious as to your motivations here? Why are you so bothered by this? Someone who launched abusive personal attacks against me many times writes me warning... why is this such a big deal to you? - Glen T C 06:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prasi90

I ran across a user claiming to be Prasi90 (talk • contribs) in #wikimedia-stewards this evening. On asking if I could help him, he indicated that his account was indefinately blocked by MONGO (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), his IP blocked for a month, and his talk page protected; on further examination, I found that he had been indefinately blocked by MONGO, after being blocked a number of other times by a number of other administrators, while his talk page was protected by Gator1 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), who was not involved in the blockings.

He was requesting to be unblocked, or his talk page unprotected so he could file an RfAr against MONGO. My first suggestion was that he email an Arbitrator; he responded that he had emailed Fred Bauder, but hadn't received a reply. (I've heard from other arbitrators that most arbs (Fred included) are very good about forwarding such requests to the ArbCom list, so it's entirely likely that they are discussing/have discussed the matter.) Rather than reversing other admin's actions, particularly in a situation where I had no idea what was going on, I told him I'd raise the issue here. (Here rather than with the individual admin, since it involves several admins.) It strikes me that with so many admins involved, it is unlikely to be a mistake, but, AGF and all. I'm notifying MONGO, Gator1, and Fred of this post, so they can offer thier side of the story.

I'd appreciate others taking a look and offering a more rounded view of the backstory, as well as thoughts on what, if anything, to do. I'm inclined to trust the judgment of the involved admins, and leave it alone unless the Arbitration Committee sees fit to get involved. Essjay Talk • Contact 03:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Prasi90 (talk • contribs) is also 202.177.246.3 (talk • contribs). Repeatedly blocked for vandalism, harassment, personal attacks and general disruption. I blocked Prasi90 indefinitely after receiving numerous harassing emails and a scan of the talk pages on Prasi90 and IP 202.177.246.3 shows that I am not the only one. I blocked his IP for 1 month which should expire on about 4/28/06. After 203.177.246.3 repeatedly was posting the unblock template on his talk page and even though a couple of days went by and I was the only one responding, I asked him to stop posting the template. He then posted it in three places on his talk page, so I protected his page, telling him I would remove the protection just before his block expired. I also posted that the page was protected at WP:PP[10]. There is also a standing Rfc on this editor at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Prasi90. Prasi90 was blocked before and asked to be unblocked to file an Rfar and I told NSLE to go ahead and unblock him. NSLE told Prasi90 that the unblock was contingent on him filing the Rfar, which he didn't do. Prasi90 did apologize, but has done this in the past as well, and ended up going right back to his old habits. When no Rfar was posted and after review of the editing history, I decided a long term block was in order. NSLE sanctioned the block[11] and Hamster Sandwich said he was thinking of unblocking and mentoring Prasi90, but didn't follow through with this. I said that would be fine, but I was not going to have anything else to do with this editor. If someone wants to unblock him...do so...but I am NOT going to help anyone who has anymore difficulties in regards to this situation. I get one more insulting email from him, I'm simply going to contact his service provider.--MONGO 04:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
See also, block log for IP 202.177.246.3[12]--MONGO 04:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I've unprotected his users pages and am watching them. If something happens which justifies protecting again please do so. Fred Bauder 04:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I went and unprotected his IP page as well.--MONGO 08:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
He's recently posted a listing of comments constructed by MONGO at earlier dates, for Fred to include in the impending rfar. I reproduce it all below:

The following is a (not yet complete)request for de-administratorship/disciplinary action against the user MONGO.I ask Fred to please post this on my behalf alongwith the RfAr.

Statements made by MONGO to Prasi90 which seem to be uncivil/rude/unprofessional in nature when compared to the tone in which Prasi90 communicates with MONGO.These statements show that Mr.MONGO uses his blocking powers to harass Prasi90-especially with permanent and month-long blocks. Urges Prasi90 to "have fun" writing Anti-American "nonsense" outside Wikipedia.

Urges Prasi90 to "grow up" and "be a good scout" since "this (Wikipedia) is not a playground".Also asks Prasi90 "Want to be blocked again for disruption?" in what seems to be a threatening manner.

Do you have anything constructive to add to Wikipedia? I am inclined to think that you do not.--MONGO 16:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to write an encyclopedia or do you want me to enforce a block on you for disruption. I'm about done with your uselessness. Oh, and no question mark.--MONGO 05:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The above comment seems to be particularly aggressive.

Here,in line 173 MONGO says-"Do you want a month long block...I'll be glad to give you one",seems again to be an aggressive statement

This editor has contributed nothing of worth to this project and in light of the incessant trolling and harassment of several editors, the one week block is quite lenient.--MONGO 09:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The phrase which has been highlighted by me again seems to be judgemental and uncivil.

On an unrelated note, I believe dear Prasi90 will require much more than this to request an de-sysoping and explain the reasoning for his disruption.-ZeroTalk 11:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The user whined on IRC last night, also complaining that MONGO was stalking this user. As the block log suggests, there were only two blocks issued by MONGO, and the other 3 or 4 were issued by other people. I personally would not unblock. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mary K. Sponze

Mary_K._Sponze (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) is engaging in a very strange pattern of behavior. I tagged "her" article Movement to End Woman's Suffage a possible hoax; she tagged my user page as a hoax [13] and has been making personal attacks [14], removing test notices from her talk page, and other such disruptive behavior. I posted to WP:AIV but I also wanted to post here as the AIV notice will be removed (whether or not she is blocked) and I'd like someone to keep an eye on this. Thanks. Thatcher131 03:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Sample edit: [15] Antandrus (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potential edit war on the articles about the United Nations

Dear admin, I would like seek your help in solving an edit dispute related to several articles about the United Nations, such as United Nations Security Council, International Court of Justice, United Nations Economic and Social Council etc. Each of those articles contains the name of the organization / department / agency in all the six official languages of the United Nations. (The six official languages of the United Nations are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, Spanish.) But User:Raul654 is recently, unilaterally, very actively, deleting the official names except the name in English. I asked him to seek a consensus in Talk:United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Alternate_names first before he delete any information from the articles. However, it seems that he is still deleting the information from the articles. I am afraid that would invoke an edit war. I hope that you can help us to stop his deletion, and encourage all Wikipedians to discuss, ask for other people's opnion, and seek a consesus, before they delete information from the article. I sincerely want to avoid an edit war, and I hope that you could solve the dispute. Thank you. - Alan 04:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Since this is the English Wikipedia, we try to keep foreign names down to a bare minimun. What I suggest is that you do not add the templates, but check and see if the articles in the said languages are created at AR, ZH, FR, RU and ES Wikipedias and add interwikilinks. If that is done, then just do not add the templates again. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. In my opinion, it is already a common practice for the articles about nations or international organizations to include the name in the non-English official languages. I don't see any points for making any exceptions for the United Nations, which is one of the most important inernational organizations. Furthermore, as I pointed out in the discuss page of one of those disputed articles, I think it is especially important to include the names of the non-English official languages in the English Wikipedia. As English is becoming a common language for international communication, or even a worldwide language, nowadays. English has the importance of being a bridge between people who speak different languages to overcome the language barrier. Unlike the Wikipedia in other languages, the English Wikipedia has a lot of contributors and readers from many different countries, which includes a lot of non-English-speaking countries. It would also be helpful for English speakers who are searching information about the United Nations, if they can see the terms in official languages all in one page, rather than guessing which word is the official name in an article written in a foreign language. (Some English articles don't even have a corresponding article in some other languages.) While the Wikipedias in a lot of other languages also include the English name of the United Nations in their respective articles, it would be fair for the English Wikipedia to include the names in those languages as well. I hope you guys could understand that.

But no matter what, it is very important to ask for the opinions of more Wikipedians of different origins, so that the consensus would be a widely accepted one, rather than one dominated by a small number of Americans who only speaks English. I don't appreciate the fact that some user is unilaterally deleting information from the articles without seeking a consensus. - Alan 05:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

(Copied from Talk:United Nations Commission on Human Rights) There are arguments for both sides of the argument. The UN has many official languages, and thus the page should contain the translations. Raul's analogy that we should not include say, an Arabic translation on China, is not relevant, because Arabic is not an official language in China. So there is merit in adding the translations. However, I note that there are no translations on the United Nations page, so if we wanted something to follow, that would have to be it without the translations, although you can argue it either way really... But I think more discussion should occur before a revert war starts. enochlau (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree that the analogy "adding the Arabic name on China" doesn't make any sense.
  • No one is trying to add Japanese or German to the articles about United Nation. Only the six official languages are added. I have to emphasize, again, that this has been a common practice in Wikipedia.
  • The name in all the five non-English official names of the United Nations was already put in the info box (on the right hand side of the article) long time ago. It wasn't added by me. For a long time, no one suggested that we have to delete them.
  • As I said before, I would like people to discuss and seek a consensus before deleting any information from the articles.

- Alan 06:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phair

Hello all. I won't bore all of you with a detailed account of the prior behavior of Brazil4Linux, I'll leave it that he's a user with a long history of behavior who has a permanant ban. Recently, he created a sockpuppet with the username of Rick Browser and used it maliciously (personal attacks, stalking and other abusive behavior). He placed a vicious personal attack on RFA- then a checkuser revealed for sure that he was indeed a B4L sockpuppet and the sock was permablocked. Unfortunately, he anticipated his block and merely resorted to creating another sockpuppet. He shares the same edits AND he's voted once again against Jedi6's RFA. Of note- I'm not the only one who's noticed this. DeckKiller, a prominent administrator, has noticed this. Evading a ban, not to mention using it to create a duplicate oppose vote on an RFA... *sigh*. Daniel Davis 06:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadar

Judging by the many articles he contributed to this project, User:Harisingh does his best to turn Wikipedia into a Sikh prayer book. I'm afraid that such statements as "fundamentalists thrust Islam by hook or by crook... by sexual harassment and forcible abductions of the daughters of Hindus and other satanic misdeeds" are liable to bring WP into disrepute. I put the article on RfC, but nobody cared to comment. User:Dbachmann added some necessary tags, yet Harisingh removed them within minutes. So what is to be done now? --Ghirla -трёп- 07:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-Lick/Halliburton Shill, sockpuppetry and disruption

Halliburton_Shill (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) was blocked for an inappropriate user name, and his user page was deleted as an attack page. He had been involved briefly in the Abortion article. As he was blocked for his user name, rather than for misconduct, he was free to return under a new identity, and I suspected very soon that Pro-Lick (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) was Halliburton Shill under a new name, with the same POV, the same rudeness towards people who opposed his POV, and the same habit of deleting other editors' comments from his talk page.

Pro-Lick began to edit war, violated 3RR several times (generally in his effort to remove "death" from the definition of abortion), and inserted extraordinarily POV edits into the abortion article. See for example, this (which he put in after I had said on the talk page that the word "death" doesn't imply that the fetus is human, and that I had recently taken antibiotics to kill an infection, and which is probably a violation of WP:POINT), and this. He was disruptive on the talk page as well, inserting links to comics and cartoons designed to ridicule the opposing POV.

He was blocked earlier this week for 3RR. During the block, some new users began to revert to his version. It was reported at WP:RFCU, and Essjay found that AbortMe (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), Cry_Me_a_Shill (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), and Vote_Machine_Malfunction (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) were the same user as Halliburton Shill and Pro-Lick. There was also technical evidence strongly suggesting that Undermined (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) and Ban.wma (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) were connected to the Pro-Lick sockpuppets. Another suspected sockpuppet, Curettage (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) started editing after the check was run, and so there are no results for that editor.

Despite being reset a few times, Pro-Lick's block expired today, and he edited his user page to link to his blog. The blog encourages people to come and disrupt Wikipedia, and to edit war.

