Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive68

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 GNAA member targeting me 2 GoldenBoy1 3 70.182.219.158 | talk | contributions 4 USC Trojans football 5 OpenInfo on Messianic Judaism 6 User Okasha links 7 Several possible sockpuppets 8 Adding admins to WP:AIV 9 Outrageous harassment of Bumpusmills1 continues 9.1 Update: Bumpusmills1 gone. :-( 10 User:Baphin and User:JohN 11 Danielle Cunio 12 Miguel de Icaza attacks me 13 Talk:Río de la Plata 14 86.10.231.219 15 Indefinite block 16 Blocked user Jmk56 is back 17 User:Onefortyone may be violating probation 18 Requesting assistance with a Wiki Admin 19 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view recent edits 20 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dabljuh 21 Apology from Hotrocks vandal 22 Excesive Vandialism by User 23 Consistant NPOV reverts 24 Improper block of User:Mirror Vax 25 Saugeen Stripper page protection 26 User:66.194.104.5 27 Yet another Zephram Stark sockpuppet 28 Sockpuppetry on Geoffrey Bolton by user:Velela 29 Inappropriate page move protection by User:Radiant! 30 Aladin (magician) 31 Boothy443 blocked 32 Sockpuppetry at WP:AGF 33 User:Xerves 34 User:WritersCramp 35 External campaigning group spamming talk pages to pack Wikipedia debates 36 Repeated personal attacks 37 Saugeen Stripper protected in violation of WP:PP 38 Help me 39 Multiple Accounts / Admin Abuse 40 NPA Violation? 41 User WoohooDoggy has been blocked by a bot (page moves) 42 Category:Wikipedians who dislike George W. Bush 43 MR. BRUXVOORT IS A WANG!!! vandalism by 67.162.148.73 44 Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006 45 66.211.223.200 Vandalism 46 User:Zanimum2 47 Slow-motion edit warrior 48 Problem User 49 User:Kempler video 50 Matlock Town F.C.

[edit] GNAA member targeting me

Just to let everyone know: Someone pointed me to this edit. Seeing that I knew people who died in the World Trade Center attacks, I find that calling me a terrorist is mildly disgusting and generally a mean thing for us to just brush off. If we want to get really technical about it, we have several policies that specifically talk about this sort of thing, such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I have politely asked that Blackheartiez remove the statement from his user page, and I am informing the admins that I am trying to deal with this in as cool of a manner as possible. If someone can back me up (or fight this for me; I don't want to lose it because of these lowlives), I'd appreciate it.. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This user had only a few surviving edits (eight), none productive. I straight up deleted his user page, and indefinitely blocked him. If this was a bit much, revert me, but this was called for. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, man. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds just the right thing to me - David Gerard 01:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GoldenBoy1

user:GoldenBoy1 has shown up at Frances Farmer saying he's a relative of hers. Possible sock of blocked user user:Jmk56. A temporary sprotect of the article may be the thing to do for now. Wyss 21:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Now I'm sure user:GoldenBoy1 is blocked user user:Jmk56, who has been blocked 5 times in the past day or so for various legal threats, impersonations and anon IP abuses. Wyss 21:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• His behaviour seems ok for now. I've asked him for specific cites on the stuff I'm having trouble verifying on my own. Wyss 23:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have sprotected the page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 70.182.219.158 | talk | contributions

After looking in at a dispute over whether NAMBLA should be categorized with gay organizations, this anonymous user proceeded to initiate a compaign of harassment and defemation (recorded in detail at a previous RFC that did little good) against users whose opinions differed from his or her own. By referring to the RFC pages, you will see that this user has for just about a month now made libelous accusations (accusing users of molesting children and downloading child pornography), vandalized articles, vandalized talk pages, obstructed dispute resolution, and been an all-around menace to Wikipedia. To top things off, the user has shown no remorse or capacity to understand the problems with his or her actions, which portends further violations. Despite being blocked four or so times in the past month, this user continues to vandalize user pages and to revert improvements made to other articles by people this user has targeted for harassment (see [1], [2], [3], [4]. Further action seems to be necessary to prevent further abuse of and disruption to Wikipedia. Corax 00:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USC Trojans football

I put a hard block on this article. there is a continued edit war going on. i encourage the users involved to discuss their POVs in the talk page. Kingturtle 01:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the {{block}} template with the {{protected}} template, which seems to be more appropriate. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And I added it to Wikipedia:Protected page also. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for protections unless they are controversial. PP is the place to record them, not here. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OpenInfo on Messianic Judaism

I'm having what I consider to be a sever problem on Messianic Judaism with user User:OpenInfo.

By way of background, almost all Jews consider Messianic Judaism (a form of Judaism which honors Jesus as the Messiah) to be a contradiction in terms. The article has a long history of being heavily slanted against the practice of MJ, and has often had statement of dubious truth value.

OpenInfo, however, has crossed some lines. He engaged in hate speech on my user page User_talk:NathanZook (now archived)in response to an erroneous post I made on his talk page User_talk:OpenInfo. This I ignored, although others did not. He appears to have revereted the MJ talk page. And he has stated that one organization, which I specifically disavowed, has been given "millions and billions of dollars..." AFAIC, he has demonstrated that he is a conspiracy "nut". I know of no way to reason with such an individual.

NathanZook 05:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Okasha links

Can someone keep an eye on the user Okasha, who is adding links to a Chinese version of the Quran all over the place, in addition to copy and pasting from an article about Jesus in Islam. It may need some admin power, as all my messages so far have been ignored. Thanks. --Jgritz 07:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Several possible sockpuppets

Users Mrbelvedereposter21, 20, 19, 18, 17 and 16 were all created within a couple of minutes, and earlier accounts (Mrbelvedereposter12 for instance) have been blocked for being sockpuppets. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 09:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like they've already been blocked. Sorry. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 09:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding admins to WP:AIV

Several accounts have taken to adding current admins to WP:AIV, mostly User:Doc glasgow, they also have vandalised by removing a section of the WP:AN/I archive. First 64.191.78.165 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) who was warned, then Woemyres (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), next Jaxxred (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and now Jundip (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), I've blocked them all indefinitely however the edit of User:Jundip post dates the other blocks, so they maybe using proxies or dynamic IPs. (Just seen: EdinburghLazza (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and Granum1 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) --pgk^(talk) 12:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It's running rampant there right now. I'm so close to semi-protecting it. Sadly. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 13:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected, and blocked a few of the accounts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Though they've found an older account A1x (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) to use. --pgk^(talk) 13:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought it meant the protection hadn't worked. ;-) I've blocked that account too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting to note that the section being removed from the archive is also a section that the older account was a participant in tying to avoid getting the issue reported to the university where it was originating from. Given that it was a UK based univeristy, yet the IP in the list above appears to be North American there might be some proxies being used (or the other way around the original might have been through a security flaw and really originated from NA) --pgk^(talk) 13:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outrageous harassment of Bumpusmills1 continues

Yet more threats against User:Bumpusmills1 and his family posted, by User:Deathmills1, an account obviously created for the purpose. This is double-take stuff, far beyond what we usually discuss on this page. Is there really nothing we can do? Bishonen | talk 15:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Update: Bumpusmills1 gone. :-(

As I type, I just now see Bumpusmills1's response: he's gone, it seems. :-( Bishonen | talk 15:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC).

Bumpusmills1 has been guilty of some inappropriate POV-pushing, but I agree that such threats are always completely un-called-for. *Dan T.* 15:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Not just POV-pushing, but pure harassment, cyber-stalking, and vandalism. I was on the recieving end of it as was pointed out once before on this board. Even though Bumpusmills1 isn't innocent, these threats are abhorrent. --BWD 18:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Baphin and User:JohN

They are making repeated bad-faith edits regarding content dispute on List of Freemasons. Baphjin is adding Turkish Freemasnos that cannot be verified. The only source is in Turkish, and thus creates a problem with WP:Verifiability. I explained ot him on his talk page that all he needed ot do was add a cite to the page, and hiss response was repeated personal attack.

I warned User:JohN about disputed edits he made on List of Freemasons, and he obfuscated an edit here by atating he removed thwe word "president", but he also added two men whose membership is unproven, with no citation. He then accused me of warning him unfairly on his user page, which I explained.

There is a distinct possibility that these users are sock pupeets of User:Lightbringer or other sock or meat puppets of his, given their fixation on a very minor item in a Freemasonry related article and their response to the more than fair attitude exhibited by myself in regards to explaining how to fix the edits. However, rather than follow posted policy or find the citations, they would rather argue publically, which tells me, at least, that they have no interestin fact, rather only their agenda. IMHO, it's vandalism, but there's no precedent or template to warn on it, so I have no other course of action until they violate 3RR, which I am sure they will avoid. MSJapan 18:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: Baphin is clearly gaming the 3RR, which legitimate new users don't do. MSJapan 21:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danielle Cunio

I'm not the "North Carolina" vandal. Just because I do supposed "vandalism" doesn't make me be the NC vandal. I am new to Wikipedia and want to know why there are so many claims against me?IWKA 22:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miguel de Icaza attacks me

Hi, I'm editing the wikipedia page on Mono. User Miguel.de.Icaza is always attacking me and he calls me a DotGNU advocate. He cannot be objective at all. It is like if Bill Gates would edit the wikipedia page on Windows. Can anyone limit his access to edit the wikipedia page on Mono, so that his limit to edit he page is limited to *strictly factual*?

My contact email is : krokas@email.su -- krokas

Unless you stop removing comments from Talk:Mono development platform, there really isn't much to talk about. If you cannot engage in dialogue with someone there is no way to resolve your dispute. Removing comments is against Wikipedia policies, and it could lead to you losing your editing privileges. Rhobite 04:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Why you don't just make everyone register before any editing and stick this to the top. If this is not allowed at all just remove this possibility. So being said this is very strange from wikipedia admins. [krokas]

Well, please start thinking about this policy now, because it's very important. Articles are written on article pages. Comments about articles are written on talkpages. You're allowed to edit text posted by other people on article pages, that's what being a wiki means. You're not allowed to make any changes in signed comments posted by other people on talkpages, or to delete any part of them. Doing that is against policy, is dishonest (making others appear to say, and sign, something they never did say, making them appear to not have replied although they did, etc, etc), and makes dialogue impossible. Therefore, as Rhobite says, desist immediately from changing or removing other people's comments on talkpages, or there's nothing to talk about. I hope this clears things up. Bishonen | talk 22:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

User Miguel.de.Icaza tells absolutely wrong things about me that are false. Wikipedia is not his blog and he tells non-sense. He has written false things about me in the Talk|page, and they look to have the only purpose to not allow me add my opinion, as he didn't address me. And if an opinion of anyone is different to the opinion of User Miguel.de.Icaza it doesn't mean to be a wrong one. Very indicative is that user Kesla did agree with the existence of the term. And User Miguel.de.Icaza only attacked me about the frase "Portable .NET doesn't have any problem with patents" by saying to copy/past his email to User Kesla in the Wikipedia page. Only then he started to attack me because of the term "proprietary open source", which in fact does exist, and which was used on the wikipedia page already for 2 months, before user Miguel.de.Icaza didn't start his attack to me.