Thursday 30 March
And speaking of spying extremists ... if you're looking for some interactive fun, head over to Wikipedia's entry on Abortion. Only need to make up a username and password to sign-up. In return, you get to edit any entries you like, your own user page, and a chat page.
They are having a fit over me in their little chat area. I am Pro-Lick, BTW. They didn’t like my other name. Apparently in their quest to put their enemy to death, they’ve been accusing other users of being me and banning them.
Make the definition beautiful. You'll get plenty of funny messages in return. There are some real-life religious fanatics trying hard to control the content, and any changes that don't include "death" drive them into a frenzy.
Some suggestions:
  • Abortion liberates the uterus.
  • Abortion is like a shower for the uterus.
  • Abortion cleanses the uterus of bio-contaminants.
  • Abortion is fertilization for flowers.
  • Abortion frees the uterus of extremist elements.
  • Abortion liberates the female from imposed pregnancy.
  • Abortion liberates the female from a pregnant dictatorship.
I’ll stop by tonight some time and contribute. Enjoy yourselves and don’t take them seriously. Don’t respond (unless you want to prod them a bit further). Like the supreme court, none of them actually listen. You get 3 changes per 24 hours on any article, so you can switch your changes back twice if someone undoes them. Then you can move on to the pro-life entry and make changes on it, and so on. Narf.

Some of those suggestions have found their way into edits in the last two days:

Annalina (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):
  • edit summary: a beautiful def; edit: An abortion liberates the female from a pregnant [dictatorship]]].[16]
  • edit summary: another beautiful def; edit: An abortion cleanses the uterus of bio-contaminants. [17]
  • edit summary: grammar fix; edit: An abortion liberates the uterus.[18]
  • edit summary: refine; edit: An abortion is the termination of the gestation of an embryo or fetus, liberating the womb of terrorist organisms that threaten the woman's life.[19]
64.42.88.22 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  • edit summary: beautify definition; edit: An abortion is fertilization for flowers.[20]

It's impossible to believe that this isn't deliberate disruption and trolling, and it is very clear that these edits either come directly from Pro-Lick or at least through him. I don't want to have to request a new user check every 24 hours, and I'd appreciate some help in dealing with this. Perhaps some other admins could keep an eye on Pro-Lick's behaviour and edits. I feel that Annalina should be blocked, for disruption and for being either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of Pro-Lick, but I'm heavily involved in the article myself and have the opposite POV. I do not think that those edits could be just innocent, misguided NPOV violations, especially as some are taken verbatim from Pro-Lick's blog. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 20:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: another edit from Annalina a few minutes ago changed the definition of abortion to:
An abortion liberates the uterus from an oppressive fetal regime.
The edit summary was: "an attempt to beautify the writing".[21]
This is not just a content dispute: this is consistent with what Pro-Lick was calling for on his blog — that people would join Wikipedia and change the definition of abortion to something like the examples quoted above. AnnH ♫ 23:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I have been banned for a week (and have learned my lesson) over much less than this crap that pro-lick is pulling. Good 23:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. - RoyBoy 800 04:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I've been busy IRL and have not been keeping as close an eye on this article as I usually do; I intend to immediately block anyone making this type edit if I see it, for disruption. If anyone disagrees, of course they are welcome to unblock and tell me how wrong I am. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Any suspected socks should continue to be reported at RFCU, as a check of one tends to turn up several others. I don't remember the ISP off the top of my hands, but I think a rangeblock could be considered without too much collateral damage if the sockpuppetry continues. Essjay Talk • Contact 22:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I hae blocked Pro-Lick because of his continuing disruptive behavior (inviting other people to disrupt Wikipedia is just the most recent), but I have been questioned about this by a couple of other editors, so have brought it here. If somebody wants to unblock him, I will not object, but I think he deserves to remain blocked until he agrees to stop the disruption. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the first I've looked at any of this, but that sort of invitation to vandalize, combined with active vandalizing, seems entirely appropriate to block on sight. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I would block on sight anyone who inserts any of the phrases mentioned. --kingboyk 17:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I was very tempted to block Annalina, when I saw those edits, but was a bit uncomfortable doing so, as I edit that article and hold the opposite point of view. A more recent user check has confirmed that Curettage is definitely a Pro-Lick sockpuppet. Essjay's comments concerning Annalina were: "As for Annalina, if it smells like HS/PL it probably is, but the checkuser is inconclusive. There is, however, a vandal sock farm coming off that IP, mixed in with some legitimate editing." As far as I know, Annalina is the only editor with a known or suspected connection to Pro-Lick who is not currently blocked.
And by the way, I fully endorse Zoe's block of Pro-Lick. I have edited collaboratively with many Wikipedians who had opposite POVs from mine, but this is just disruption, trolling, and vandalism, with no intention to respect Wikipedia policy. AnnH ♫ 18:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I fully support blocking on sight any editors who make those edits you cited above, Ann. If Annalina makes another bad-faith edit, and I see it, a book will be thrown. Zoe's block of Pro-Lick seems to me entirely appropriate, under Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Users who exhaust the community's patience. I've received an email from Pro-lick asking me to review that block (as, I suspect, have many admins). I replied on his/her talk page that I'm willing to support an unblock based on a convincing show of good faith - for which I'm not holding my breath. Naturally I still wouldn't unblock without input from others, including Zoe, the blocking admin. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I could have held my breath. Pro-Lick and I have exchanged emails, and I'm ready to support unblocking the account, and to unblock it or reduce the block myself based on our communication. I feel that Pro-Lick has expressed an understanding that hir behavior has crossed lines, a willingness to adapt and edit more cooperatively, and a desire to help with the project, evidenced by examples of better-faith editing shortly before the block. I've notified Zoe, and I'm also posting here, so if anyone has any concerns... -GTBacchus(talk) 06:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've told GT that I have no objections to an unblock. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I will state frankly that I am not at all happy at the thought of Pro-Lick being unblocked. First of all, his/her blog still has that part encouraging people to come to Wikipedia and change the abortion definition to things like "abortion is fertilization for flowers" and to "get three reverts" every day, etc. Before I could approve of unblocking him, I would like to see some evidence that he realizes how inappropriate it was to make those edits, and I would like him to remove that section from his blog. Has he admitted to having used sockpuppets? I don't mean the Halliburton Shill = Pro-Lick, since he was entirely free to choose a new name and under no obligation to reveal that he was the same person. I don't want him to grovel, and I realize this might sound like making humiliating demands of a prisoner of war! But is there any indication at all that he sees his past behaviour as wrong or is he just hoping to be unblocked so that he can game the system and see how much he can get away with?

However, although I want to state that I'm not happy (so that it won't later be said that it was posted here and nobody objected), I will not oppose if GTBacchus really decides to unblock. I consider him to be one of the fairest of all the admins, and I have seen him treating leniently people who oppose his POV, so I shouldn't complain if I think he's over lenient to someone who opposes mine. :-) I have avoided blocking Pro-Lick and his sockpuppets myself mainly I have strong views in complete opposition to Pro-Lick's, although I try to respect NPOV. (If it weren't for that, Annalina would certainly be blocked by now!) So this is just my opinion. I object to the unblocking, but I support GTBacchus's right to use his own judgment, and am positive that he'll re-block if necessary. AnnH ♫ 20:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Ann. I don't expect that unblocking Pro-Lick is a move that will make everyone happy, but I'm trusting what was said in our email communication - that this user understands that it's necessary to adapt and edit differently than they have previously. I think it's been made clear to Pro-Lick that just exasperating enough Wikipedians is a perfectly bannable offense, and that our Blocking policy says as much. I'm not too concerned about admissions of sock-puppetry as I am about the user's future behavior, which I'm sure will receive plenty of administrative attention. If Pro-Lick resumes being disruptive and uncivil, and doesn't display an improved editing style, then I will certainly not oppose any admin's reblocking, and may even do it myself.
I'd like to specifically address your question, "is there any indication at all that he sees his past behaviour as wrong or is he just hoping to be unblocked so that he can game the system and see how much he can get away with?" I'm not prepared to share the contents of any email without the sender's consent, but I'm comfortable saying that I'm satisfied that Pro-Lick sees that the editing style employed so far has been beyond "bold" and across the line into "dickish". Also, Pro-Lick has indicated a willingness to adapt to the community's standards, and adopt a less combative and more cooperative editing style. If it turns out I'm being overly naïve, and letting a troll back in, then it's here for everyone to see - I'll be the one who was wrong.
I request that all of us give Pro-Lick a renewed assumption of good faith now, and show the same patience and helpfulness that we would anyone who is yet unfamiliar with our customs and culture. I'm eager for Pro-Lick to see how positive an experience it can be, editing Wikipedia in a spirit of cooperation and respect, but that'll take a little bit of un-learning and re-learning, which we who are more experienced can really help with. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, GTBacchus. I see that you have now unblocked, and I'm certainly prepared to accept that and to give him (as you requested) a renewed assumption of good faith. I agree with you that admission of sockpuppetry is of far less importance than future behaviour. I do feel, however, that he should be prepared to remove from his blog the section where he encourages people to come and vandalize Wikipedia. Someone else has already made that point on his talk page, and I fully agreed; but I felt it would be counterproductive for me to post a message there saying the same thing! AnnH ♫ 23:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GNAA 11th nomination

How long will it take before I am RFCed for cutting this AFD debate short? Also, I don't really think the nominator is a newbie at all, is it possible to get a check on who it is? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC for that? I wouldn't think so. Much as I would like to see the article deleted, it was kept at the end of March for the 10th time. There has to come a point when new listings are just disruption. --kingboyk 15:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Coudl be a User:Science3456 sock. He has edited Gay Nigger Association of America before, and AfD disruption is his thing. His user name, user page and the edits to Laundrymat seem to back this up. —Ruud 17:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Well who knows, we may just have the 20th nom this year (but hopefully not). - Mailer Diablo 17:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's going to really fault people for speedy closing GNAA nominations at this point. I've done it myself (the 10th I think?) Personally I think we should just delete the obvious bad faith nominations of GNAA, so as to cut down on the self-aggrandization factor. --W.marsh 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
At this point, I think it would have to be Jimbo himself nominating GNAA for it not to be speedy kept. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I wish he would! Maybe I shall go over and suggest it to him :) --kingboyk 22:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Gatti (talk • contribs) and continued disruptive behavior

Benjamin Gatti, who has been sanctioned by arbcom for biased, tendentious editing, was recently banned from editing Nuclear power and Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act for disruptive behavior. He has begun to edit again, this time proposing that Category:Nuclear safety be renamed to "Nuclear danger" or "Nuclear risks" [22]. He also seeded the intro of Nuclear safety with a scare phrase of dubious relevance (Nuclear safety "is a term which underscores and understates the danger implicit in the use of nuclear materials") [23]. He has also injected inappropriate, biased statements into Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi: [24], [25] (where he writes as fact that Hashemi was given "preferential treatment" in his admission to Yale). Both of these types of edits continue a long-established pattern of biased editing to nuclear and political topics -- for which he has been placed on probation by the arbcom Final decision. I was one of the people who brought the original case against Benjamin so I don't feel it's appropriate for me to be counted in administrators voting to enforce his probation with a block, but for goodness sake, somebody else, please consider it. This has gone on long enough. Three administrators are needed to take any blocking action, and one is needed to enforce a per-article ban. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I echo kate's statement. I think we need a ban from any article involving the nuclear industry. This would include everything...categories, articles, etc. Ben isn't going to change. He's showed absolutely 0 inclination to change. In fact, he's become more troll-like since his arbcom case ended. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. Support enforcement. --Syrthiss 19:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support; obvious continued disruption. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support enforcement. Clear unreferenced POV after being sanctioned by ArbCom for same, protests ring hollow. Enough. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. Comment the edits are sound and well sourced. "Nuclear safety" is an oxymoron as nuclear chain reactions are an inherently volatile proposition, and it is self-evident that the subject of Nuclear-safety - is a misnomer intended to convey a subconscious POV. I propose the more accurate Nuclear-risk and somebody blows a fuse. Yale did absolutely give preferential treatment to Sayed based on his association with a human-rights abusing organization - this is well reported by the Times - or is someone suggesting with a straight face that Sayed's fourth grade education made him more qualified than thousands of other applicants? - Some of which defended this country and the principles enumerated in the Constitution at the risk of their own lives? Please Benjamin Gatti 22:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That's three administrators needed for a block. Now someone needs to place it. 71.251.48.60 04:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Someone needs to block him from anything involving nuclear energy until his probation is up. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've banned Benjamin from Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi and Nuclear safety and talk pages, and blocked him for one week. This is my first ArbCom enforcement block, so if anyone disagrees with the exact measures I've taken (especially the other supporting admins), please say so. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Zephram Stark sockpuppet

Fear of ISMs (talk • contribs). this edit at the little noticed Battery electric factory flat truck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is identical to this edit (see Batteries section) of previous sockpuppet. Also terrorism-themed info on his user page. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

They also have similar styles of edit summaries. JoshuaZ 21:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Now, concerned about verification of image uploaded by ZS, currently on ifd: this edit. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
After this [26] I indef blocked. Thoroughly inappropriate and likely a sock anyway. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a mildly clever trick, I don't think I've seen that one before. JoshuaZ 21:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Hell, I fell for it. I notice nobody is bothering to extend ZS's six-month timer. I'm unilaterally making his block indefinite; I'm assuming there's consensus for a community ban in this case. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Can someone revert his talk page to this version and protect. He is banned, and should not be allowed a forum for posting his essays. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

At least give the dude credit - he's running rings round you guys. He's the Beatles, you're the stuffy old aldermen of Birmingham Alabama, trying (in vain) to ban his records. Me? I'm Lester Bangs: I love this subversive rock 'n' roll. Anyone got any cough medicine?

it's hard to tell, hard to tell, hard to tell, when all your love is in vain, all your love is in vain

ElectricRay 14:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Let's see. You: 63 mainspace edits. Us stuffy old aldermen: 13,000 between the four of us just in this little interchange. You: Arguing at every juncture to let a destructive editor continue being destructive, supported by nobody except himself and yourself, assuming there is a difference. Us stuffy old aldermen: Building an encyclopedia. The fans can decide. If they think Stark is the Beatles, they'll let us know. Me, I think he's more akin to Wild Man Fischer. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you alleging I'm a sock of Zephram? FIE UPON THEE! ElectricRay 15:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. I haven't been FIED for decades! Wow! -- Interesting. It actually feels pretty good, compared to many other possible retorts. I think I shall take up occasionally FYING others; there's something special about the sensation, I suspect, from both sides. (Does anyone know what it actually means?) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is an archaic word denoting shock, outrage or disgust. One should be careful not to overuse it, I find. I think Wild Man Fischer is quite a good analogy: he seems a pretty neat guy. And you have to admit, Zephram is pretty funny. He's got JW chasing shadows all over the show. And for all JW's studied outrage, I think Wild Man Stark's essays are worth throwing 10 cents in the hat for. Are you taking anything for your editcountitis, by the way? Ever tried Romilar? ElectricRay 16:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, ZS is now quite the effectively annoying troll. Nobody is denying that he is a troll, and it's not surprising that there are people who find trolls funny -- without supporters like you, trolls would mostly be growing hair on their palms. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
If not, you may want to try some Fukitol for your wikistress. It works wonders for me. – ClockworkSoul 16:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Medule

Medule (talk • contribs) is continually reverting articles relating to Croats and Croatia, inserting factually inaccurate data and breaking the 3RR. He has refused to discuss on numerous ocassions and has been disrupting these articles for over a month. He has also been using sockpuppets like User:Purger and User:Purrger and has ignored repeated warnings to stop vandalizing. Here are just some of the articles he has been disrupting with his reverts - Battle of Vukovar, Croatia, Human rights in Croatia, Borovo Selo raid, History of modern Croatia, and many more. Can someone please warn and/or block him? Thank you. --Dr.Gonzo 01:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Medule is nothing more than an arrogant vandal with a highly biased opinion and will stop at nothing to further his Serbian propaganda and lies. This user should be banned from Wikipedia, because he has no useful edits and only makes life harder for those who try to maintain Wikipedia as a neutral encyclopaedia. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 01:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I also support some kind of action. Medule and his numerous sockpuppets have been forcing the same edits for months now, even deleting or rewriting entire paragraphs in an inflammatory manner without any discussion or collaboration whatsoever. His obsession is wasting the time of many users--including my own--and that time could be better spent on actual contributions rather than on endless reverts. --AHrvojic 04:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet?

User:Hipocrite removed a sockpuppet message from User:Hpuppet ([27]). Due to the closeness in name and the edit, perhaps User:Hipocrite is a sockpuppet as well? Hopefully, someone can check this out. joturner 02:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser is this way.:-) Regards —Encephalon 02:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Fairly probable but a sockpuppet should be done just to be sure. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adityanath (talk • contribs)

This one is long overdue. This guy has been asking for trouble it looks like for a long time, and somehow has avoided it. Hidden agenda, confirmed sockpuppeting, sneaky editing, vandalism, personal attacks, the works...he has already been blocked for 48 hrs for 3RR Recommend: blocking for extended period...give him some time to smell the roses...Also - articles in question below probably require arbitration Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, Mahavatar Babaji, Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji - there has been bickering going on for months now, with no resolution. main users in question are Adityanath (talk • contribs) and hamsacharya dan (talk • contribs)

  • earlier citations
an/i [28]sockpuppets[29]
  • most recent
[30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

[37]

  • personal attacks/incivility
[38][39][40][41][42]in citation tag [43][44][45]
  • original research
[46][47][48]interprets his sources to mean the opposite of what they actually meant [49][50][51]intentional misinterpretation [52] used immaterial reference to bolster his thesis of conflicting views[53][54]no basis for this [55]misinterprets to bolster his thesis [56]original research - uses leading-words to bias reader [57][58]misrepresentation of fact [59]writing his thesis on wikipedia [60][61][62]interpretation and false in context [63][64][65]misrepresenting source [66]demonstrates bias [67]
  • removal/sneaky vandalism or edits
false claim of mediator opinion [68]false claim that section was deleted - it was integrated in main body [69]not a PA [70][71]claims to abide by mediator decision, but does whatever he wants in practice[72][73][74]to avoid punishment he removed an admin notice [75]removed notice to avoid consequences [76]disingenuous tags and vandalism [77]disingenuous tags and vandalism [78]removed citation exposing original research [79]disingenuous tags and vandalism [80]shows hipocrisy [81] when previously he said you can't add conflictingviews of conflicting views[82] disingenuous tags and vandalism [83]removes edits that falsify his claims [84][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath&diff=prev&oldid=45764063[85][86]numerous ways he tries to undermine views he disdains [87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96]another false statement to create bias [97]false statement to try to get out of trouble [98]
  • more on:
    • his own talk page
[99]removing warnings - [100]threat - [101]removing warnings - [102]
    • kriya yoga page
[103]
    • Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath page
[104][105][106][107]deceptively trying to weaken argument [108]weakens syntax [109]then claims it to be nonsensical [110][111][112][113][114][115][116]
    • babaji page
[117] sneaky removal [118] [119] [120]
    • nath page
tags [121] tags [122]removing discussion [123]3RR:[124][125][126] POV original research edits [127][128][129]

Kalagni Nath 05:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello. It sounds to me like there are multiple issues of a more chronic nature here. Perhaps an RfC might be better suited for considering the matter, rather than the admin noticeboard. —Encephalon 20:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asb2111 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

I have indefblocked this user whose stated aim is "A group of over 325 people have signed up to destroy this website from Columbia University". [130] His edits were mainly spamming of the statement "SORMTACULAR HERRABISM!" and variants therof to numerous pages. He also created the nonsensical Sormtacular herrabism article, now speedied. As I'm still gaining my admin legs around here, comments please. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oddly, enough, he was coming from a Columbia University IP. It seems static enough; if it keeps up, let me know and I'll nail the IP. Essjay Talk • Contact 09:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Err, did you mean he wasn't coming from a Columbia University IP? --Cactus.man ✍ 09:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I suspect mild humor myself, Cactus.man.;-) —Encephalon 10:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Damn that internet communication thing :-( I presume that since I'm not locked in the stocks with a mob throwing tomatoes at me that the block is OK? --Cactus.man ✍ 11:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Nope, I mean he was. It's odd, because usually these kinds of claims come from crackpots with no affiliation to the place they claim to be from; this guy was actually from Colombia. Essjay Talk • Contact 12:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll keep an eye out for similar nonsense and let you know. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's see. First solitary edit Feb 11 to the User page, after which there was complete silence until today when it went on a vandalism spree involving some 20 odd pages. Ample warnings on talk page unheeded. The threat was placed on a mainspace talk page. It may well be a joke, but there is no way to be certain. Regardless, it's a very new account that has essentially only engaged in vandalism, so certainly a ban isn't inappropriate. I would probably use {{Indefblocked-vandalism}}, but this is minor. —Encephalon 20:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A discussion with Columbia University's system admins would probably be a good idea. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyphen5

I blocked Hyphen5 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) for 48 hours after seeing this edit. I don't know if everyone else thinks the block is unneccesary/too long/too short, so any feedback would be accepted, along with anybodies view on the matter. — FireFox • T [15:57, 4 April 2006]

Well, he's clearly been creating a stir judging from comments on his talk page, but I think 48 hours for saying "fuck the arbcom" is a little too harsh, especially with no warning. I would probably have just reverted the edit and warned him to calm down. Then if he didn't, a block might be appropriate. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. At the point of blocking I wasn't too sure about the situation, so I thought I better block until it got cleared up. At the moment I'm trying to find out why it was he did that, so far all I have on his talk page is "Woops, my bad". — FireFox • T [16:12, 4 April 2006]
The block is fair. It seems less for saying "Fuck the Arbcom" (which, IMO, is OK), then how he said it - as disruptive vandalism. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I see he has been editing a number of contentious articles but seems to have been keeping pretty cool about it, and 48hrs may be too long for a first offense. However, the "F the Arbcom" and "Whoops my bad" edits seem to be completely out of character. Could his account have been hijacked? (forgot to log out of a shared computer?) I suggest keeping blocked until he contacts you with a more substantial explanation, and unblock sooner than 48hrs if the explanation seems reasonable. Thatcher131 16:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Also deleted all his own userboxes???? Thatcher131 16:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
We have a reply... it looks like he's quitting. — FireFox • T [21:23, 4 April 2006]