User David Björklund says in the Talk:Mono development platform "...i wrote the history-section, not de Icaza. I used this source for this (it's in the reference section on the main page)..." Yes, it just shows another time that I was right to edit the history section. An internet maillist cannot be considered as a source of verifiable information [5]:

"...Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher..." I ask the Wikipedia administration to remove the editing possibility to user David Björklund untill the time he shows a possibility to follow the Wikipedia Policies and guidelines. [krokas]

The source of the information for the Mono wikipedia page that is refered is [6] and specifically the sample chapter [7] which only says that Miguel de Icaza has really started the Mono project. I ask that all the extra information that was added to the history section is removed. Untill other sources of verifiable information than maillist are found please remove too the sections "Mono and Microsoft's patents" and "Software developed with Mono". Thanks. [krokas]

[edit] Talk:Río de la Plata

A renaming poll was held on WP:RM and the consensus was to KEEP. Apparently, some editors didn't agree with the outcome of that poll and decided to reopen it, less than a week after it was finished and without listing in wp:rm. This is a blatant violation of WP rules and will prompt any editor that doesn't like the result to immediately keep reopening discussions until he gets his way. I urge fellow admins to assist in this matter and I plan to oppose the outcome of this pall by whatever means possible, even if it means protecting against moves. I hope it doesn't get that far. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that really does make you sound bad. This poll is listed on WP:RM and has been created because the original one was not done in the most appropriate manner. If the result you want is really the right one then it will be chosen again. It just appears that you are worried that you won't get your way. Also, please can we have this discussion in one place rather than here, on that discussion page and on my own talk page. violet/riga (t) 18:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

At the time I wrote this it wasn't. By the way, the initial poll was started by one supporting the "losing side", and it was done in a PERFECT manner. And not, we can't since you seem to try repeating votes until you get your way. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm neutral, so I don't have a way. The original poll was not correctly done because there was debate as to which way around it should've been conducted (the move should really have been undone before the WP:RM, with a no-consensus result thus having the opposite result). violet/riga (t) 18:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It spent a week on wP:RM, strange no "neutral" parties intervened then. Also, weird that you intervened "neturally" at the behest of a non-neutral party [8] AFTER the 1st poll concluded with a result against their desired. Also, a NEUTRAL admin closed that RM with proper procedure. I don't consider you neutral. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've performed hundreds of WP:RM requests, and ALoan knew that - he asked me to take a look and I did. I repeat, the first poll was badly done and I was trying to help out. Reread that sentence, or at least the end of it until you understand WP:AGF. violet/riga (t) 18:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Strange that you complain about it being "badly" done... I don't think you would've intervened if the first poll was won by "River Plate" proponents... who DID create that poll. Finally, if you wanted to do a "proper" RM, you should've discussed the options for the naming vote before opening the polls, since some people disagree with the choices that were arbitrarily given. Giving two options for "Rio de la Plata" (with and w/o diac) only confused readers, such as myself, and some may not have realized that they could vote for both. If you solve that problem, I would be more amenable to let the whole issue go and wait until the 2nd poll is over to make further comments regarding this RM. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have intervened - I wouldn't have known about it! I'm sorry that you didn't read the instructions that are really quite clear, and I did even link to the approval voting article for you. violet/riga (t) 19:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with violetriga on the need for a new poll (although I disagree with her opinion on the name itself); however, I do not agree that the original poll was "not correctly done" -- rather that it simply became an out-of-control mess. The move request discussion had degnerated into a morass of vitriol and ill-will, with accusations that the one or more earlier moves had been done inappropriately. While there was a majority voting to keep the name at Río de la Plata, that cannot accurately be described as a "consensus". At best, it can be said that there was no consensus to rename the article. But since several had questioned the validity of earlier moves, this all became rather convoluted, to say the least--thus the need for a new poll. BTW, you may not have looked hard enough for the entry on WP:RM, as the entry was added at 13:01, January 21, 2006 UTC, more than three hours before your note above. older ≠ wiser 19:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if it was, but the template in the talk page certainly wasn't there. Having said that, I've seen strange things with wikitime. I don't want my last sentence as an insinuation that that's what happened here, it's not (although I know it sounds like one and I apologize in advance). Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean this talk page template added 2 minutes after the poll? violet/riga (t) 19:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize the discussion as an "out of control mess", but it was certainly going nowhere. That said, the poll itself wasn't conducted in the best manner possible, and I suspect intentionally, so that the losing/initiating side could fall back on the failure as an excuse to look for more hanging chads. As I said on the talk page there, I'm [still] not prepared to question violetriga's neutrality, although I do [continue to] question whether or not s/he read the discussion thoroughly. I'm not opposed to revoting, as long as the "losing" side (yes, in most cases, it really has degenerated to "sides") agrees to leave the issue rest for at least a year, regardless of which name prevails (and I'm the one who made the move!)... Given the resorting to sockpuppetry of at least one of the "River Plate" proponents, I'm not sure that wish will come true, but... In the future, violetriga, may I just suggest that more prominent notice of the WP:RM entry be given where the discussion is actually taking place, rather than just the template at the top of the article (to which nobody's paying any attention anymore). Also, whoever closes the poll, please summarily archive the talk page...I swear it's the longest single-issue talk page on all of en:WP. Tomer^talk 09:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the poll needed to have a more prominent notice - there are plenty of votes there already, and those that have not voted this time but did last time will be notified shortly before the deadline date. As for my neutrality, I really have no interest in the name of some random river I'll never visit and have never heard of before, and am just trying to sort out what was a bad WP:RM situation. violet/riga (t) 12:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 86.10.231.219

Attacks on Talk:Mumps. Tedious. Probably something to do with Ombudsman by the pattern of other interventions by htat IP address. I'm unonvinced there is a meritorious one among them. Midgley 23:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I second this. A close look at Talk:Mumps and several other edits by 86.10.231.219 (talk • contribs) will reveal a series of personal attacks, clear deliberate POV editing and possibly a reincarnation of abusive troll 81.111.172.198 (talk • contribs) (who also edited mumps and got block for trying to publish personal details of myself on Wikipedia). JFW | T@lk 08:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

86.10.231.219 on Epidemiology This now seems to be a series of attacks on me, suggesting that as a BMA member I can't be trusted on medica matters (which is, I'd say, a somewhat unusual argument in the world) and mixed less than usefully with efforts to turn multiple pages into rehashes of a single very little accepted argument on immunisation.

Could he be blocked please.Midgley 16:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I would be thrilled to block this troll myself, but I'm involved and hence will not. Could any other admin please have a look? JFW | T@lk 18:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinite block

I have indefinitely blocked NONCENSORED_Popeye (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). The user is a self-proclaimed Gay Nigger Association of America troll who has no useful contributions that I could find. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Good riddance to bad GNAA rubbish. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 04:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain why you banned him? Being a member of GNAA isn't a bannable offense. At first glance nothing obviously comes to mind - plenty of his edits haven't been reverted. Secretlondon 09:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Check User talk:Timecop - these fuckwits are playing up again big time, particularly as we've started shooting their unusually obnoxious trolling userpage boxes - David Gerard 14:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

In particular, have a look at the deleted templates User:Timecop/JEWSDIDWTC-2, User:Timecop/JEWSDIDWTC-1, User:Timecop/JEWSDIDWTC-0, User:Timecop/JEWSDIDWTC-4 for what I mean - David Gerard 16:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice comment on mad POV userboxes, were they used anywhere as they seem to be in someone's userspace. (I'm not suggesting that they were suitable for an encyclopedia before someone asks) Secretlondon 10:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding pictures of feces to people's userpages is model behavior [9]? (take my word for it, you might not want to click that link). --W.marsh 16:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that's an article and it does fit - although it may be shocking for some people. I didn't suggest "model behaviour", I was questiioning life block. Secretlondon 10:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If you like, you can go discuss it with him on his talk page, because it looks like he has something to say about this block [10]. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked user Jmk56 is back

I'm being trolled (and in effect, threatened) again by blocked user:Jmk56, here, from what I suppose is an AOL IP, user:207.200.116.138. Wyss 16:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think maybe you should step back from Frances Farmer for a day or two - it looks to me like there has been at least one massive misunderstanding here; I'm not sure on whose part, but the world won't stop if poor Ms Farmer's article sits in a state you don't like until the misunderstanding is cleared up. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • From what I've seen, the misunderstanding is entirely Jmk56's. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Struck out as it's more complicated than that. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 01:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've started talking to Jmk56 in email; I'll see if I can clear anything up. In the meantime, it's probably better to let things rest a little; I believe the Frances Farmer article is now in fact in a reasonable state from all participants' perspective. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 00:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • There's a conversation going on on my talk page if anyone wants to stick their nose in. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Onefortyone may be violating probation

Onefortyone inserted a (in my opinion) poorly sourced paragraph of hearsay and rumors about Cary Grant's sexual orientation into that article. I reverted, with an explanation on Talk:Cary Grant about the inadequacy of the sources and the prior discussion on that page about the need for very strong sources if the article is to include claims that Grant was gay or bisexual. Onefortyone has re-inserted the text twice, ignoring my request that he wait for comments from other editors, and attacking me in an edit summary: [11] Could it be that you do not like sources which prove that Cary Grant was bisexual? I went to Onefortyone's talk page and discovered that he is on probation for just this sort of behavior. If this is a violation of his probation - I think it is, but I could be wrong - I would appreciate an admin assist. Thank you. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Onefortyone has stopped re-inserting, although he has repeated the personal attack twice on Talk:Cary Grant and has not addressed the question of the sources' reliability. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Onefortyone re-inserted the text again and continues accusing me of anti-gay bias. I am at three reverts, so I'm done for the day. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you are the person who has completely deleted my contribution to the Cary Grant article. Months ago, there was already a discussion on the Talk:Cary Grant page concerning the same topic in which another user said about your reverts, "Don't presume to whitewash someone else's life just because you don't agree with it." See [12]. Onefortyone 00:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Those comments weren't about me or my reverts or edits to that page. Those comments were placed on the talk page on August 7th. My first edit to Cary Grant came on August 16th. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for confusing you with another user. Onefortyone 01:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The claim is clearly sourced from published books with named authors and so belongs in the article. All it needs is more NPOV phraseology. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

My argument is that the single source is not reliable, as it relies on double-hearsay and its accuracy is in question. While the text can easily be balanced with counterarguments (Grant's widow and one surviving ex-wife both vigorously argued in TCM's documentary on Grant that he was heterosexual), a battle of hearsay sources isn't my idea of encyclopedic. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