[edit] User:Frelke

A user who has left wikipedia after intimidation by other users asked for his user and talk pages to be removed. This has been done but User:Frelke was discovered to have copies of the talk pages archived. This seems strange and unnecessary especially as there may be a link with one of the users doing the intimidating (they are both gamers). Can these pages be deleted or has the user the right to store them? It seems a misuse of wikipedia to me and a slightly worrying move on the part of the user. AnnH has asked him to delete them but he has refused. The files are here: User talk:Frelke#Robsteadman Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 16:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"As a matter of practice User talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made occasionally." (Wikipedia:User page). I would have thought they either shouldn't have been deleted in the first place; or, if they were correctly deleted, the guidelines can be reasonably extended to a fork of the user pages. Deleting the one copy but not the other achieves nothing, right? --kingboyk 16:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Barring CSD-U1, our version of meatball:RightToVanish is ad-hoc at best (personally I don't think it's appropriate here, where keeping track of who said and did what is important). Keeping copies of someone's talk page is generally rather petty (and may well refect more poorly on the keeper than the original user) but I don't believe that, in general, it rises to the level where admin action is called for. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The user in question User:Robsteadman had a vicious personal attack made on his page yesterday by User:Count Of The Saxon Shore which I can't show as the page has been deleted but admin Gator1 spotted it and removed it so can confirm. This user has pursued Rob for several months and tried to get his wiki article deleted Robert Steadman. He has apologised but I think Rob was uncomfortable with being well known and identifiable and would like to just "disappear". Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 17:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted Frelke's copies, since they were copies of deleted material. If anything needs to be restored, and I don't feel strongly about this either way, it's Robsteadman's original user and user talk pages. When asked about what he was doing, Frelke made personal attacks against Robsteadman; in light of this, I think we're dealing with a case of harassment. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 18:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, I have nothing to do with Frelke. There are a lot of people who like playing games. Please can you not use the term intimidation again - it is not helpful. I cannot aplogise any more than I have already done. I'd apl;ogize personally to Rob if he would hear me out. Mr Steadman and I rub each other up the wrong way and I over reacted - but the whole issue only came to a head yesterday evening because Mr steadman made personal attacks on his user page and taunted me. I think in this case intimidation is a very strong word.Count Of The Saxon Shore 23:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location hypotheses of Atlantis

I am involved with a content dispute with a new user at Location hypotheses of Atlantis, verging on being something larger. I think I have been resonable and not WP:BITE, but I would like someone else to help me out. The long and short of it is at our respective talk pages (User talk:RobertMc, Reflex Reaction) but to summarize. He adds a machine translated Spanish to the above article. I revert it because of WP:NOR and the translation isssue. He add it back, modified, but still clearly translated and still WP:NPOV and WP:BIO. I reply back and digging a little bit I see that he is likely a person who was causing problems on other Atlantis forums. Info already exists about the information he is presenting - its Cape Spartel, but his English is so poor, I'm not sure that he recognized it. Other voices would be appreciated. Thanks! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

For his continual reinsertion, I have blocked him for 24 hours. Please let me know if I have overstepped my bounds. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
IMO the block was justified, but in future bear in mind that it is considered bad ettiquette to block when you're involved in the matter. Werdna648T/C\@ 21:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know! I agree it's bad form; that's why I asked for help here, but I got a little impatient with his continual reinsertion and hope my actions would speak for themselves and not against me. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current events

Am I the only one having problems with Current events? It takes forever to load, and when it finally does, there is nothing there but all of the templates. If I look at the history, that takes forever to load, too, and even though I can see text in the diffs, the text doesn't show up on the screen below the diff boxes. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I can see the templates, the history, and the diffs without any problem and with the exception of the diff, they all come up fairly rapidly. Is there supposed to be something else there? (I never access the page, so...) Hermione1980 19:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Its a bit slow, but appears to be working fine for me too Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 20:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
No, you're not. It took about 20 seconds to load for me, and the only thing on the page were the templates. When I hit edit preview however, the page loaded fine. History is fine too. Interestingly it doesn't improve with successive page loads (normally the case because of browser caching). —Encephalon 20:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I spoke to Tim Starling about this on IRC earlier. He did some digging and thought it was related to these two templates (In Ed Poor's user space for some reason) that are included (probably nested within some of the other templates) :[131] [132]. I can't see how the case statements would only affect diffs, but Tim knows a lot more about Mediawiki than I do. --GraemeL (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, Tim knows a lot more about a lot more of Mediawiki than most of us, I should say.:-) Has anything been done in the direction of solving the problem, GraemeL? I hail from the fiddle, save and pray school of admins, who have a proud tradition of screwing things up very nicely indeed—with the best of intentions, mind—so I shan't be going anywhere near this. As I write, there have been no new edits to either template, and Current events remains inappropriately uncooperative. Perhaps Tim might be persuaded to descend to these nether regions for a quick bit of wizadry?:-) —Encephalon 23:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Not as yet, Tim logged out shortly after he pointed me in the direction of the two templates. I'll have a dig into the template nesting tomorrow and see if I can work out why they're used. After I see how things hang together, I'll speak to Tim again. I'll let you know what I find out. --GraemeL (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The same problem occurs with every page on the Whatlinkshere of those templates. That's quite a pretty collection of pages, too. I'm minded to blank the templates, and leave them blanked until they can be fixed. It seems better to have a b0rken formatting than an unloadable hundred pages or so. -Splashtalk 02:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so blanking them made no difference. -Splashtalk 02:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So I fixed it the semi-inelegant way. It was Template:Current events box that was importing the problem into Current events and Template:utc (note: lowercase, the uppercase 'doppelganger' has no troubles) that was b0rking that, or more likely one of the calls it makes. So I reverted the template to pre-{{utc}} and now the associated pages load fine. This of course does not fix the other articles. I wonder if we just found out when to avoid meta-templates? -Splashtalk 02:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, please do that! User:Zoe|(talk) 02:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I have now unpicked usages of {{utc}} from the various articles it appeared in and, most significantly, Template:Timezones, which was b0rking the loading of every single timezone article. This has to be a meta-templates issue. Some of the calls are (I think) 4 or 5 levels deep, ultimately landing at a template that is 70kb long! -Splashtalk 02:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Awesome saving of the day, Splash. I cannot say anything remotely useful about meta-template issues, but transclusions 5 levels deep does sound to me like a suspiciously inelegant way to do things. —Encephalon 03:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Loading here (in Florida) just a matter of seconds... KimvdLinde 18:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking and Violation of Laws Related to Stalking

See contribs on user talks_to_birds, Jerryg, and Vigilant.


Talks_to_birds (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

jerryg (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

vigilant (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)


These accounts appear to have been created solely to stalk and harrass editors on Wikipedia. There are NO contributions from these account of any substance of useful or valuable content, just pages littered with accusations, personal attacks, allegations, and harassing dialogue. These accounts appear to have been created solely for purposes of stalking and harassment. 70.103.108.66 22:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The accounts make perpetual sockpuppet allegations against any editors of Cherokee related articles. They originate from the Yahoo SCOX Message board. Their "contributions" to Wikipedia consist of following other users around to revert their edits and posting harassing materials through WP. All of these accounts should be indefinitely blocked. Were the accounts being used for some purpose other than harassment, then perhaps there could be another solution. As it stands, these accounts and their conduct expose WP to severe liabilities since Stalking is a crime in most juridictions in the US. 70.103.108.66 19:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

After several accounts, including Gadugi (talk • contribs) , Waya sahoni (talk • contribs), PeyoteMan (talk • contribs) (all almiost certainly belonging to Jeffrey Vernon Merkey) were permanently blocked for editing an article about himself and for legal threats, the same user created at least two new accounts and edited from several IP numbers (including the one he is complaining from). There is already an open Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waya sahoni about editing Jeffrey Vernon Merkey page. These are the accounts the person is using presently:
  1. Asgaya Gigagei (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) - here he admitted owning many sockpuppet accounts, here he bragged one of them is 67.169.249.44 (compare with this WP edit) and here he signed as "Jeff"
  2. 67.169.249.44 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) - Asgaya Gigagei actually admitted using this IP number (see above)
  3. WhiteDoveWomen (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) - this postings links WhiteDoveWomen to Asgaya Gigagei
  4. 70.103.108.66 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) - this is an IP number from soleranetworks.com where Jeff Merkey works according to his WP article. This IP number and Asgaya Gigagei are evidently operated by one person.
He again edited twice the article on himself, which is the very topic of this Arbitration Request: see [133] & [134].
He put defamation warnings on several users (all involved in the Arbitration request) talk pages (Jerryg, Talks to birds and Vigilant - the first entered by Asgaya Gigagei and the rest by 70.103.108.66 which connects the two nyms nicely) as well, as an article Talk page [135] (BTW he's close to 3RR on this page).
I did not intervene in this situation in any way, except by observing his actions, documenting them on my Talk page and now putting a warning on the Wikipedia talk: Requests for arbitration/Waya sahoni, and now here. Friendly Neighbour 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
What better proof do you need? Trace logs of non-WP sites. These people are using WP for stalking. I remind WP of its policies stated on its main pages about complying with Florida and US laws. Please block these accounts for stalking and harassment. Continuing to block the person who is the victim of the actions of these people isn't fixing it. Now please do your jobs. 70.103.108.66 20:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
All socks blocked indef. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Friendly Neighbour 21:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Indefinite is a long time for an IP address, although I appreciate that an unblock can be requested in the future should an innocent be caught by it. Nonetheless, maybe something like 1 year would be better? --kingboyk 23:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The IP address are most likely proxy's, since this user ran them before. But, if the autoblock is placed, they can go to my userpage and use my email or find someone on IRC to unblock them (if you see any autoblocks, you can remove them at your own will, just let me know it is being done). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I would take the following as Merkey's clear statement that he intends to be back.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/237458/message/1144201223/Re-+Nobody+believe's+you+Jeff

Re: Nobody believe's you Jeff
April 4 2006 at 8:40 PM Asgaya  (Login AsgayaGigagei)   

Response to Nobody believe's you Jeff   

Plenty more accounts there moron. I've got hundreds of IPs and dozens of accounts and edit from them all.
Hey, you aren't one of us. You're one of those anal/oral copulaters from San Francisco.
Get back to your board lil'old gay college boy.

Hv-wa

What a nice guy, eh? -- talks_to_birds 01:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If no one objects, I am going to stick that on my userpage. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV pushing by IP

86.130.68.75 (talk • contribs • count) has repeatedly added one-sided comments to articles, with no attempt at objectivity. In particular, the same edit has been added to Julia Goldsworthy over and over - e.g. [136], [137], but also to BBC ([138]) and Oxfam ([139]). I have left several messages asking the user to desist, but they have not engaged with me or with my attempt to start discussion on Talk:Julia Goldsworthy. I wasn't sure if this was clear-cut enough for WP:AIAV, but I'd like an admin to look at this and consider taking action. Thanks. —Whouk (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:168.209.98.35

Could someone with more knowledge of these things please take a look at this one? User:Park3r, who appears to be a good editor, is reporting that he's being hit by colateral damage from the indefinite block of the IP, and that the IP is some sort of ISP proxy for a major South African ISP [140]. The block log [141] of the IP is a horrid mess of indefinite blocks, unblocks, and later reblocks. If this is a "zombie proxy", as the IP's user and talk pages say, then we may need to be careful with it, because it definitely appears to be causing colatteral damage every time it gets indefinitely blocked. - TexasAndroid 20:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August Kreis III

A revert and POV war is being waged [142] and the anonymous IPs aren't up for talking. T K E 23:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fairness in AfD

Removed post from Amorrow. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Closing admins rarely weigh 'votes' by new users and anons when determining consensus among editors, so the semi-protection won't affect the outcome in the slightest. It's a shame that vandals made semi-protection necessary, but it was the right thing to do. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

71.139.169.121 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) I just caught one for you. Blocked for 15 mins only to give others time to review. --kingboyk 23:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC) (I'm going to bed soon, and don't have time to check whois, previous block lengths etc)

[edit] Johnny the Vandal

On seeing a report farther up the page on a new Johnny the Vandal sock, I ran a checkuser to determine if there were other accounts, and particularly if there were undetected ones. As a result, I have blocked a fairly large sock farm across three IPs, as well as blocking those IPs for a week each, as thre was nothing but Johnny vandalsim coming off them. Essjay Talk • Contact 09:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Leyasu violating ArbCom Revert Parole Again