But all Grant's wives have to go for evidence was . . . hearsay. They weren't with him every minute. They weren't married to him when he was with Scott. One of them wasn't even born. All they had to go on is things he might have said to them (how many gay or bisexual husbands tell their wives the truth?) or they might have heard from other people. In other words, hearsay. If the personal opinions of ex-wives count, so do the personal opinions of colleagues and friends. It is all or nothing. You can't say 'I believe source x rather than source y' because that is POV. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what I said - hearsay is not good enough for an encyclopedia, and unless we have something stronger than a questionable author saying that someone told him that someone else said Grant was gay or bisexual, it shouldn't be in the article. Onefortyone has no other sources than that one book; the comment from Arthur Laurents is completely unsourced, while the line about Bringing Up Baby is unsourced and probably irrelevant, as it's based on his own interpretation of the word "gay" in the film's dialogue. My point for the original post is that Onefortyone's probation appears to require him to strongly verify edits about the sexual orientation of actors and actresses. These edits appear to violate the probation. | Klaw ¡digame! 02:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now added some quotes from Arthur Laurents's book, Original Story by Arthur Laurents: A Memoir of Broadway and Hollywood to the Talk:Cary Grant page. See [13]. For the gay subtext of the Bringing Up Baby line, see [14]. Onefortyone 03:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This quote is from that last link: There is no conclusive evidence that Grant was bisexual. (That's the conclusion of a graf on his sexuality.) If a site dedicated to the topic of LGBT culture in Hollywood says that there's no conclusive evidence, then Onefortyone's edits are merely rumors, which don't belong in an encyclopedia. | Klaw ¡digame! 03:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The source only says that there is "no conclusive evidence", which means that there is some evidence, supported by hearsay of the time. Biographers are frequently discussing the topic. Certainly rumors are part of a celebrity's history, especially if there are several independent sources which support the claims. 80.141.240.145 04:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Onefortyone has posted the text of the Laurents source on Talk:Cary Grant. It's clear that Laurents himself was unsure of Grant's sexual orientation and had no concrete evidence to say that Grant was gay or bisexual. In other words, Onefortyone's edits do not match the source material. I still believe the content should come out and Onefortyone has violated his probation. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting assistance with a Wiki Admin

Hello, I am requesting help with a particular admin here that has stated I could be banned for what my personal position is on discussing matters with other Wikipedians. For some background information and I also want to clearly state my problem. I joined Wikipedia in December of 2005 in response to the actions taken concerning the wiki article "wehatetech" or "we hate tech." The article has been pulled several times and I do understand that once it's voted on somehow, not exactly clear on that, it's removed from the encyclopedia. I am NOT here to fight for that particular article. i understand that there is a guideline for articles, BUT my observation and opinion is that the rules were not followed properly in the process of deletion. Why am I still here? Well, in a nutshell, I have seen people removed from the site or blocked for various reasons I also do not agree with, but it up to those individual people to address their removal. I decided to stay in order to provide constructive criticism of the deletion process and to add another viewpoint to the issue. I feel improperly judged, reading from responses to my post, a "one issue candidate" and have been threatened with removal from the site, being a sock-puppet for "we hate tech" and accused of "cluttering" talk pages.

My purpose is not to clutter the site or be on any type of mission to tear down Wikipedia. I wish to understand why certain things happen here and hope to add thoughtful insight and more information to topics in order to resolve an issue. I do feel like I am being pushed around and generally really upset with the whole process with a select group of individuals either working behind the scenes or posting on my talk page. Two Wikipedians have stood out in this whole situation, User:Haikupoet and admin User:Zoe. I have had several exchanges with both, with Haikupoet moving one comment and then deleting my response to because I was under the impression that it was deleted. My response comment was then deleted, which resulted in the blocking User:Xerves. The block happened due to a supposed "legal threat" by "Zoe" which has now threatened me with the same. It's not MY forum I am promoting. I am a member of such forum and website http://www.wehatetech.com and I am NOT trying to promote in the first place.

I AM promoting that fellow Wikipedians discuss issues and not stomp over other postings by others. I am being totally honest and upfront. I do not have a hidden agenda. Have I been totally innocent? No, there are two comments / edits on my behalf that broke regulation. i was dealt with in a proper manner by those admins and I am thankful for that. If further investigation yields that I be removed from Wikipedia then so be it, as long as I am adequately told as to such infractions. i only wish to resolve this issue. i have deleted none of my post and will not edit any of my post to make myself appear in a different light. Everything is available through my user history.

Thank you. Kmac1036 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Kmac. Your complaint would be more appropriate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you move it there, you're more likely to get a response. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 23:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I have move this here per suggestion by "Quadell." Thank you. Kmac1036 00:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm User:Haikupoet, and I thought I'd tell my side. First off, I moved Kmac's posting from my main page to my talk page. If that's not allowed, than I apologize, but I think it entirely reasonable as talk pages are where that sort of thing is supposed to go. Second, I have tried to explain to all parties involved in the Wehatetech mess how Wikipedia is supposed to work (check my user page for a summary of what I've tried to tell all of them). What I think we have here is a clearcut case of refusal to understand the system -- the WHT crew simply don't want to accept "nonnotable" as a reason for disinclusion in Wikipedia, and continue to try to force the issue long after any other AfD would have run its course and been forgotten. As for Xerves' comments and subsequent banning, he did not threaten me, it is true, but he did threaten (implying that he was speaking for the WHT community as a whole IMHO) to drag the fight out until they get what they want. Haikupoet 00:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I told Kmac that if he were to carry out his threat to disrupt Wikipedia by repeated insertions of wehatetach, then he could be blocked for WP:POINT ([15]). I said nothing to him about legal threats. The legal threat was made by Xerves, as I explained above. #User:Xerves. Kmac is also repeatedly accusing me of having blanked his User page, which is not true, and which I repeatedly try pointing out to him that he can read the history to see that I have made no edits to his page, but he repeatedly accuses me of using "admin tools" to hide my edit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Neutral point of view recent edits

All -- there have been some questionable edits going on recently at WP:NPOV, with some concomitant edit warring. I'd encourage everybody to stop by the page and weigh in on the debate over these changes. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dabljuh

Further incivility, mindbogglingly enough, on the RfC about his incivility. Someone please block User:Dabljuh for an appropriate amount of time. (Just the latest in a long string of unbridled abuse.) I'd block him myself, but I'm arguably "involved", since I supported the RfC from the outset... Tomer^talk 02:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Admins can't block for personal attacks unless they rise to the level of dissrupting wikipedia.Geni 02:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the RfC? Tomer^talk 07:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Skim read it. Just appears to be the latest shots in the cercemsission issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geni (talk • contribs).

I assume "cercemsission" is supposed to be "circumcision". The RfC does not concern circumcision, however, it concerns gross incivility that is, in fact, an egregious part of the user's disruption, as it happens, of circumcision-related articles. Tomer^talk 08:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Statements such as "Since that time he's been obsessed with circumcision-related articles...edits to such articles comprising well in excess of 95% of his subsequent edits. First contribution [4] on the subject is incivil, unproductive and overtly trollish. Circumcision-related edits have overwhelmingly dominated subsequent contributions " make me question that. The number of people signing up is low enough to make any claims of dissrupting wikipedia questionable.Geni 08:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

So it's OK then if his disruption is limited then to a narrow group of articles and his personal attacks limited to just a few editors, notably those with whom he happens to disagree who, as it happens, contribute to those articles? Until you actually take the time to go through his contribs, it seems to me you should reserve judgment. I think we're done here, as this has now become a discussion of his RFC tho, not of his continued disruption. Tomer^talk 09:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see Dabljuh's behaviour is in violation of various policies, but not in a particularly vicious manner, and is stimulated by the ongoing dispute over circumcision. I don't see any reason to block him. The Land 13:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was ok. I just said it was outside the juristion of admins.Geni 13:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a reason why user conduct RfCs have a link to the user in question's contributions. If you check it you'll see that his disruption is not only obvious (including on his own rfc), but not limited to circumcision. Take this gem for example. Tomer^talk 14:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology from Hotrocks vandal

This was posted to my talk page:

We are sorry for the 'hotrocks' (User:Hotrocks) vandalism - instead we agree to become good contributors - and we have decided that we don't get any entertainment out of it.

This is a genuine apology and we are sorry.

Apologies again,

--Hutracks 12:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time at this moment, can someone else familiar with the incident in question please investigate and possibly unblock? Thanks :-) - David Gerard 12:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The blocklog indicates that User:Hotrocks was blocked as a Willy on Wheels. However, there is only one surviving contrib in their history (a misleadingly summaried addition of a {{totallydisputed}}). Presumably, all their moves have been deleted, so it seems hard to verify whether they were in fact Willy or not. Kate had a deleted contribs browser; is it possible to somehow construct that by hand if you're an admin? -Splash^talk 12:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

We were a group of WoW-impersonators who did a sort of breaching experiment. David blocked some of our sockpuppets, we didn't mean any harm, sorry for our vandalisms. Now we come back to do positive edits. --Hutracks 13:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Tough. Actions have consequences; breaching experiments often have the appropriate consequence of rendering the experimenters unwelcome in the society in which they performed the experiments. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

But is the blocking policy not for preventing damage rather than punishment? -Localzuk (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It also calls for indefinite blocks for people who act like indefinitely banned users. --Deathphoenix 17:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If any admin wants to give them another chance (everyone is theoretically forgivable), they can unblock and then watch closely just in case of damage - David Gerard 17:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

He "apologised" to me on October the 27th (User talk:Finlay McWalter#Hotrocks Vandal); his apologies are as worthless as everything else he's done here. Block, revert, ignore, repeat. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excesive Vandialism by User

User:209.12.51.207 recently vandalized Personification [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Personification&diff=36366004&oldid=36365454]. I checked the User Talk page and the user already had a "last warning" test 4 on it. Does that means somebody should ban the IP? Where (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this IP's been blocked for 3 hours. If you want to report on a user that should be blocked immediately for vandalism (such as a user vandalising articles even after receiving a test3 or test4), try WP:AIV. To report on a user who is vandalising articles, but doesn't necessarily need to be blocked immediately, try WP:VIP. --Deathphoenix 16:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consistant NPOV reverts

User:Ramkumar.k keeps on inserting non-NPOV material into Jimmy George. I have reverted the edits 3 times, but s/he continues to put the stuff back in. Please advise. Where (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It may be time to avail yourself of some of the suggestions in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If this person (or yourself, or anybody) reverts an article more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, however, they may be blocked for violating the three revert rule. You can report such violations here. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improper block of User:Mirror Vax

I was reading the history for Canadian federal election, 2006 because I wanted to see if the disclaimer template that I nominated for deletion was actually being used on that page. Apparently, not only was it used, but one contributor was blocked for removing it. User:Physchim62, the template's author, placed it on the page at 9:39 AM [16]. User:Mirror Vax then removed it. This turned into a revert war; Physchim62 placed the template three more times and Mirror Vax removed it. Each of them had exactly three reverts. (Psychim62's reverts: [17] [18] [19]; Mirror Vax's reverts: [20] [21] [22]) In other words, both of them were right at the limit of our "electric fence". All well and good, except that Psychim62 then blocked MirrorVax for a spurious WP:3RR violation, despite the fact that (1) he had not made a fourth revert, (2) Psychim62 had also made three reverts, and (3) he was involved in the edit war, thus making his block clearly an inappropriate use of administrative powers.