His ArbCom decision limited him to one revert per article today. He has violated this ruling in the Gothic Metal article. [143] [144] Both reverts consisting of removal of a rewrite tag that was agreed upon overwhelmingly in the Talk Page. FYI, he has been blocked numerous times for 3RR violations since the ArbCom ruling. --Danteferno 12:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note. Danteferno is the confirmed sockpuppet of User:Deathrocker who is currently on a 1 month ban for Serial Vandalism. Also note, that Danteferno is on the same revert parole as i am, and violated his revert parole first by reverting my edits [145], [146], [147].
The user has also been turned away by the abbirrition committe after attempting to Wikilawyer against them for not banning me from Wikipedia, after the use of his sockpuppets and bans and open bragging that he can revert me whenever he likes [148]
An arbcom case against Danteferno also lodged that there was never any consensus for the rewrite tag. I removed the Rewrite tag from the page as part of WP:HMM which i am a highly active member of. Danteferno has claimed that he is the consensus, even though the only other user to support his rewrite position is a user with edits only on the Gothic Metal talk page.
As such, Danteferno has lodged this complaint against me because i removed a tag from an article as part of a project full of users that Danteferno doesnt like, and has openly lodged complaints about before, amongst vandalisng user pages (most recently my own) and threatening any admin that will not support his claim. Further examples of this can be seen in ban summary for the Deathrocker case. Ley Shade 12:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Leyasu, you are playing rather fast and loose with the 'confirmed sockpuppet' accusation: the only sockpuppet check I can find on them is now at Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006 and was returned with a verdict of "Inconclusive". All of you need to behave. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freemasonry related pages - Mutually supporting (probable) sock farm

Across a number of Freemasonry related pages Anti-Masonry, Christianity and Freemasonry, Catholicism and Freemasonry, Jahbulon we now have a herd of mutually supporting edits to disputed versions with no discussion or attempts to reach consensus. Current probable socks are JeffT (talk • contribs), ABrowne (talk • contribs), Ulsterman81 (talk • contribs), PaulMcCartney (talk • contribs), MicroMacro (talk • contribs), Activevision (talk • contribs) with a check user request at [[149]]

THis looks like co-ordinated flooding to force established editors into 3RR violations.ALR 11:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody found reverting these editors should be blocked for 3RR; all are Lightbringer socks, as established by checkuser. I've blocked the lot of them, and anything they have done should be reverted on sight. Essjay Talk • Contact 12:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with that. ALR 12:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Add Linament (talk • contribs) to the Lightbringer block list please. Thanks Blueboar 12:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
More of the same... again... Please see Anti-Masonry and Christianity and Freemasonry ... on each page, the user creates an new account, immediately goes to a Freemasonry related page, and reverts it back to the exact same edits as the sock farm listed above. This time the suspected puppet names are: Luxor Egypt (talk • contribs) , and Honor Guard (talk • contribs). Perhaps all of these pages need semi-locks, so that the regular editors can get some work done without all the user:Lightbringer socks constantly interrupting our progress. Blueboar 12:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Examples [[150]] from Ulsterman81 cf [[151]] from LuxorEgypt. and [[152]] from ABrowne cf [[153]] from HonorGuard.ALR 12:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:WikiMB is a sockpuppet of User:Bormalagurski

Hello all,

I had filed a request for CheckUser for WikiMB (talk • contribs) and Bormalagurski (talk • contribs). After Kelly Martin initially declined the request for CheckUser, I was able to gather more evidence which I submitted on on her talk page. She reopened the request and indeed confirmed that the two users are most likely the same editor [154].

I am unsure what the next step should be. I'm no admin, but blocking of the sockpuppet seems a logical step. The puppet seems to have been created to help Bormalagurski (talk • contribs) in certain edit conflicts, and perhaps on his way to an WP:RFA. His puppet thus made minor but worthwhile additions to the Wiki, probably to pass for a real person (which initially fooled many of us inclding Kelly Martin!). However, as far as I know, no real abuse has yet taken place. After a period of several days making small additions, the puppet has only (quasi-innocently) entered a controversial discussion (Talk:Kosovo) on April 1 [155]. It seems we have nipped the abuse in the bud.

So the question is: now what? Would it still be appropriate to start an RFAr? In that case, I am sure User:EurowikiJ, who first alerted me to this question, has more to say on the topic.

Any input is greatly appreciated!

Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 21:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


What worried me the most and, in fact encouraged me to proceed with this was the fact that User:Bormalagurski had attempted on several occasions to become an administrator only to fail because of his highly controversial edits and inflammatory comments he has been known to leave on other people's pages. Until April 2 I had only circumstantial evidence that there was indeed a link between User:Bormalagurski and the skilful and ambitious new contributor User:WikiMB who seemed to appear out of nowhere but, admittedly, was indeed making worthwhile contributions. While User:Bormalagurski continued with his edit wars, vendettas and back-handed remarks, User:WikiMB was the complete opposite. Not only was he kind and intent on spreading good will amongst those who previously had rejected his alter-ego, he even set an ambitious goal of reaching a thousand edits per month backing this goal with a link to edit count on his user-page. Following strange events on April 2 on his user-page which caught my attention, checkuser procedure was set in motion which eventually came with the result that User:WikiMB was indeed User:Bormalagurski‘s sockpuppet.
Given the fervent wish of User:Bormalagurski to become an administrator and the damaging consequences that such status would have on pages related to former Yugoslavia as well as his attempt to achieve that goal through such an elaborate scheme such as the creation of a sock-puppet that purports to be his complete opposite, I call for his sock-puppet User:WikiMB to be blocked.
Thank you. EurowikiJ 22:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Block issued. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is highly disturbing behavior, I think an RfA would make sense. JoshuaZ 23:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant RfC, Joshua? —Encephalon 23:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have said "RfAr" This user will not respond to an RfC, as has been demonstrated by his myriad of problems. Furtermore, given how close to successful he was with a very dangerous sockpuppet, an RfC will very likely just give him WP:BEANS data so as to do it better next time. However, now that you mention it, I think that Bormalagurski has exceeded my patience with this behavior and constant POV pushing, and an RfC might be more effective at establishing whether or not the community still feels a need and/or ability to tolerate his presence. JoshuaZ 23:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me comment about what all of you people have said.

  1. "User:Bormalagurski had attempted on several occasions to become an administrator" - WRONG - I attempted to become an administrator only once.
  2. "The puppet seems to have been created to help Bormalagurski (talk • contribs) in certain edit conflicts" - WRONG, look at WikiMB's edits, do you see him helping me in any way? I think it's more the other way around, since he is my school friend. Also, if you look at the Kosovo edit, you will see that he tried to ease tensions, and not provoke them. I asked him to join the discussions, just like many users have done so when they need support, but he has declined and said that he will only make one adjustment and thats it. And guess what, he never edited Kosovo after that.
  3. "While User:Bormalagurski continued with his edit wars, vendettas and back-handed remarks, User:WikiMB was the complete opposite." - CORRECT, he is not like me at all, and my intent was to show him how Wikipedia can be fun and creative, but yes, I also felt good having someone who might support me in a discussion. He hasn't shown much interest in getting into article discussions, he enjoys writing new articles, which you will immediately notice if you open his page.
  4. "he even set an ambitious goal of reaching a thousand edits per month backing this goal with a link to edit count on his user-page" - CORRECT, I showed him how to put the edit count on his page, but he decided on his goal on his own.

Also, one of the "main evidence" for sockpuppetry is that he sent my photos to Wikipedia. Well, I told him to do that, even showed him how to do it, sent the first photo for him, and created a sub-page for him. If thats not allowed, tell me now, and I'll never help anyone learn how to edit for Wikipedia. Block me, block me now, I don't care, you guys have been planning this for a long time, but leave WikiMB alone. Seriously. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

And you have a plausible explanation for why he sent the photos rather than you? JoshuaZ 01:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't have any interests in sending the photos. My main priority is to edit for Serbian Wikipedia, not this one (I have 10 times more edits on sr wiki, than en wiki). WikiMB, on the other hand, wanted to send those photos because he likes them, so I sent one and he sent the others... He is even planning to send them to the Commons website... Look, I know that this is a case of "either you believe me or you don't". It's your choice. As I've said, I don't care if you block me, but leave WikiMB alone. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 01:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So, you're telling me that WikiMB submitted images under false licensing statements? Because if you're not WikiMB, then his claim to be the creator of those images (which he made when submitting those images to Wikipedia) was false. We block for that, you know. Anyway, your story doesn't hold water, and actually your recent edits have served to bolster the claim against you. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

But, why does it matter who sent them if I say it's OK? They're my photos. Also, which recent edits are you talking about? -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, Kelly, your arguments are based on not trusting me, I have provided explinations for everything, and you just accused WikiMB of false licencing statements. This souns like a case of "let's get rid of this guy by all means" to me. Here's a thought, why don't you give me your MSN, I'll add you, and we can start a conference, me, you and WikiMB, how does that sound? -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost inclined to believe Bormalagurski because I have trouble seeing him remain as polite and not POV pushing as WikiMB. Kelly, you said that Borma's recent edits support the claim that WikiMB is a sock. Which edits are you refering to? JoshuaZ 03:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Boris is lying. --VKokielov 05:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


The claim that User:Bormalagurski hoped that User:WikiMB would "support him in his discussions." is ludicrous. On the contrary User:WikiMB has been created with the sole purpose of eventually obtaining adminship. Hence, the ambitious goal, good-will across Wikipedia, PR remarks on his and other user-pages. And an absolutely clear separation of the two accounts with no communication between the two. Otherwise, User:WikiMB's prospects of obtaining it are gone.
Also User:Bormalagurski insists the second account belongs to his school-friend. However, ever since his alleged school-friend appeared on Wikipedia, WikiMB has contacted a number of contributors, but NOT ONCE did he leave a message on User:Bormalagurski's page. Likewise, User:Bormalagurski never left a message on his alleged school-friend's user page. In fact, prior to April 2 there is only one "close-call" incident on a highly-controversial Kosovo page:
    • I have asked WikiMB to look at the article, simply because I think he could look at it from a more NPOV. He told me that he has no interest in articles such as that one, and only made a minor change, which I quickly noticed, since Kosovo is on my watchlist. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 23:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • [03:31, 1 April 2006 Bormalagurski] - Bormalagurski, who is a frequent visitor on the page, edits the same table only 11 minutes afterwards. In the meantime, probably realizing his mistake of logging under WikiMB's account, WikiMB compiles a message of good-will that he leaves on the talk-page and then disappears:
Bormalagurski edits 8 minutes later the same table as it is shown above.
    • As I've said, I noticed what WikiMB edited very quickly, and divided the column to make it look better. Kosovo is on my watchlist, the 11 or 8 minutes (or whatever time interval it was) should've been shorter, I noticed the change ever earlier, but was trying to figure out how to divide the column. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 23:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
However, on April 2 something even stranger happened on WikiMB's user page.
  • [|16:08, 2 April 2006 Luka Jačov] Luka Jacov, Bormalagurski-friendly contributor, leaves a message in Serbo-Croatian: "Boris, why do you have two accounts. Interesting that you also have the same goal - writting about all the places in Croatia. See you."
    • Yes, he did leave that message, WikiMB informed me of the message, and since I knew Luka better, he maybe thought that I would know why he did that. I deleted the message, and asked Luka why he left that message there, and he thought that WikiMB was a sockpuppet, solely for being in Vancouver, speaking Serbo-Croatian and having the letters MB, which someone might interpret as Malagurski Boris. He changed the message when I assured him that WikiMB is not a sockpuppet. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 23:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • [|19:14, 2 April 2006 Bormalagurski] Three hours later Bormalagurski erases the comment. This is his FIRST edit at his school-friend's user page!!! And it is a deletion of a comment that someone else has left for User:WikiMB
    • explination above, don't make me repead myself. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 23:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • explination above, don't make me repead myself. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 23:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • [19:24, 2 April 2006 WikiMB] WikiMB appears 5 minutes afterwards and translates the second phrase as if nothing had happened. Bormalagurski disappears until this morning April 5 when he leaves his first post ever on WikiMB's page. In fact they "both" stage a little show. Apparently they both leave a message declaring their innocence at the same time. Then these two proficient editors start publicly wondering if this coincidence might further improve their chances of proving that they are not the same editor. I must admit it is hilarious.
    • OK, I admit that was a stupid idea, and I guess the stupidity is softened by EurowikiJ's comment below that I'm intelligent. My idea to click at the same moment was stupid, and I quickly realised that it proves nothing, so I commented on that on WikiMB's talk page. He wanted to talk more, so we went online, where he has said that he is very disappointed by Wikipedia. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 23:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
In conclusion, User:Bormalagurski is an intelligent, but extremely disruptive and manipulative contributor. Any chance of him gaining adminship via proxy must be nipped in the bud. Therefore, block User:WikiMB who has been shown to be User:Bormalagurski's sock-puppet.