Can someone please undo this block? I've worked with Mirror Vax in the past on Commodore-related articles and can verify that he is a good contributor. And the block clearly violated Wikipedia:Blocking policy, specifically: "Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute. Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in an article-editing conflict." Thanks for your assistance in this matter. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, he only reverted three times. Not stellar performance, but not blockworthy either, particularly since he was involved in a content dispute over what sort of template to use with the blocking admin. As a courtesy, I'll ask that he unblock him. If he isn't available to do the unblocking in a timely manner, I'll do it. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Also used his rollback button to revert. Tsk. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Mirror Vax is now unblocked. Please note that the first of my diffs is an edit, not a revert. It was to place {{ElectionResultsCA}} on the page, as discussed on the relevant talk page. This template has also been discussed at length on TfD, where there is a near two-thirds majority to keep (and hence to use it on the page for which it was destined). During that discussion, the wording of the template has been edited to try to address the concerns addressed. Unfortunately some editors are not willing to accept this consensus: User:Mirror Vax seems to be one, given his edit summary "this is an encyclopedia, not a pulpit for intimidation and propaganda". User:Crotalus horridus also seems unwilling to accept that the template does not fall under WP:NLT. I apologise for the incorrect block, and I hope that other administrators will better keep their calm about this page tonight. Physchim62 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, Physchim. I understand the frustration. Maybe you could encourage the folks discussing this template at TfD to come to the page in question to help build a more lasting consensus. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saugeen Stripper page protection

Request for page protection on the Saugeen Stripper article while a deletion review is in progress due to various users trying to avert process. --OntarioQuizzer 19:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:66.194.104.5

This ID was apparently being used to make death threats back in June of 2004, and User:RickK blocked it. I don't have any information about the ID myself, except for seeing the kinds of threats being made. We have received an email at the Help Desk mailing list from St. Petersburg College claiming it is their firewall internet address. The email came from a person in their network technical support staff. Should this ID be unblocked? User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and unblocked it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another Zephram Stark sockpuppet

Same old drill. I've blocked Cunning_Linguist (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) as the latest ZS sockpuppet. See the mostly complete list here After I blocked KIMP (talk • contribs) (a Zephram sockpuppet confirmed by CheckUser), Cunning Linguist picked up when he left off and continued spamming people's talk page's with KIMP's message. Also, notice that CL's fifth edit [23] was to accuse me (and Jimbo) of vandalism. Once again, no doubt at all that this is Zephram, but I welcome review by other admins. Carbonite | Talk 23:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry on Geoffrey Bolton by user:Velela

And the socks come thick and fast. See block log. I've blocked Velela 48 hours for this little piece of fun. Look out for more socks on this article - David Gerard 23:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate page move protection by User:Radiant!

Radiant! (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) recently has been moving Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates to Wikipedia:No meta-templates, a name that has not been proposed on the talk page and one that I specifically disagreed with. Regardless of what page name is best, and their are several alternate suggestions on the talk page by many users, what matters more is that Radiant! moved the page at 23:40, and then immediately protected it from page moves. -- Netoholic @ 23:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

On the talk page, Netoholic had proposed that "Avoid using meta-templates" be renamed to a stronger term, e.g. not using the word "avoid". Recently, I've done just that, making it "No meta-templates" (which also conforms nicely with other policy page names) and updated the many redirects. Netoholic is apparently angry with me (see Talk:Leet for the dispute) and has reverted this (breaking the redirects in the progress) on grounds that it "wasn't proposed on the talk page". Now 1) a good-faith rename needn't be discussed, and 2) he was the one that proposed this in the first place. Since he didn't respond to my question why, I've protected the page from moving for a short while, because moving back-and-forth is a bit pointless. Of course it's now in m:the wrong version. I'm just posting the notification here, this is verging on the WP:LAME. Radiant_>|< 23:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please point to anywhere I said "No meta-templates" was good name (never have). And besides, I've obviously recently said I disagree with that name, and so have others. But really, how AT ALL does that warrant you page move warring then the PROTECTING the page? The first time I reverted your rename was on 1/16 before the discussion began about Leet. I didn't break any redirects, because you only just now changed them. It is your recent actions that seem to indicate bad-faith vindictiveness. -- Netoholic @ 00:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

At this point protection is warranted so that the various issues can be discussed. This morning I actually advocated re-writing the policy entirely because it currently defines "meta-templates" in a way which excludes 90% of the templates which are being held to fall under the policy and concentrates exclusively on 'meta' templates while those are really only one aspect of the real problems. There are alot of different ideas which need to be worked out. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 00:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Radiant!. Netoholic has just been making a real nuisance of himself all over this policy. If a page is moved a few times in quick succession, it seems reasonable to protect it from moves until consensus is achieved. I think most people working on that policy have almost exhausted their patience with Netoholic. --Gareth Hughes 00:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I endorse this block to sort it out in calm. Move wars are bad. Netoholic seems to quickly feel personally attacked by the slightest disagreement with him. --Adrian Buehlmann 00:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Did I get that right? Radiant! Gets into an edit war with Netoholic, and then Radiant! protects the page at his prefered version! Since the edit war is continuing, I have now reprotected the page. Sort it out the pair of you, please. --Doc ^ask? 00:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it needs full protection, or even move protection, as long as Radiant! respects the fact that he's currently the only one that wants that specific name. We've got many suggestions on talk, and even discussion about a page overhaul. It was just premature to move it, and of course, improper for Radiant! to protect it. -- Netoholic @ 00:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The disagreement between Radiant and Netoholic emerged about Leet (a whole different page) and then went over to a move war on WP:AUM. WP:LAME indeed on both sides to varying degree. --Adrian Buehlmann 00:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but after Radiant! got involved with Leet, and I chastised him for inserting unsourced information, that he moved this page again today in an act I can only interpret as spite. He knows how to push people's buttons, for sure. -- Netoholic @ 00:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. You claim someone acting in bad faith against you every time someone pushes Save page.

Other admins, Netoholic is currently in violation of:

• His ArbCom ban (editing in both the Wikipedia: and Template: namespaces)
• WP:AUM (revert-warring templates)
• move-warring WP:AUM
• WP:CIV

Doesn't this warrant a block yet? — Omegatron 00:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say this warrants a block. But the question is what this would help. This is a wiki. We do have to learn how to integrate the good sides of Netoholic. And, believe it or not, the timining of the move that Radiant did on WP:AUM couldn't have barely be worser (in so far I must agree with Neto as per "knowing how to push Neto's button", the thing is this button is so prominent on Neto's surface that it takes an extreme amount of self control not to touch it). The tricky thing is that Netoholic has sound technical knowledge but cannot accept opposition to any of his edits. The worst thing Netoholic did in the past was at template:language where the people around that (Garzo and others) have clearly stated that they are about to implement WP:AUM but Netoholic constantly pushes his own "Netoholic way" of how to implement that. For Neto, speed of implementing WP:AUM seems to go over anything else. Maybe a block for a week or two would be in order, but do not expect that Neto will change his mind by that. This would at least give the people at template language time to implement their solution without interruption by Netoholic. Sorry for my long post but this Neto thing his very delicate. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it true that restrictions placed on Netoholic by ArbCom are actually in place?

2.1) Netoholic is banned from editing in the Wikipeedia and template namespaces for twelve months, and restricted to one revert per page per day. This remedy is suspended while the mentorship in remedy 3 is in effect, and may be cancelled if the mentors consider the mentorship has been successful. The twelve months is counted from the date of the arbitration committee decision.

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

This remedy was suspended while Netoholic was under mentorship. However, the update clearly states that the mentorship failed and the above ban is in effect. There is no notice to say otherwise, so I believe that Netoholic has been in contravention of this ban since July. I would like clear opinion on this statement, as this user has been particularly rude and disruptive of late and there seems to have been no remedy for his actions. --Gareth Hughes 12:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• It is a somewhat complex situation. Yes, he is banned from Wikipedia and Template namespaces, and that is technically in force ever since the mentorship failed. About amonth ago he made a request on RFAr that this ban be lifted. The ArbCom has not responded to that, except for a short remark by Raul654 that "several arbitrators (myself and David Gerard in particular) have expressed approval of what Netoholic has been doing vis-a-vis killing metatemplates and possibly creating some sort of exception for that." The point is really that Neto is doing a good job on templates, but doing it in an overly abrasive way. Also, he's been doing some things not related to templates (e.g. Leet) that are something less than a good job.
  • The easiest solution would be to simply enforce the ban as imposed, until and unless the ArbCom sees fit to change that.
  • A more productive solution would be to allow him to continue to do good work on templates, but have someone watch him to for instance impose a zero-revert rule and a personal attack parole. That would be somewhat akin to his earlier mentorship. However, it is quite possible that such a watcher would find himself between a rock and a hard place.
  • And of course the third solution would be to ignore it as we have now, and hope the incivility doesn't get out of hand.
• Radiant_>|< 12:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I will unblock instantly if anyone blocks Netoholic over this. He's enforcing an oft-disregarded policy and taking the time to do it properly, and a majority of members of the arbitration committee have given him their explicit consent to do so - preventing this sort of activity was not what anyone had in mind with the original ban. Trying to bring this here is a blatant way of trying to override Wikipedia policy by having the messenger banned, and that simply will not stand. Ambi 15:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are interested I can provide you with a lot of edits which can clearly not be referred to as "He's enforcing an oft-disregarded policy". I would rather say he is often enforcing his way to implement WP:AUM, ignoring other ideas and threatening people with his edit warring and wikilawyering. It seems to me you are applying here WP:IAR, but this at a very high cost. By the way, we do not need Netoholic to implement WP:AUM. He is not the only one who does and is able to implement it. --Adrian Buehlmann 21:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Newest example: [24]. Others on request. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Which actions of Netoholic has the ArbCom explicity given their consent to? I'm not questioning the truth of your statement, but I am interested in exactly what the ArbCom consented to. Carbonite | Talk 15:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I find Ambi's comment unhelpful. It gives Netoholic blanket approval to be as disruptive as he likes. The key word is enforcement: it is not Netoholic's job to enforce any policy. In fact, giving a user who has a history of uncivil conduct such powers is bound to cause problems. If the ArbCom are serious about lifting the ban, they should do so on the relevant page. The consensus here is growing that we need tools to control Netoholic's consistent incivility. Giving him unblockable status in this way will make the situation worse: he already seems to think he can do anything. --Gareth Hughes 15:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ambi, please read my previous post again and what I said about a more productive solution? While Neto is certainly working on an oft-disregarded policy, there is substantial doubt on whether he is doing it properly. If you don't believe me, check his contribs log for the last few days and count the amount of revert wars and personal attacks. There has been a request by him on the RFAr page to rescind his probation for over a month now, that only a single arbiter has responded to. It is a longstanding tradition that good edits do not by themselves excuse bad edits, and if in upholding one policy (AUM) he is breaking several others (CIV/NPA/AGF, WP:POINT and the spirit of 3RR) he is not doing a good job. Radiant_>|< 16:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ambi, please read through the relevant discussions, the ArbCom, and Netoholic's actions before making such statements. Wheel warring isn't helpful.

Netoholic is enforcing his interpretation of WP:AUM, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's doing it correctly or in a way that the developers would approve of. If you read WP:AUM and Jamesday's comments again, you'll see that constant editing of templates is just as bad for server load as templates within templates, and Netoholic's constant revert warring of templates is actually a violation of WP:AUM.

preventing this sort of activity was not what anyone had in mind with the original ban.

Actually, it is. "Netoholic was arguably completely technically correct — but he interacted so negatively with others that he actually convinced people he was not." In spite of him being correct about templates, he was banned by the ArbCom because of his behavior, which hasn't improved a bit.

Trying to bring this here is a blatant way of trying to override Wikipedia policy by having the messenger banned, and that simply will not stand.

This has nothing to do with the developer-mandated policy. It has to do with his behavior, which hasn't changed at all since the ban or mentorship. We can handle the policy without his "help". No one appointed him as the enforcer of WP:AUM. (And if they did, he's doing a bad job at it, anyway; ignoring the parts that are inconvenient for him.) — Omegatron 17:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's really disappointing to see my efforts being mischaracterized like this. I have recieved several compliments on my template conversions, and in fact, that conversion has inspired many creative uses for templates. In the months that my ban was fully in force, I stayed away, happily. I was drawn back by people contacting me about templates, and specifically the abominations that are the "conditional templates". Unfortunately, because of the nature of how wide-spread my work is in template-land, I have a much higher chance of running into the occasional cliques and OWNers. I can do nothing more than provide the alternative and point to the justification (WP:AUM). Often, I will try convincing them for a few days, even providing fully working replacements for them, and then leave it be for a few days. Everyone speaking negatively of me in this thread (except Radiant!, oddly) is someome that has had one of their templates challenged by me. I am still "completely technically correct", but that just makes egos bruised even more because they think I'm implying, by fixing or challenging their use of templates, that they've done bad work. All I want is to do is make things better. -- Netoholic @ 17:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Everyone speaking negatively of me in this thread (except Radiant!, oddly) is someome that has had one of their templates challenged by me.

And me.

All I want is to do is make things better.

How many times are you going to say that without acting on it? You must be aware of the problems many many editors have with your behavior, so why do you persist in it? Do you seriously believe that you're doing the right thing when everyone tells you that you're not? Do you just enjoy pissing people off? Your behavior is not justified by this or any other policy. — Omegatron 19:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you too. I don't have problems with "many many editors", only a couple quite vocal ones who've decided I'm ruining their wikilife by trying to make their templates better. How can you say "everyone" tells me I'm not doing the right thing when at least 4 arbitrators in just the last week have concurred that I'm doing the right thing? My behavior has been exemplary, and my patience has been abundant. For months, Omegatron, you have had a specific agenda against me, one that borders on harassment. You and I never interact any more, so really shouldn't have any comment. Yet, when someone mentions my name, you join right in and flame the shit out of me, just like always. -- Netoholic @ 20:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Prettytable?? The one where I agreed that it was unnecessary and helped turn it into a css class? — Omegatron 03:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe you don't have a problem with "many many editors" but you do seem to have a problem with most editors you interact with. Apparently everyone that has had one of their templates challenged by you is someone that speaks negatively of you. The pattern is pretty obvious. Radiant_>|< 20:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• You've got your logic reversed... the people here complaining have had there templates challenged by me. I make a ton of edits in the template space, of which the smallest fraction turn into problems. When "standardisers working in good faith clash with those working on articles", it's probably impossible to expect that every interaction will work out perfectly. I do try and respect the aims of those others, and try to present alternatives in good faith. What's happening here, especially with Garzo, Omegatron, and Adrian Buehlmann, is a pile on attack. They see weakness in an adversary, and go for it. I don't want anyone to think, for one second, that their very vocal presence represents the entirety of my experience here on Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 20:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe you can point people to some examples of where your work has been appreciated (and note here that just because nobody noticed your unilateral changes and didn't complain doesn't mean it met with approval). And in any event, it's your behavior and attitude when you are confronted with objections that really convinces me you shouldn't be enforcing WP:AUM (let alone violating the ArbCom ban against you). Instead of working with people (or accepting that they don't like your "solutions"), you accuse them of being WP:OWNers and/or cliques (see above), when in fact it's more likely they're actually a consensus. I also like your underhanded tactic of forcing the issue with people by nominating meta-templates they rely upon at WP:TFD (see: Template:Language). So you couldn't convince them at their templates talk page, so let's try and screw them over entirely by pulling the rug out from underneath them. Bravo! *rollseyes* —Locke Cole • t • c 09:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Netoholic and I don't agree on alot of things (like... say, which way is 'up'), but his hard work has certainly been appreciated by many people. I recall seeing thanks for his work on the 'warbox' (now 'Infobox Military campaign' or something like that), 'Infobox City', something with dog breeds, and several others... just from what I've seen in floating around the same areas. No, compromise and dealing with conflict aren't his strongest suits, but where those issues don't arise he has done a tremendous amount of very beneficial work. His conversion of the 'taxobox' template was a major accomplishment that is now being used extensively. The 'pulling the rug out' analogy isn't inaccurate, but it is usually possible to be standing by with a new rug for the nice people and little harm done. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 19:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've not really interacted with Netoholic that much during this meta template brou-ha-ha, but I have done so a little. I find the user's attitude to be unhelpful, unnecessarily confrontational, and prone to unilateral actions without so much as letting people know what is going on. A prime example of this is Template:Ship table. It was previously a hodge-podge of template code, extremely complicated and prone to breaking if people did not follow complex instructions exactly. I then switched it over to the IF and then QIF templates because they were an elegant solution to the problem of optional rows. This, of course, is part of the series of actions that have provoked howls from the devs about server load. A few days ago I was alerted by another member of the Wikiproject Ships that Netoholic had unilaterally declared my template to be deprecated due to the crusade against meta templates. Netoholic had also developed a 'replacement' that used the CSS trick for hiding rows. Other users had tried to turn Ship table into a version without QIF by using the CSS trick and had nearly succeeded. There were three or four examples of QIF that needing expunging. When I found out what was going on I got rid of the last examples of QIF from the template since the really wanted functionality, ie hidden optional rows in a table, is now available in a way that does not overload the servers. I did this in a manner which did not break existing tables using the template at all. If I could do that in less than an hour why did Netoholic not post a message on my talk page about the possible solutions to the meta template situation? Why did Netoholic not work with me to fix the Ship table template? Why was it someone else who alerted me to what was going on? It is because Netoholic is behaving like a bull in a china shop and is consequently being very disruptive to Wikipedia's smooth running. I see no reason for relaxing the ArbCom ruling, and if it has been relaxed it should go back into effect fully. The negative contributions of Netoholic to Wikipedia are vastly outweighing the positive at the moment. David Newton 01:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that a number of users find Netoholic difficult to work with, particularly when working on templates. It is also clear that ArbCom has found against Netoholic and has issued a ban against editing templates. The revoking of this ban has not been clearly set out. --Gareth Hughes 00:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic's request for clarification about his ban is here.

The "policy" that Netoholic is enforcing was written by himself in February 2005, in response to a comment in January that he didn't have the authority to say "calling one template from another is a bad practice". It was originally his interpretation of developer Jamesday's comments about Sister Project templates, though it has been warred over perpetually since then.

He persisted in trying to make it a guideline, which was heavily disputed. It was eventually declared policy and his ban violations ignored, strictly because of the connections to "lead developer" Jamesday and the server load issue. Recently, the claims about server load and the consensus of the developers were largely invalidated by lead developer Brion Vibber. His comments on the issue were, of course, immediately removed by Netoholic, and guideline status re-imposed.

So, basically, he wrote up his own policy and used its status as an excuse for all kinds of abusive behavior, knowing that admins like Ambi have his back no matter how disruptive he is.

Funny... he was accused of doing the exact same thing two years ago on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television).

Do you see improvement in his behavior? I don't. — Omegatron 20:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I especially find him whinging about WP:OWN hilarious when you realise he's in the middle of this particular little shtstrm. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aladin (magician)

Not sure if this is the right place for it, but I'd like to have other admins' input on it. A huge revert war is going on right now, with both sides claiming consensus and/or the recent AfD I closed favours their position. I'm tempted to block DreamGuy or protect the page, but I won't do either for now (unless someone violates the 3RR). Johnleemk | Talk 12:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I would have called that afd as delete. The strongest argument in favour of keeping was that he was an advisor to the cabinet - he was actually vice chair of a Greater London Authority working group. No-one is arguing that the working group is worthy of an article.. There's been a sockpuppet check which indicated vote stacking previously. I think we are being used for PR purposes. Secretlondon 13:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Can I just point out that firstly none of the sockpuppets took part in the 2nd AFD. Only 4 sockpuppets took part in the first AFD and the result was 19-5, thus without sockpuppets it would have been 15-5. However, I understand that some of the comments by the sockpuppets could have possibly influenced peoples minds…although it was vigorously pointed out that there were sockpuppets in it by Peter_S. and DreamGuy, thus people were less likely to be influenced by them as they were made aware. There’s also a TV show about aladin’s daughter and family on the National Geographic Channel called Running For Freedom: Roxanna's Story and he’s been on a radio station called The Family Tech Show. So it’s not just like he’s been the vice chair of a Greater London Authority working group. However, I do believe that aladin was originally over hyped and this has lead to the articles contravestoy. Englishrose 13:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Quite possibly. In the meantime, I've protected the page to put a stop to the edit war. Radiant_>|< 13:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, on closer examination, DreamGuy has broken the 3RR on this one, so I've blocked him. Other people have also reverted to DreamGuy's version, so this may not actually obviate the need for protection. Radiant_>|< 13:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe I'm not counting straight but I don't see a 3RR violation there. Could you clarify? :) - Haukur 14:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. Five reverts by Dream Guy, within 24 hours. Radiant_>|< 14:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Looks like 36 or 48 hours to me. Johnleemk | Talk 14:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Indeed, this is not a 3RR violation. Radiant, would you oppose an unblock? android79 14:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Indeed, this is not a 3RR violation. However, I stand by the opinion that this is excessive reverting. Thus, I should have said "blocked for revert warring" rather than "blocked for 3RR". If people are of the opinion that making a number of sequential reverts is perfectly fine as long as one sticks to the letter of policy and makes exactly three reverts per day, they should probably unblock. Radiant_>|< 14:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
            • I see no evidence that exactly three reverts were made per day, and it takes more than one party to revert war, but only one editor has been blocked in this case. I need to take a closer look. android79 15:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
              • It was DreamGuy vs. everyone else. DreamGuy was the only person redirecting it to Aladdin, everyone else was reverting it back. You can't defend him this time. Englishrose 16:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
                • If one editor is reverting, and a group of other editors opposes this by also reverting, both sides are engaging in a revert war. There was discussion ongoing on the talk page; either side could have stopped reverting at any time. The page is protected now; I see no need to block one party, effectively halting the discussion, when there is no longer any way for the revert war to continue. android79 17:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the 3RR doesn't imply a right to revert three times a day. It's the reverting without waiting for consensus to emerge that is the disruptive behavior. I'll say this till I'm blue in the face, there are few edits so urgently needed that they can't wait until consensus emerges. - Taxman ^Talk 16:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Note: there has been a related revert war at Aladdin (disambiguation) over whether this page should include a link to Aladin (magician) or not. It seems clear to me that if the Aladin (magician) article is to be retained, and particularly if Aladin is to redirect to the dab page (as it now does) then the dab page should include an entry for the magician, while if the page for the magician is to exist only in the histroy for the redir, or is to be deleted compeltely, then there is no reason for an entry on the dab page. Anyone watching this should probably watch the dab page also. DES ^(talk) 18:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

But the article isn't going to be retained (as the vote clearly said to get rid of it) so the mention there isn't needed. DreamGuy 03:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's the summary on what happened with this page:

1) A group of now proven sockpuppets created the article at aladin claiming that such and such articles in such and such papers said such and such about the guy, which turned out to be false.