EurowikiJ 09:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this is not about believing anybody, but about evidence. With that in mind, I submitted a request for arbitration here. Anybody is welcome to join in. The Minister of War (Peace) 09:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Bormalagurski, WP:AGF doesn't mean "ignore evidence that suggests an absence of good faith, to boot". Yes, I don't believe you're being (fully) honest with us. That's because the evidence strongly suggests that it doesn't. Perhaps you'd care to provide a fuller explanation as to why all the evidence, including (but not, by any means, limited to) evidence regarding IP address usage, strongly suggests that you and WikiMB are the same person? Just what is there that you're not telling us? Kelly Martin (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, Kelly, I never ignored any of the evidence, I explained everything quite thoroughly either on this page, or on other pages where I was accused. I am being fully honest with you guys. I am just repeating myself, and you people aren't paying attention, I said that I created the account for WikiMB, he came to my place, on my computer, he lives at the same building, and I showed him how to do some stuff, even sent his first photo, he continued the rest. I'm not sure what you are refering to, when mentioning the same usage of IP adresses, probably because he made his first edits from my computer, and we use the same internet provider (but I really don't know that much about IP addresses, so I wouldn't like to comment more about that). Also, the reason why we don't communicate over Wikipedia, and we only did that once, is because we have msn messenger!. Why should I waste my time here, when I can get a responce from him immediately? Also, you made no comments on my proposal to go online with me and WikiMB, which proves that you have no intent in bringing justice to this absurd accusation, but the sole purpose is to ban me for making a few mistakes at the begining of my editing at Wikipedia. I have explained everything several times. and you accuse me of IGNORING "evidence"? Everything EurowikiJ wrote above is showing he is ignoring my explinations, by repeating the stuff I already explained. I, however, am willing to expleain EVERYTHING (which I have already done) ONE MORE TIME, if you really want me to. Also, EurowikiJ, thanks for calling me intelligent, it really means a lot to me, coming from you. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 23:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I originally tagged Zadar Kristallnacht for POV on my WP:NP patrol a couple of weeks ago, and have not been following this issue closely. User:CeBuCCuCmeM popped up yesterday, his first edit was his userpage, and then on his fourth edit he created Template:Persecution of Serbs, which seems highly POV and stuck it all over the place. I think he may be a sock or meatpuppet. Is amybody interested in investigating? It seems highly unlikely that a first-day editor would know that templating exists, let alone how to create such a complex template.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dalmatian_Kristallnacht a User:Nemanyya was created solely to do AfD campaigning, apparently to lobby pro-Serbian voters at AfD.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the incident is worth investigating, but we are talking about something else here, and I advise you to report that here, rather than on this discussion. Thank you. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 01:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Really? It looks to me like it is the same topic, apparently new pro-Serbian nationalism editors showing up with an amazing amount of editing ability. Small advice: if you want to retain your credibility don't insist on it going elsewhere since it makes it look like you are trying to split them up so the pattern isn't as obvious. JoshuaZ 02:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the advice, but I'm just wondering how stupid do you people think I am. I would never open another account, and I would never have a sockpuppet, what makes you think that I would do that now that I'm accused of having a sockpuppet? How am I supposed to know that EurowikiJ didn't open a new account just so he can accuse me again?

Also, I didn't find it appropriate to report something that has nothing to do with me and WikiMB in a section called "User:WikiMB is a sockpuppet of User:Bormalagurski". Thats all. Hurry and find something else you could use against me! -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down. We aren't trying to find things to you use against you. We are trying to get to the bottom of what is going on. And you have been on Wikipedia long enough to know that sections allowing discussion often move far from the original section title. There is in any case, no need to for exclamation points. JoshuaZ 03:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to calm down, but it seems I will be blocked for a crime I didn't commit, and that's not calming me down. Whats worse, WikiMB has been blocked indefinately, and now I'm losing all hope for justice to prevail. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably you got so much attention because your conduct at en.wikipedia was extremely flamboyant and unobtrusive to say the least, especially the RfA and its motives, and raging flaming wars with Croatian Historian and possibly others as well. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I know, I know, I've admitted that I've been behaiving very unappropriately, and have started cooperating even with some Croatian users, like Dr.Gonzo. I have apologized to everyone I may have offended. I made a lot of mistakes, but having a sockpuppet is not one of them. This is the most absurd accusation ever, and I'm afraid that an admin will block me because of my past, even though I've decided to change, and have made several improvements since that decision. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 04:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If I can make a recommendation, wait a month and be a good, productive, cooperative editor in that time. Your friend WikiMB can wait a month. If in that time you have been a good editor, people might be more inclined to believe your claim that WikiMB isn't a sock and will consider unblocking him then. JoshuaZ 04:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I can wait, if waiting is what I have to do for justice, then let justice be done. Also, WikiMB has no choice but to wait, considering he has already been blocked forever... Also, I think I have shown that I have ambitions to be a good editor who cooperates with people of different opinions, and it's not fair to punish me for edits I made months ago where I called Milosevic the best guy ever, and similar stuff, I've realized a lot since then, how brainwashed I was, and I really really want another chance. Also, I want WikiMB to be unblocked immediately, there is no reason for blocking him, if you tell him not to edit, he won't edit, he's a pretty nice guy. :-) -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 04:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


I don't think that Malagurski is right when saying that he keeps repeating himself. In fact, this whole thing has become something of a soap-opera. With every additional note, there is some new aspect as well as a new twist to the connection between him and User:WikiMB. At first they were just a couple of school-friends who discussed Wikipedia at school. Here is, however, the latest:

I said that I created the account for WikiMB, he came to my place, on my computer, he lives at the same building, and I showed him how to do some stuff, even sent his first photo, he continued the rest. I'm not sure what you are refering to, when mentioning the same usage of IP adresses, probably because he made his first edits from my computer, and we use the same internet provider (but I really don't know that much about IP addresses, so I wouldn't like to comment more about that). Also, the reason why we don't communicate over Wikipedia, and we only did that once, is because we have msn messenger!. Why should I waste my time here, when I can get a responce from him immediately?

Well this is just marvelous. Let me, for the sake of my time, just concentrate on only one apsect of this entirely new development! Didn't User:WikiMB, in order to account for his impressive skill, make the following statement in his first post after this whole thing had started:

It is true that I'm pretty experienced, I've read a bunch of stuff on editing Wikipedia, I didn't want to start editing and screw something up. (see here)

Why on earth would then a user who had already read a bunch of stuff on editing Wikipedia and who demonstrates such a great skill at creating templates, uploading images, editing tables, knowing Wikipedia sythax, and has been aware from the word go of the need for an edit-count link on his page (which is already telling) etc. need someone else to create a Wikipedia account for him?!?

I am sorry, I wish I could continue but I am lacking strength. Therefore, I am against any probation. The sockpuppet's account should remain indefinitely blocked.

EurowikiJ 12:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mistress Selina Kyle

MSK was blocked for a month on March 3 by El C (who was shortening a two-month block of Raul's), and on March 8, MSK started editing as Bob, just Bob (talk • contribs). The contributions leave no doubt that it's MSK and a check-user request has confirmed that technically it is "very likely." I've added 26 days of the month block to MSK's account and blocked Bob indefinitely, though I've told him/her if s/he'd rather edit as Bob from now on, I'll swap the blocks around. See User_talk:Bob,_just_Bob#Block_evasion. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Good idea. If anything, adding just 26 days to the block for this kind of sockpuppetry is lenient. --Cyde Weys 23:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That certainly sounds reasonable. For what its worth, a quick look at User:Bob,_just Bob's talk page does not particularly inspire confidence. —Encephalon 23:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Both accounts are blocked indefinitely (MSK by Dmcdevit). A sad story this, but at this point I see no other way out. Creation of a sockpuppet to continue the edit-warring instead of making a "secret fresh start" does not look good at all. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed- what a sad end to a user with over 4000 edits. Daniel Davis 09:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Less than a quarter of those edits are to articles. :) HenryFlower 21:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page from my user space speedy deleted and blocked

Someone speedy deleted a page from my user space and blocked it. Please undo this, people express all kinds of opinions on their pages and no one should be censored because others disagree. ROGNNTUDJUU! 00:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I speedy deleted the user subpage in question, added a "deleted" template to it, and protected the page; the page was User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/User against Iraq war of aggression. The reason for this is because it was a recreation of a formerly speedied userbox, Template:User against Iraq war of aggression that had been deleted by several administrators under T1, and had been recreated by this user on successive occasions. This userfied version had been transcluded on the user's page in a similar manner to the original template, and it seemed clear the intention was for the userfied version to be used transcluded in place of the mainspace template. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for the purposes of political canvassing, nor is it a place to promote judgements on whether wars were "wars of aggression" or whether politicians should stand criminal trial. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
If you had only wanted to prevent recreation of the template you could have blocked that page. You blocked a page in my user space, that is censorship, and this uncommented revert of factual information shows how counterproductively you behave. ROGNNTUDJUU! 01:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Two of the pages in my user space were again deleted by this admin, User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/User against Iraq war of aggression, and User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/GOP criminal, please stop censorship! ROGNNTUDJUU! 01:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Why not get a myspace account? --Tony Sidaway 01:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
We have no rule against what you're calling "censorship", ROGNNTUDJUU!, and good admins will "censor" this kind of political soapboxery every time. We do have a rule against using Wikipedia resources for non-encyclopedic, inflammatory, transcluded templates. Other editors have already advised you to stay away from political userboxes; take that advice. Wikipedia is not here for you to wave political flags around; that's what the rest of the Internet is for. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
There are all kinds of political userboxes. Singling out mine because you do not like them does not speak highly of you. I however see the point of "divisiveness". That is why it has become common to userfy boxes. Deleting those is just censorship, and there is NO rule allowing this. ROGNNTUDJUU! 02:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Try pasting the code for one directly onto your user page, instead of using it as a transcluded template. I don't think the new userbox policy has really settled down yet, but you're liable to be safer with substed code than with separate pages set up for transclusion. The theory is: if you use it as a template, then it's a template, no matter what namespace it's in. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
NicholasTurnbull also deleted template:user independent Iraq in spite of a consensus to keep it. ROGNNTUDJUU! 02:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC) There was no consensus (06:44, 28 March 2006) . Struck false statement. Netscott 11:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
There was a clear majority against deletion. ROGNNTUDJUU! 12:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I have backed up Nicholas by deleting reposts of this template three times. ROGNNTUDJUU! has now reposted it four times within a couple of hours. I'm inclined to treat this as a WP:3RR situation: I won't re-delete as I have already deleted three times in a brief period. You might like to consider deleting the fourth re-post, and whether ROGNNTUDJUU!'s fourth reposting is a 3RR violation. Background at User talk:ROGNNTUDJUU!#Re: Stop deleting pages that were voted to be kept and Template talk:User independent Iraq. Snottygobble 04:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
That is great, administrators ignore votes and delete in the others' user space without any legitimation and the complain about those who resist. I tried to find a consensus on talk all the time, you just did not listen and abused your powers. ROGNNTUDJUU! 04:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Reposting of deleted content may be speedily deleted on sight; you know that. Despite what you write above, there was no consensus to keep the template; the result of the debate was no consensus, and you know that too. If you think Nicholas's deletion was inappropriate, you can request a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review, but you already know that. Snottygobble 04:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Reposting of deleted content that had a 9 to 5 vote to be kept comes just natural. If you think deletion was appropriate you need to request a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. ROGNNTUDJUU! 05:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I deleted Template:User independent Iraq as it is clearly divisive and inflammatory. Please spend more time editing the encyclopedia and less time testing the limits of your Wikipedia freedom. Rhobite 04:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
As administrator Mike Rosoft pointed out, reposting of deleted content is completely ok in user space, and there is no legitimation at all to speedy delete from other users' space. There furthermore was a clear majority to keep the template. Deleting it and then start a new count for recreation is just bad manners. ROGNNTUDJUU! 13:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Singling out one user, ignoring decisions that were already taken, and deleting his boxes even in his user space is clearly abuse of admin powers. De mortuis... 14:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
If an act is carried out in the interests of the encyclopedia (and that's what we're here for folks, this isn't a chat forum or a political debating house) I can't consider it abuse. --kingboyk 14:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Quit whining, wikilawyering, whatever. Divisive userboxes are bad for the project, period. We can and will delete them. If you want to express your opinion that the Iraq war was an act of agression, do it elsewhere, because we here are too busy writing an encyclopaedia to care what you think about the Iraq War. Open a myspace account. Werdna648T/C\@ 14:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
"Quit whining" is foul language, and you cannot treat one guy you do not like in a discriminatory way. That is not in the interest of any encyclopedia. De mortuis... 15:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that discriminating against the use of Wikipedia as a soapbox is rather explicitly in the interest of the encyclopedia. From the user's talk page: "I want the pages unblocked such that other users can use it and link to each other." What has that got to do with writing an encyclopedia? That kind of networking by POV is the reason that ideological userboxes are bad. It's also precisely what lots of other websites, like myspace, are for. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
There simply is no rule that allows to remove such things from the user space. If you do not like it, try to find consensus about it. Unless there is any, stop spreading mischief. ROGNNTUDJUU! 16:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