2) First AfD: The sockpuppetws were voting and a number of editors just took them at their word that these sources said what the sockpuppet (apparently "aladin" himself) claimed they did. Delete failed.

3) Page was updated to only include facts that could be verified and to remove all false claims. Turns out there wasn't much of anything there any more, nothing worth having a Wikipedia article about. A number of editors agreed the article had to go, but we wanted to preserve the talk page and history to prove the hoax and the sockpuppeting should the guy come back later.

4) I redirected the page, as there was nothing left. One editor complained that redirecting wsa the same as deleting so we should have a vote. AfD part 2... But those of us who exposed the hoax didn't want the proof of the hoax deleted, so we voted "KEEP BUT REDIRECT". Keep article on Wikipedia was small minority of votes, overwhelmingly reject by the outright deletes and redirect.

5) AfD 2 ends without it being outright deleted but with the clear consensus to either delete or redirect without preserving contents. So I redirect.

6) Now we have a person comlaining that the vote was "keep" so that it therefore can;t be redirected... OK, so, the argument I guess is if you want the page to stay, consensus to redirect isn;t enough, and then voting to redirect isn;t enough either, in fact apparently there is no way to redirect at all. I ignored this person as clearly not understanding how things work and trying to wikilawyer the results to do what only a tiny minority wanted.

7) Then some uninformed outside person came out of nowhere and decided to move the entire article to aladin (magician) and redirect aladin, which ignores the whole point that the redirect was intended to get rid of the article but preserve the history and talk. Now we have people arguing there that it can;t be redirected because nobody looking for the magician would be looking to be redirected to Aladdin, except the only reason that's even there in the first place is someone jumped in and overruled everyone who voted.

8) So, basically, we have a couple of people clearly ignoring the wishes of the majority of people who voted, demanding that redirects can never happen without a vote and then ignoring the vote when it happens, and edit warring to overrule clear consensus... and then *I* get blocked for not violating any rules or policies whatsoever? Very, very poor form. Radiant, for future reference, when you screw up and miscount a 3RR violation, the proper thing to do when your error is pointed out to you is to undo the block, not let it stand just because you are grumpy. If you wanted to protect the page, then protect it. If you want to go beyond policy and start blocking people for edit warring, there is a long list of people you should have alsoblocked at the same time.

I think what needs to be done to restore sanity on this page is to move aladin (magician) back to aladin to preserve the comments and history there, then redirect like was originally agreed upon but that some people ignoring policy and common sense keep trying to get around. Creating the new article served no purpose whatsoever other than to try to keep an article the vote didn;t want kept and was only there in the first place from a series of hoax sources from a group of sockpuppets to be used for self-promotional purposes for this "aladin" person. Furthermore, now that we have IDed these sockpuppets, a team of editors should go through and check all of their contribution histories with the goal of undoing other spam and probably hoaxes placed elsewhere. Running around wikilawyering and so forth and letting these spammers get away with it is absolutely the wrong answer. DreamGuy 03:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Solution Here's an alternative solution, how about DreamGuy get's his head out of the sand and leave things be for once? I don't claim to be an angel here, rather much I'm quite happy being one of those users who just points out the blatant obvious and the blatant obvious in this case to me is that DreamGuyis being stubborn to the point of idiocity. The vote was no consenous; keep, rather than no consenous; re-direct, the margin for the re-direct vote was so minor in fact the re-direct vote if counted properly is only touching a one or two lead, add to the fact that the article wasn't even allowed time to breathe and be verified or written correctly and Dreamguy's constant reverting Incorrectly in my opinion to a mere Aladdin alternate spelling page (at least that's how it more or less looked to me) doesn't actually help.

Further to this, DreamGuy has been acting in rather bad faith calling anyone and everyone who disagrees with him a sockpuppet. In addition he is calling all verifiable sources a hoax, an extreme accuassion. Rather than present his arguement in a dignified manner which would allow for neutral users to vote properly he hypes up the sock-puppet incidents, accusses in bad faith every single other user who comes along and revert wars the page. This is more than enough evidence in my personal opinion to result in blocking said user from even touching the article, regardless of whenever he is "right" or "wrong" since when was it for HIM to decide on a whim when a vote may be declared re-direct or Keep. My point is, the vote was so close people can interpretate it in different ways, of course DreamGuy believes that anyone with an opinion that isn't to his high god glorified standards is Wrong!

Further to this, why is it that various users have managed over MSN to present me with not just one but EIGHT verifiable links of distruptive, bad faith behaviour from DreamGuy of which, SEVEN are up and around on wikipedia. Seriously, I would think that people would take this into account, since after all we would be suspicious of a guy living next door with a criminal record as long as our arms, shouldn't we therefore be suspicious of this indiviual for his stained record on wikipedia, some of which has very dubious results coming out. What makes me wonder is why there are allegations of politics at work here. Regardless, you can take my comments how you will, make an example out of me if you so must, but this has gone to extremities this isn't a community debate it's pratically several users against DreamGuy of course, you can claim he's the victim here of mass hounding, hell we all know what he thinks don't we?

• Summary, why not just stay away from the article instead of continuing your little ego parade regardless of whenever it is in good or bad faith and just allow for those who wish to present a verifiable page do so. Then if you don't like it nominate it for a fourth, fith, sixth, seventh deletion, seeing your behaviour so far I'd theorise it'll go on to twenty five AFD votes until you finally get so many lies in a tangled web that people will finally delete it for you. Then maybe you can get back to your wonderful life outside of wikipedia? I sure would like to go back to mine! =) --RBlowes 19:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

But the guy is still utterly non-notable, and farcing around with procedural stuff doesn't change that. Secretlondon 20:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Summary: Look like RBlowes is making incoherent and deceptive statements solely for personal attacks and is outright lying about the results of the second deletion vote. You and yer buddies on MSN can say whatever you want, but I have no stained record here: I have an exemplary record of stopping spammers, hoaxers, sockpuppets and POV-pushers... which of course means every spammer, hoaxer, sockpuppet-user and POV-pusher who didn't get his way is all pissed off.DreamGuy 01:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that User:RBlowes's first edits to Wikipedia were only on Jan. 2, 2006, when he immediately started voting on articles for deletion... and was already talking to USer:Englishrose (who posted the fraudulent info with fake sources that turned out to be wrong and thus derailed the first vote for deletion) as old friends. I smell a sock. Certainly this person's view is extremely biased and uninformed, as he/she either is brand new and taking the word of a person who largely contributed to the hoax/spam/free advertising or a longtime user under a new account trying to make it appear like his/her side has more support than it really does. Considering the proven sockpuppets in the first vote and the creationof the article, I would recommend sock check on all these "new" users who showed up to go on the attack over this issue. DreamGuy 01:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• That's funny, bring up my edit history, yeah I guess it's "suspect" but then I'm sure anyone who is declared new is. You're just getting paranoid here, so I'll say it again, anyone who doesn't agree with you is a normal human being, they are NOT always going to be sockpuppets, meatpuppets, chickenpuppets, twitpuppets or blatant twiddlytwinkers!

Now that's out of the way, continue to write your blurb on anything with the word "puppet" in it, I'll make it clear though that all that convinced me to join in the aladin debate was just watching the comments roll off and my eyes roll to the other side of my head due to the sheer non-sense from said comments. Beside a no-consenous;keep > your opinion anyway. Feel free to compare me to EnglishRose in the future, although you'll find the two of us are on opposite ends of the spectrum and this is one rare case of which I find myself agreeing with him. --RBlowes 18:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I smell an idiot. Just for the record I've requested a sock-puppet check on me and Rblowes just to shut you up. I'm sure the evidence from the last sock check would have said that I'm from Leeds instead of the Indian magician from London that you acussed me of. Englishrose 10:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read and follow WP:NPA - and sockpuppet checks don't catch meatpuppets, of which we definitely have a bunch popping up. DreamGuy 11:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't guess it from his confrontational style but there's actually a lot of truth in DreamGuy's boasting. I don't know the particulars of this case or why DG seems to think it's so important but he does have an impressive record of stopping spam and non-sense. - Haukur 01:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that there is ample evidence of DreamGuy's behavior being decidedly anti-social, such as repeatedly redirecting the Aladin (magician) page in violation of consensus, making personal attacks at Talk:Eenasul Fateh and other locations around Wikipedia, calling people's contributions "garbage", name-calling people as "obnoxious", and frequently accusing people of lying. Elonka 02:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

When people say outright "Keep but only to redirect and preserve the history", claiming that the vote was to "keep as is and don't you dare redirect it" is nothing but a lie. Sorry if that offends you, but to be blunt, only someone trying to twist facts can deny that. Furthermore, it's clear from Englishrose's actions that he/she was involved from the start in quoting sources that turned out to be fraudulent, claiming that he/she had seen the sources in question and that they said something which, upon checking, turned out to be 100% wrong. I don't know why you showed up out of nowhere and how you think you are justified in making the rather intense claims that you are, but when the article in question has been demonstrated to be part of a hoax publicty campaign by someone lying about sources and posting under a huge number of proven sockpuppets, the more you try to raise a fuss the more suspicious the whole thing looks... especially with you and Englishrose and RBlowes making extremely uncivil remarks and strangely timed accusations. DreamGuy 11:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Englishrose's actions that he/she was involved from the start in quoting sources that turned out to be fraudulent, claiming that he/she had seen the sources in question and that they said something which, upon checking, turned out to be 100% wrong. That's absolute rubbish and you know it. You're the one who's trying to spin a web of deciet and lies. Fact- I wasn't involved from the start. The start of what? The article? The AFD discussion? As for qouting fraudulent sources that's also a decietful comment. The only thing I said that turned out to be unproveable was the "Internation Magician of the Year", which I took in good faith from the article. Upon research...I believe that the award does exist and is hosted at a place called Magic Castle. Quite a few magicians have claimed the won the award. As for the "claiming that he/she had seen the sources in question" that's even more lies from you, cause I've never claimed that I've seen anything without giving links to the relevant sources. You are creating a web of lies in order to fulfil ur dying obsession of trying to make the article out to be false. Just like you were wrong when you claimed that British Press releases are hoaxes. Englishrose 18:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Question to admins: Is this an ok think to do on your own talk page? Petros471 13:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's his talk page, and the edit summary he used there sums it up -- anyone looking solely at his talk page for the story on this block will not get the whole story. Proper talk-page archiving is strongly encouraged, but not required. android79 14:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boothy443 blocked