unindent. Quit wikilawyering. Wikipedia is not a beuracracy. And yes, there is a rule about it in any case, see WP:UP There is consensus to delete the page - notice the lack of support for your position and multitude of editors telling you to build a bridge and get over it. Werdna648T/C\@ 22:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing at WP:UP or anywhere else that allows deletion of other users' subpages because you do not like the opinions expressed there. ::This had already been pointed out by admin Mike Rosoft who had recreated the page. There is no consensus to delete the pages. De mortuis... 00:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, how about "Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia", under "What can I not have on my userpage". In any case, the rules do not matter, the fact that consensus here is to delete them and keep them deleted does. Werdna648T/C\@ 00:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
There are just a bunch of people ignoring the policy and attaching greater importance to their personal preferences. If you deleted all personal statements that could be considered polemical you would have to delete even all userfied boxes like "against Marxism", "pro life", "against gun control"... This will never happen, and deletion is abuse of admin powers. I file a complaint if User:Dmcdevit who deleted cannot be convinced he violated the policy. De mortuis... 01:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Feel free. Take us to ArbCom if you like! Werdna648T/C\@ 11:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Now someone protected my page, claiming I used fair use images. I replaced them, it must be an error. ROGNNTUDJUU! 12:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zephram Stark sockpuppet?

American Saga (talk • contribs). My only evidence is that this edit seems very strange for a new user. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The evidence suggests that this is extremely unlikely. Jayjg (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Very odd.... --JW1805 (Talk) 20:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:SlimVirgin

Despite pleas, User:SlimVirgin has reverted animal rights 3 times without adequate discussion. She says on her user page she is particularly interested in animal rights and the Middle East.:

  • She has introduced her views on Israel into the animal rights page.
  • She has placed bulk quotes into the page despite being advised of wikiquote.
  • She has ignored detailed discussion on the talk page
  • She has slurred me by suggesting I posted a message when a quick check could have shown her her mistake.
  • She claims her version has been agreed but refuses to demonstrate this when requested.

I hope someone can help. Mccready 08:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The talk page for that article has several posts from SlimVirgin — seven in the last few days — so I don't see that she's reverting "without adequate discussion". She doesn't seem to have violated 3RR, either. This noticeboard isn't really meant for reporting content disputes. Why not try an article RfC? See here for guidance. AnnH ♫ 08:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I've looked at the article in question. SlimVirgin might have an editorial disagreement regarding the animal rights page, but she hasn't violated any policies on here. Furthermore, your claim that she has "introduced her views on Isreal" doesn't seem to be supported by the diffs; the difference between the statements "Israel bans dissections of animals" and "The State of Israel, meanwhile, has banned dissections of animals" only seems to have the difference of the addition of the word "State" in it. Your claim that she has "slurred" you isn't supported by any evidence as well. From my point of view, this appears to be entirely an editing conflict, with no rules violated. I suggest you seek consensus from the other editors on the Animal Rights page about which version is the most appropriate, rather than coming here. Daniel Davis 08:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This is much more than an editing conflict. She has not properly discussed my detailed points. The slur is obvious. Why does she insist on describing Israel as "the state of Israel". What about the quotes. This is a failure to consult. And she acutally HAS violated 3RR. Mccready 08:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. In regards to the 3RR, she hasn't violated the letter of the 3RR- if you look at the edits carefully, you'll see that she spaced out her reversions to just scratch past the rule (she waited about 10 minutes past when the 3RR deadline passed before she made her fourth revert). Israel is a nation-state, which is why it is referred to as "The State of Isreal". I see a lack of discussion on the pages, but I don't see any rules broken- I do see that she has displayed a rather disturbing lack of editing tact (considering that she is an administrator). Admins should take care to maintain both the letter AND the spirit of the law, so to speak. If she reverts again, she will have committed a 3RR violation, but at the moment she hasn't. Daniel Davis 08:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
3RR = 3Apr 21.27, 4Apr 1.33, 7.09, 7.15. But i'd be happy with some cooperation from her. Mccready 10:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Nobody else edited between 1:33, 7:09, and 7:15. The first of those was a revert, but how could the other two be, unless she was reverting herself? Are you saying that she's not allowed to edit four times in a 24-hour period? AnnH ♫ 10:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Mccready, Assume good faith per SlimVirgin's edits. FloNight talk 11:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Mccready has come at this page as a newish editor (signed up in June 2005, but started editing significantly in February 2006) [156] and has made substantial changes to Animal rights without prior discussion, though the talk page cautions it's a controversial article. He has decimated the intro, which was agreed between a number of editors a few weeks ago, and has removed the criticism from it. As for 3RR, I've reverted four times in 60 hours: April 2 at 13:34, April 3 at 21:27, April 4 at 01:33, and April 5 at 01:43. It's worth noting that Mccready has previously threatened people who revert his edits: here [157] he threatens to report Steth for vandalism and restores this POV intro to Chiropractic: "Chiropractic is a religion and controversial system of health care founded by the crank Daniel David Palmer." He has elsewhere threatened another user with an RfC over a standard content dispute (can't find the diff right now), and threatened me with an RfC because I reverted him, labeling his own reverts "second warning," "third warning," which I must admit has not exactly endeared him to me. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin rewrites history. I was happy to accept the consensus reached on chiropractic and not put the reglious point in the lead. It remains, by consensus, in the article. Her labelling my edits as POV is unfortunate. I give good reasons for my edits, reasons which are accepted by the majority of editors I work with. In terms of WP behaviour, it should be noted that she does not defend her actions in reverting without proper discussion, she has not provided evidence that an earlier version was agreed, she has not said which particular point in the lead she believes is essential, she has not addressed my detailed points, and she now insists on referring to an earlier edit which I was happy to delete (she does not appear to have read my agreement to this). I have found many instances where she has been rude to other users but will not post them here as that would be pointless at this stage. I simply ask, for the fourth time, that she uses the discussion page properly.

Yes I am a new user and I apologise for not properly understanding 3RR. I expect an apology from User:SlimVirgin for slurring me regarding a post made by another user. Mccready 06:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Threats by User:24.193.230.197 / User:JoeMele

I suspect that JoeMele made these anonymous threats on my talk page: "I am going to find you IRL" and "I am coming for you". I suspect this user as he "vigorously disputed" a couple edits I made and strangely went silent for the period of time when these anonymous comments were made, then reappeared shortly thereafter with a new edit. What you do with this is (obviously) up to you, but I don't appreciate threats like that. Hope someone with 'checkuser' will look into it and let me know if I'm wrong. ⇒ BRossow T/C 12:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I placed a one-week block on User:24.193.230.197. There is also an RfCU open for this pair; further action will depend on its outcome of that. – ClockworkSoul 15:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks like CheckUser confirmed that they are one and the same, and Essjay indef blocked both. Hey kids, see what happens when you can't keep your cool? – ClockworkSoul 15:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't indefblock the IP, just the user account, but I certainly don't see any reason a longer block couldn't and shouldn't be imposed. Essjay Talk • Contact 15:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms that 24.193.230.197 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) is used exclusively by JoeMele (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log); as such, I have blocked JoeMele indefinitely for threats against other contributors. I have not altered ClockworkSoul's week long block of the IP address, but there is no evidence of other contributing from that address, so a longer block should provide a minimum of collateral damage. Essjay Talk • Contact 15:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the quick action. I appreciate it. ⇒ BRossow T/C 21:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] City of Vaughan editors

Related to the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyeonvaughan, I have been looking into the contributions of user:Eyeonvaughan and user:VaughanWatch. I beleive that user:VaughanWatch is a sockpuppet of user:Eyeonvaughan based on their edit histories (the two never overlap, but edit on the same days on the same/related articles. They then don't edit for a few days, but when one isn't editing neither is the other - I have a spreadsheet that shows this but don't know how to get it on Wikipedia), their style of editing and persistent personal attacks against user:Pm shef and user:Bearcat. There are multiple AfDs and at least one deletion review on which they have both voted. I also suspect that User:Hars Alden (note particularly this edit to user talk:Hars Alden where user:VaughanWatch leaves the edit summary "It's my talk page") is another sockpuppet, although I haven't checked in detail. Based on the articles they have contributed to and this personal attack-laden edit accusing user:Bearcat of being the same person as user:Pm shef (which user:Eyeonvaughan frequently does) and of having a sockpuppet, I think User:CasanovaAlive is probably another of the family of sockpuppets. IPs User:70.29.239.249 (which is the account CassanovaAlive alleges is Bearcat's sockpuppet) and User:69.198.130.82 have also been linked to this on the RfC page. I would like someone else to check this and block as necessary. I am assuming that user:Eyeonvaughan is the primary account as that is the one that arrived first. Thryduulf 13:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you request a checkuser on WP:RFCU? --Syrthiss 14:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I will do now, I didn't know that page existed! Thryduulf 14:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked VaughanWatch (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) for 24 hours for persistent personal attacks, despite numerous warnings from numerous users. For the record, the straw that broke the camel's back was this edit to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Full disclosure: I am one of the users certifying the ongoing RfC above. Thryduulf 01:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse of admin "rollback" privilege

Duncharris (talk • contribs) has on at least 3 occasions removed a "notability" -requested tag from an article using admin rollback button, without explaining it in any other way. In each case, the removal of the notability tag wasn't in consideration of any changes to the article's text that asserted notability of the subject. User has responded rudely to any request for clarification, retorting with comments like If you get enough chimpanzees with enough typewriters they are capable of adding stupid tags to all articles),. Following are the diffs:

The admin buttons are for removing vandalism. Genuine requests for references, notability citations should not be removed using the admin privileges. Judging from the user's attitude and rudeness, I have to say that this type of behavior is a blatant abuse of admin privileges. Thanks. --Ragib 15:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I won't comment if the person are notable or not, but I agree that Duncharris' response to your comment on his talk page was totally unacceptable. Lapinmies 15:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Do Dunc and Ragib have a history before this of differences or disputes? There seems to be an amount of irritability here that normally doesn't just occur but builds up over time.
Anyway, administrator rollback, while there is not full consensus that it cannot ever be used on other than vandalism, does not give a useful edit summary and thus should only be used when no edit summary is needed. Since no explanation is given by its use, I would consider it in breach of the spirit of Civility to use it to revert the changes of a well-meaning contributor. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Prior to yesterday, I've never come across Duncharris (talk • contribs). My first contact with him was the Elizabeth Haldane page, and my first message to him was a request for asserting notability of the person, the reply to which has been referenced above. In case of the 2nd article, Michael Pease, I added a note in the talk page of the article regarding a question on the subject's notability. I believe reverting a request for that using admin-capabilities was not the proper way to remove the tag. I looked at the article again, and I'm yet to see any references, any comments/citations or assertions of the subject's notability. Therefore, removing a tag in such a way is a blatant abuse.
As for Duncharris (talk • contribs), I don't have any other history of interaction with him in the past, other than these two articles. Thanks. --Ragib 18:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not notably polite of Duncharris. But it seems rather a minor matter to bring up on the noticeboard as "blatant abuse". Bishonen | talk 19:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC).