I have blocked User:Boothy443 for 24 hours for violation of WP:NPA here. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

His one comment is not enough for a block, although it is borderline. If it was more severe or he was been doing this several times in a few hours, then a block is justified. If he was, then tell me. If you want to re-block instead, I will not block again, but I don't advise it.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 21:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly feel that it's enough to warrant a block especially since he knows that he can take advantage of attitudes like yours so he can continue his trolling, though I'm not going to reblock since I don't want to get into a wheel war over this and it would just be playing into his hand if we wheel warred over him. I strongly urge a 3rd party admin to reblock him. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Reblocked. Boothy has more than earnt it, and a damn short leash is necessary in his case IMO - David Gerard 01:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If I had my way he would have been perm blocked a long time ago as a troll and a vandal but since many people are too thickheaded to see what he actually is I guess this will have to do. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Jtkiefer, just because people disagree with you about permanent blocks doesn't mean they are "thickheaded" - I find that to be a personal attack against everyone who holds a different opinion. Boothy443 has made a number of good contributions and while his behaviour has by no means been impeccable, especially his votes on RFA pages in the past and the actions he took on his user page in July - which I blocked him for - people who contribute well shouldn't be permanently blocked. They should be watched, certainly, but not prevented from contributing. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I had removed my latest comment until you decided to reinsert it and reply to it so I feel no duty to respond to your criticisms of it. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what? All I did was reply to your comment. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Check the page history. I removed the comment before you replied to it specifically because I realized that people would probably interpret it as a personal attack. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just replied and hit save page. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It was a bad idea for Voice of All to undo the block without discussion. That is seldom helpfu. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily a bad idea in principle but it was a bad idea that he reversed the block as the first thing after I posted notice of the block before anyone else could even comment, that seems to show disrespect towards my decision to block because it's pretty much saying I don't want to hear what other people think about the block I'm just going to reverse it and people can comment on it later. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea in principle. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Leave Boothy blocked, and consider blocking wheel-warring admins in the future. This is getting seriously out of hand. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Who the heck is wheel-warring? I said "If you want to re-block instead, I will not block again, but I don't advise it". So obviously nobody was going to wheelwar. I must point out that "Don't be dick" is the most childish idiotic, ad hominem, "policy" to site, and it is oxymoronic. When I said that Boothy may have trolled, people attacked me like I was evil, no everyone can casually say it know, even though little has changed. I don't like it when one personal attack to an implied personal attack gets someone blocked, maybe if it is like "FUCK YOU, I"M GONNA KILL YOU", then fine, but Boothy was more argumentative than insulting...If other admins want to block then fine, as I said, I am not going to wheelwar. I really think that Boothy needs to go to arbcom instead, to finally resolve this issue. Also, indefinitely blocking someone who still contributes by one admin is bad for Wikipedia, IMO.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 19:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It was a 24 hour block, not an indefinite block. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"If I had my way he would have been perm blocked a long time ago as a troll".Voice of All^T|@|ESP 21:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The point Oleg was trying to make, and I fully agree is that you shouldn't have undone another admin's action without discussing first. That is exactly what starts wheel wars and keeps them going. Unless an admin action was clearly wrong, leave it alone and discuss. If most people feel it was wrong then it will be quick and easy to get agreement to overturn it. But undoing an admin's action just because you wouldn't have done it is the problem. I don't understan why it is so hard for the people that start wheel wars to understand this. - Taxman ^Talk 14:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

People, please remember WP:AGF. VofA, JTK could've had his way and perm-block and didn't. OTOH, people may have come on to you way too hard, and I also understand your position. Just an outside view. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No he couldn't have. Other admins undid his infinite block and the few others that tried to reistate it. If he wheelwarred it would have gone to arbcom. So he had to let boothy be unblocked, as other admins disagreed with unilaterial indefinte blocks of actual contributors (not vandals).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 15:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I was just trying to help, I'm not touching this one. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry at WP:AGF

Some vandal is in the process of revert warring at WP:AGF, regarding the use of a nonsensical image to represent good faith. Even though dozens of editors have reverted the image away, the sockpuppets continue to re-add it until the page is semi-protected. Can we get a checkuser to identify and block the sockpuppets?

Also, it might be a good idea to run checkuser on Cool Cat, seeing as he had the image in question created at his request, and engaged in a revert war a few weeks before all the socks started. Hexagonal 07:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is Hexagonal's 42nd edit, and Cool Cat is a trusted user. For Hexagonal (talk • contribs) to dive straight into Wikipedia: is more of a sign than not that he himself is a sockpuppet. NSLE _(T+C) 07:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Looking at Hexagonal's talk page, this user may have been stalking Cool Cat, thus his edits straight into the project space. Also harassing Cool Cat as seen from his talk page, who's asked him to stop. ("Excuse me can you please leave me alone? I do not know what your problem is and I frankly do not care. GO AWAY!") NSLE _(T+C) 07:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF. And checkuser them both, though I doubt hat Cool Cat is behind this, he's been impersonated lots of times - looks more like someone is trying to frame him. But we should make sure. -- grm_wnr Esc 07:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I also doubt Cool Cat is behind this, but I do believe a single individual is behind the repeated vandalism at WP:AGF (be it Cool Cat as alleged, or someone attempting to make him look bad). At least ten sock puppets have been blocked so far.. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Run checkuser on both parties just to be on the safe side. - Mailer Diablo 07:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Who do you think I am... a vandal? I have freaking beter things to do than vandalise wikipedia. This is like suspecting Jimbo for vandalism and I spend hour after hour RC patroling for wikipedia... Pathetic... Hear User:NSLE a bit wont ya? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Lets look at the issue here, without any specific names:

1. User A asks for an image to be created. 2. User A inserts said image into a policy page, without consensus. 3. User A engages in edit warring to keep said image in article. 4. Sockpuppets make identical edits to page, as done by User A. (there were no other supporters of this image)

This is a situation for checkuser. If the socks can be shown to be coming from the same IP as Cool Cat, the issue can then be brought before the arbcom with evidence. If the socks can be shown to be coming from another contributor's IP, then that contributor can be reprimanded for impersonating and framing Cool Cat. If the socks can be shown to be coming from an open proxy, then that proxy can be blocked and any sleeper accounts ferreted out.

Making an issue out of who I am only detracts from vandal fighting efforts. If I were Cool Cat, I would be asking for the checkuser to be run too, so that any socks can be found and linked to someone else. I don't know why he fought the checkuser request the last time the sockpuppets attacked the article, but I do find that suspicious. There is no way I'd approach Cool Cat otherwise, because he has a history of harassment and childish behavior leading up to an arbcom decision against him. Thus, I chose to use a non-disruptive role account, which is NOT prohibited by policy. Sorry, but I don't need one more person harassing me, I already get enough standing up against a systematic homophobic bias in other articles. Hexagonal 08:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Either way, something about that image gives me the weepy creeps (never mind it's not nearly simple and stark enough for a logo icon). Wyss 09:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks Christian, though I'm not sure why. It may be the halo type things. Secretlondon 09:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh nah its really ambigious. Very loosly based on Image:Goddess Relief Office.gif. One of the greatest mistakes I made was suggesting the introduction of that image to AGF. I was only trying to add an abstract art representing AGF, but everything I sugest must be bad... My idea was that people would assume good faith and welmcome the image which has no malicious intention. For that I have to deal with stuff like this. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

---

In anycase. I feel it is likely Hexagonal and all those sockpuppets are MARMOT's creation. Furthermore Checkuser maybe inconclusive as MARMOT abused a wikimedia vunrability (User:Brion VIBBER/Cool Cat incident report) allowing him to appear like any ip he wishes. Any evidence prior to the fix of the bug may be disgarded if it is indeed incrimnating me.

I have not used a single sockpuppet to revert on that page. The level of impersonation I deal with is rather ridiclous, I do not care if anyone is believing me or not as I am feeling quite down already.

In adition the users (Hexagonal (talk • contribs)) contribution must be reviewed. User is on a holy cause against the image or something like that. Users entier contribution was a campaign against the image. He tagged it speedy 3 times. See: [30]

I find it striking that a new user with very few edits campaigning against me or at least attempting. Also same time MARMOT was harrasing me on IRC. Also striking is how a user with less than 50 edits with majority of his contribution to the "project" namespace. See: [31]--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Xerves

I have blocked Xerves (talk • contribs) indefinitely for threats to disrupt Wikipedia and for a legal threat at User_talk:Haikupoet#Rant.2FThreat_from_Xerves. If he would like to discuss his disruption and recant the legal threat, I will consider unblocked him. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Xerves has apparently used a proxy to edit User:Haikupoet/Wehatetech_trainwreck. I moved his comments to the talk page for that item, but I felt a note should be made. Haikupoet 06:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:WritersCramp

This person's userpage routinely containsoffensive content, for instance 'This user is a proud homophobic. Gaylords not welcome'. I have asked the user to cease and desist, because he violates WP:NPA left right and centre. I will block him if offensive material is re-added to his userpage. The Land 22:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

blocked for 48 hours for blatant violations of WP:NPA as well as violating a number of other policies. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. The Land 23:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering that he has been repeatedly blocked in the past, including a one month block back in November, what do you think a 48 hour block will accomplish? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It will keep him off wikipedia for 48 hours ;-) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If he keeps doing it after this, I think a considerably longer block would be justified. I, somewhat lamely, hadn't checked the block log on him. The Land 23:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that "homophobe" is actually a personal attack lobbed by homosexuals, and given that noone here seems to be named "Gaylord", I think complaining about hir user page (which is obnoxious in the extreme, don't get me wrong) is really counterproductive in complaining about hir making personal attacks. It seems like blocking him for adding material, taken by some editors as offensive to them personally, to his userpage is, at this point, simple vindictiveness. Wikipedia content is not censored for the protection of minors, but users are blocked if some editors don't like other editors? Something is fundamentally wrong with that approach. (WP:NPA is another matter, which has nothing to disagreeing with someone's politics or holding them in disdain for their sexuality.) Tomer^talk 09:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

He is using his userpage to shout 'I hate gays'. He uses 'homo' as an insult in edit summaries. He refuses to stop doing so when asked to. He is an unpleasant troll who shouldn't be allowed to troll on wikipedia. The Land 10:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It's only the first sentence of that summary that I was calling into question. People use their userpages to proclaim hatred for all kinds of people. If it's OK for people to hate George W. Bush on their userpages, it's OK for WritersCramp to hate gays. Abusive edsums and trolling are different matters. Tomer^talk 17:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/WritersCramp, in addition to his continued disruptive behavior, he has several sockpuppets, some with names that are specifically personal attacks meant to incite people. - Trysha ^(talk) 17:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that he has created an account to work around the block, the account User:BionicBoner has picked up in conversations where WC left off right after he was blocked. Same style of userpage, same interests - and by username policy, (clearly refers to genetailia) this account should be blocked as well. - Trysha ^(talk) 22:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

While I don't support his behavior, I have to say I can't help smirking at his inventive account names. :-) Anyone know anything about his ISP? Tomer^talk 06:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External campaigning group spamming talk pages to pack Wikipedia debates

• Wiggins2 (talk • contribs)
• Jason Gastrich (talk • contribs)

Content of the spam is:

Come and vote your mind

Dear Christian friend,

I saw you on the list of Christian Wikipedians and wanted to let you know about something. The other day, someone nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion! They include a Christian university list of people (not unlike 68 other lists like it)[32], presidents of universities, and authors of many books.