Note. This section duplicates an already-existing thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Seeking clarification. Ragib, I've already asked Dunc to take care to be more civil in the future, and I will enforce that with blocks if necessary. Is there a particular reason that you've reposted an old complaint here? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


This is *after* you asked him. Look at the diff on Michael Pease. Dunc hasn't bothered to even comment on a legitimate request for sources, citations and notability, and rather used *again* his admin rollback privileges to revert the tag. Looking at the history of the page, it appears that the article was created by him, which makes it even more interesting. Wasn't he, as the author of the page, supposed to supply sources when requested (as per WP:V), rather than reverting the tag? Admins are held at higher standards, but my recent encounter with Dunc makes me wonder why he's so reluctant to even respond to a request in a civil manner, and invokes his admin privileges arbitrarily. Thanks. --Ragib 22:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
(added after edit conflict) Investigating further, I note that Ragib added the tag to Michael Pease after the complaint he posted at WP:AN was discussed. In that regard, the complaint above does address one new edit. I note that while Dunc's response in the Haldane case was inappropriate, Ragib should be very careful to avoid giving the impression that he is now deliberately trolling Duncharris by adding notability tags to Dunc's articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


Ok, would you please tell me why Dunc's behavior regarding this is acceptable, but mine is considered trolling? Also, why is adding a legitimate tag to an article considered trolling? I add prod or csd or notability tags to many articles one a given day. Why is 1) incivil, personal attacks tolerated in case of an admin? The response is not "inappropriate" as you say, that's incivil, and if an ordinary user made it, perhaps a block or warning would be in effect. 2) Also, In case of an ordinary user, wouldn't you consider unexplained tag reverts an act of vandalism?
Now, would you take a look at Michael Pease and tell me if I am wrong to add this tag there? Wouldn't you have done the same? Or does my previous message regarding Elizabeth Haldane bar me from making any edits on an article started by Dunc? Thanks. --Ragib 23:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] imminent ban of User:WAREL

We've filed an an RfC against User:WAREL and his sock User:DYLAN LENNON. He was unblocked to allow him to comment on the RfC. He has not commented on the RfC, but has continued his revert warring ways in the meantime. We're thinking of skipping ArbCom and going straight to a permban based on exhausting the community's patience. Comments and criticisms welcome. -lethe talk + 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and indef block the sock, I will sit and think about the puppetmaster. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Bear in mind that this is a repeat offender. Isopropyl 20:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request semi-protection of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Williams (pastor) (2nd nomination)

This AfD discussion is being flooded with new users and IP trying to delete the article. It appears that some people who view themselves as the "real" Aryan nation object to Jonathan Williams' identification as an Aryan Nation pastor. Whether or not Williams is notable is one thing, AfD is not the place for a content dispute, especially one pushed by sockpuppetry. Even though closing admins discount new editors, I request sprotection becuase there seems to be a conceted effort to flood the zone here. Thanks. Thatcher131 17:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As it currently stands I don't think that it merits semi-protection. There are a lot of new users, but it doesn't seem as though it is unmanagable. If this changes then ask again. Thryduulf 17:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. Thatcher131 17:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
For future reference, requests for page protection go on WP:RFPP --pgk(talk) 18:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I've set up a "New user corral" for the anons. Good work tagging them. Mackensen (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, it looks like the other dance partner, 66.110.197.20 (talk • contribs) has shown up at the party, plus 24.171.16.151 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) trashed your corral. You sure I was premature about sprotection? I'm going to bed and don't have time to fix this now. Thatcher131 05:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imposter username

BoMEpsilon (talk • contribs), sounds awfully close to my username. Not really sure what to think of this user. Claims on his talk page that he never heard of me, but I'm a little weary around possible imposter accounts? His edit seem to be questionable too. Moe ε 20:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the users edits go back to November 2005, I was of the impression (I could be wrong) that you adopted your current username after that date, if that's the case he'd need to be clairvoyant to be an imposter of you. --pgk(talk) 20:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, didn't see that his edits extended back that far. I just saw his most recent edits in February/March. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Moe ε 21:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:CIyde

There were a string of vandal usernames running amok earlier; I blocked one (MechanicalGenius (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)) that I spotted on RC patrol. Given his claims of being a repeat vandal, and due to a lot of similar vandalism going on at the same time, I ran a checkuser to look for unnoticed socks, and to block the IP if possible. I've complied a brief report at User:Essjay/Checkuser/Cases/CIyde; I settled on calling it the "CIyde" vandal because that was the first username registered. The IP traces to the University of South Florida and there is at least one legit contributor who has used it in the past; I am going to contact ITS there and let them handle it, after contacting the legit user to let them know what is going on (in case they are questioned). I blocked the IP for a week (the legit user in question hasn't used it for several weeks) but if there appears to be an collateral damage, please unblock. Essjay Talk • Contact 21:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to chime in and say that I do not like the name you've picked for this particular vandal :-O Cyde Weys 21:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure his original incarnation was to attack you; if you like, we can call him something else, but you have to go change all the sock tags! ;-D Essjay Talk • Contact 21:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone the Clyde vandal just sounds way too similar to me :-/ Although, as you point out, he is literally the Cyde vandal. Gahhhr. --Cyde Weys 21:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

We could call him Bonnie...In all seriousness, there were some other sock names that weren't too long to use; for that matter, he created S-J (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) to attack me, so we can call him the "S-J" vandal, doesn't bother me! Essjay Talk • Contact 21:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out how pathetic this vandal was if he tried to make attack names for at least two editors and no one even noticed that that was what they were for until the checkuser was performed. JoshuaZ 22:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

He's been at it for a while now, or at least someone has been using the same "newsletter" format to vandalize pages for a while. FreplySpang (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom violations by Leyasu and Danteferno

I was alerted to the history at Gothic metal, where one user has violated his revert parole for the 3rd time. The previous blocks were for 48 hours and 4 days, so I blocked for 1 week. The person he reverted also violated his parole as detailed on that page, and I blocked for 48 hours. I'll also note this on the arbcom page. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-04-5 22:42

[edit] User:DanieI Brandt

That's DanieI with an I (eye). Please block this account as a sockpuppet of User:Daniel Brandt, or an a username that is too close to an existing one. ~MDD4696 03:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked IP editing

Quick clarification; how is 165.228.131.11 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) still editing/vandalizing articles after having been blocked for a month? Kuru talk 04:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The last block was on March 1, it's April 5 (actually 6 according to wiki time I think, but not according to my time). So yeah, it's been more than a month. The Ungovernable Force 04:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Oooookay. I've lost a month somewhere. Let's forget I ever posted that. Kuru talk 04:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, looking at their history of blocks for vandalism, as well as their current contributions (such as [158], [159] and [160]) I think this user should be banned permanently. The Ungovernable Force 04:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have reblocked for three months. If the vandalism continues after that expires I would recommend a block of a year. Or, what the hell, we could just escalate to permanent block right now. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't really perm-ban IPs. Rich Farmbrough 22:09 8 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Bots hidding vandalism

I don't know if it happens to others as well, but the recent heavy activity by robots that format articles has given me a lot of extra-work spotting vandalism in the articles I watch by getting extensive watchlists of modified articles that have only been slightly touched by a Bot.

To illustrate the problem, let me show you this edit that added some nonsense, but at the same time removed the chinnese interwiki link (zh:). Hours later to this vandal edit YurikBot restored the interwiki link, leaving the vandalism untouched. The following day I check for the last changes, and saw tha the page has been edited by YurikBot, thus thought that there's no need to check its edits, but luckily checked it anyway.

Since bots produce a huge number of changes in articles that might have not been otherwise modified in months (and therefore there's no need to check them for vandalism), it might be reasonable to give Bots a special status that would later allow us to ignore their edits when requesting your our watchlist. This way watchlists would be much more compact, and we would have less work doing our everyday check.

Another idea would be the display in the watchlists the number of edits to that page since your last log-on, or something like that. Any ideas? Good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 05:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That's why I clicked "hist" rather than "diff" on the watchlist, before I wrote a program to keep track of my watchlist. --Carnildo 07:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request user block

24.171.16.151 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) has been disruptive and uncivil on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Williams (pastor) (2nd nomination). A couple hours ago Mackensen moved all the anon and new user votes into a "Corral" (see discussion above), 24.171.16.151 immediately moved all the "votes" around again, and has also made a personal attack [161] against 66.110.197.20 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), whom he believes is the subject of the article, and with whom he has been engaged in an edit war at Aryan Nations. It's not exactly the definition of vandalism, but I suggest a short block to cool down and to allow Mackensen (who's probably asleep now like I should be) or someone else to clean up the discussion again. Or I could be totally of the mark as well. Thatcher131 05:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. His conduct on the pages he frequents might or might not deserve blocking; the AfD will be gone in 5 days either way, so whatever he does there is mostly pointless. Thatcher131 06:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extreme Personal Attacks and Defamation

  • User:Eyeonvaughan, who also happens to be undergoing a User Conduct RfC at the moment crossed the line with this edit in which he accuses me and my father are corrupt, accuses me of slander without giving any evidence/examples, accuses me of bribery and illegitimately winning an election and reveals information about my personal life that I quite honestly have no idea how he knows, to the point that I'm afraid he's stalking me or something. Don't really know what else I can do... help please. pm_shef 06:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This sort of conduct is unacceptable, whatever other issues there may be. Personal attacks are one thing, bringing someone's personal life is another. With great restraint, I've blocked Eyeonvaughan for 24 hours, as he's been warned before about personal attacks but this seems to be the first time he's been blocked for them.
I would remove that note from my talk page, personally, or at least the personal information. You can replace it with the {{RPA}} template. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on Gold Coast, Queensland page

Hi there, someone from 203.144.15.190 keeps anonymously removing content from the Gold Coast, Queensland article, against the consenus on that page's talk section. Please block them. Cheers, Triki-wiki 06:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Triki-Wiki

[edit] Islamism

There is a lot action happening in this article (currently locked) and in the talk page (see this) today. Can someone keep an eye on this. Tintin (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/m/Wikipedia%7EAdministrators%27_noticeboard_IncidentArchive87_0f0d.html"