Since that time, people have been voting. Please take this message as a call to vote; not a call to vote a certain way. I respect you and your ability to come, read the entry, and make a wise decision. In other words, I’m not vote stacking or campaigning; simply letting you know something that you’d probably like to know.

By the way, my friend recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ. If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Wikipedia, please see the site!

Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmy_DeYoung

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Morey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Pack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mal_Couch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice

God bless you, Wiggins2 07:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Somebody tell me now this isn't a good enough reason to delete POV user categories. Hermione1980 00:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That still isn't a good enough reason to delete such categories. If liberals, conservatives, pro-lifers, pro-choicers, Irish users, British users, monarchists, republicans, Americans and others can all notify each other about debates that interest them, why can't christians? What can't users in a free society communicate with likeminded individuals on an issue of mutual interest? Sometimes it seems as though the least liberal and least pluralist individuals are those who proclaim themselves liberal and pluralist but who insist that their views and agendas are right and everyone who disagrees with them are wrong, a bigot, a fascist, a conservative, or something else. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You completely missed the point. The whole thing is that nobody should be doing that. -- SCZenz 01:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth not? Irish users let me know if there is an Irish-related topic being voted on. Writers on royalty let me know if there is a topic on monarchy being voted on. UK editors inform me if there is a vote on UK issue being voted on. Do you imagine that people are physically able to keep track of every debate? They can't. Like-minded individuals will always let others know what is going on. It seems to me that the issue here is that its those damn pesky Christians doing it! And that annoys the likes of Tony, who can be every bit as intolerant as those they accuse of intolerance. BTW I am not religious. In fact I oppose much of the Born Again Christian agenda. But they have every right to communicate among themselves, as I do with everyone else. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand that letting people know about the discussions they're interested in is reasonable. However, taken to too great an extent, what this guy is doing does disrupt our consensus-forming results by overloading the discussion with people on one side of the issue. People have no right whatsoever to disrupt Wikipedia. This has nothing whatsoever to which POV is being pushed--can you please stop setting up that particular straw man? -- SCZenz 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a more complicated issue than either side makes it out to be. On the one hand, we don't want people to bring in tons of meatpuppets from outside Wikipedia to interfere with deletion discussions. On the other hand, we don't want to delete potentially valid articles without the contributors knowing about them. As mentioned above, people can't always keep an eye on every article they've edited in the past. If someone nominated one of my articles for deletion for whatever reason, I might not even know about it until after it was done. Maybe the answer is more notification requirements on AFD debates in general? Then this kind of campaigning would be unneeded, and could be stopped. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The issue is bringing in people who have nothing to do with an article, because you expect their opinion to agree with yours. That's different than notifying authors, and it is a problem. -- SCZenz 03:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• I suggest we block Wiggins for a few days for disrupting our consensus-forming process to push his POV and to make a WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 01:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea - that would be one way of determining whether he's a Jason Gastrich sockpuppet or not ;) Guettarda 01:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Whats the policy on blocking accounts that are role accounts?--nixie 01:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• It depends from your definition of "role account". There are different definitions. An account that can be used by multiple people fulfilling a single role is frowned upon. But an account used by a single person to distinguish edits made when that one person is acting in a particular role (from other edits made by that one person) is generally acceptable. ('bot accounts fit the latter description, after all. Uncle G's major work 'bot (talk • contribs) is, in this sense, one of my role accounts, for example. I have also seen some administrators that that have secondary accounts that explicitly do not have administrator privileges.) Accounts that are purported to be role accounts, but that are actually not role accounts are frowned upon. Two purported role accounts that are both contributing to featured article/talk page/deletion discussions are not actually accounts where a single person is acting in distinct roles. Uncle G 10:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a block as there seems to be broad consensus for that I'll carry it out.. If it's thought to be a sock then someone will ask for it to be sock checked. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Fully support block. NSLE _(T+C) 01:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Support block, but I think we need to be very clear that the problem is any POV-pushing of this type, not the particular POV being pushed. It's an easy mistake to make, I think. -- SCZenz 01:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for 48 hours for this incident, and on going to checkuser requests I saw he's already listed there as a possible sock of one Jason Gastrich. Seeing Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jason_Gastrich, where he openly admits using socks, I'd like to study this more but my gut instinct is that we should probably start discussing whether it would be appropriate to indefinitely block all accounts of this fellow.

Of course there is nothing intrinsically wrong with socks, appropriately used, but this fellow's stated reasons aren't convincing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

kill his socks but give the main account one last chance after the current block expires.Geni 02:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I too support this. What I take issue with here is the attempt to push POV. Notifying users who already have a stake in the discussion (as in, they already gave input) is fine, as if the situation has changed, it would be good if they could clarify their stance WRT the changes. It is also okay to notify users who might know something about the subject -- in other words, "Experts". For instance, if a Malaysia-related article were put up for deletion, it would be best to ask Malaysian editors about it to see how notable it is. Likewise, something may be very popular in Ireland, but the article being AfDed may not have made this context clear -- Irish folk can help clear this up. But there are at least a billion people who claim to be Christians in the world, and the chances of finding one who knows something important about theology (and can thus expand the AfDed article or explain a point of importance on the AfD) are rather slim. Thus, this is not an attempt to clarify the facts (which should be done more often, but isn't done for fear of POV pushing) but an attempt to push POV, which must be strongly condemned. Johnleemk | Talk 02:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

See also jcsm.org/Online/WeeklyDevotions440.htm this where someone called "Jason Gastrich" boasts about the success of "Our latest ministry, Wiki 4 Christ". Wikipedia isn't a place for spiritual ministries to operate. I am going to block this fellow Gastrich's main account for twenty-four hours with immediate effect pending discussion of what we do about this. I'd like to get agreement, ideally, for an indefinite block of this user and all socks in the hope that we can deter Gastrich from trying to bring his ministry to Wikipedia. . --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That's going way too far IMO given the ambiguous nature of the comment. Some American Christians refer to almost anything they do as a "ministry", rather than reserving the term for actual preaching alone. Can anyone show evidence that actual disruption has taken place here, and what the nature of that disruption was? We don't expect our editors not to have POVs, just not to insert those POVs into articles. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If he has been disruptive, ban him for disruption on the same terms as anyone else. Let's not, and let's not seem to, ban someone for proselytizing. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You guys should read the link Tony provided, for example take a look at this:

We are a network of Christian Wikipedia contributors. We have five main objectives.

Our main objectives:

1. Make sure Christian entries are fairly and accurately represented

2. Contribute new Christian entries

3. Network together to make each entry as good as possible

4. Voice our opinion on the inclusion of Christian entries

5. Glorify Jesus Christ

Item 4 indicates an intent to disrupt Wikipedia. What's inherently wrong with having a "ministry" of whatever kind here is that it's an effort to use Wikipedia for a goal different than its purpose: to make a good encyclopedia. -- SCZenz 03:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Is

In any case I don't buy the "Some American Christians refer to almost anything they do as a "ministry"" line. If they think that I don't think they're likely to be capable of working within out neutrality policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember you ever complaining about my working within the neutrality policy. Maybe you should review my work and see if any bias has crept in. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You're zooming way over my head here. Take it slowly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The 'line' you say you don't buy, that everything I do is a ministry, is a principle I subscribe to. Am I then incapable of working within our neutrality policy? Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that Jason's consecutive nomination of about a dozen atheist articles for deletion (described in his RFC) is indeed evidence of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and I would have no problem with a 24-hour block on that basis. I just don't want this to turn into some kind of witch hunt against fundamentalists (as much as I disagree with fundamentalist ideology myself). Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This chap contacted me in email and I've told him I'll unblock his main account if he can list his sock puppets so they can be blocked. He does sound like he sincerely wants to promote contribution to Wikipedia and I have no quarrel with that as long as he can find a way to do so without breaking the neutrality policy. The other isues with his behavior can be addressed in the normal way but at this stage I'm trying to look for evidence that this guy has a good faith wish to work with us and start a dialog. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have, I think, three major problems with Gastrich.

First, his use of socks. He is quite open about past use of socks, professes intent to use his main account for "the vast majority" of edits going forward, but still appears to be using socks (or possibly meatpuppets) to evade 3RR on articles where he is in an edit war. I can't offhand think of a credible reason for him to use a "role account" (I have considered using my old account for main space edits now my new account shas sysop rights, but even then I'm hesitant).

Second, his blatant intent to use WP as "ministry". There is nothing wrong with being guided by faith, and nothing wrong with openly working to ensure that Christian subjects are covered, it's working to the effect of having them coveredto a specific viewpoint which is the issue. He removed Ben Franklin from the list of deists citing his own "evidence" on his website; Franklin is on record as openly a Deist, and there is authoritative evidence now linked form the resotred entry in the list. Gastrich appears to be one of those black-and-white people, and that is always going to cause friction. His representation of the Louisiana Baptist University entries as "Christian biographies" is a case in point: LBU is, according to the available evidence, an unaccredited institution teaching fundamentalism to fundamentalists. These fundamentalists then go on to teach other fundamentalists, creating a sort of walled garden.

Third, his incivility - or rather, the fact that he tends to personalise everything. Not that I am unfailingly polite myself, anyone can kick back when riled, but it's his invariable tendency to ascribe motives to actions; anyone who AfDs an article on somoene who happens to be a Christian is thereby anti-Christian (even when they are a self-declared Christian) - much more, all on the RfC. There was an edit war over the inclusion or non-inclusion of a Gastrich book rebutting The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Both sides were pushing POV: one pushing a critique of Gastrich's critique, the other pushing Gastrich (being mainly Gastrich himself, anons on what is stated to be his ISP, or suspected socks). I solved this in the usual way by removing both and taking it to Talk, with the comment that it seems to me that there is sufficient dispute about the authority of the Gastrich text that including it is unacceptable at this stage absent consensus on how to handle it, which I would have said was pretty uncontentious, especially given that those removing it had cited some pretty scathing and apparently well-informed criticisms of Gastrich's books. This provoked a very aggressive response, and a vigorous assertion that Amazin reviews are reliable, and that the fact that many of the reviews were high star ratings automatically made the source a good one - omitting to mention that the high star rating reviews were accompanied by some very well-argued one-star ratings, and in any case Amazon reviews are not a reliable source.

I would like to be satisfied that Gastrich will be massively less aggressive in the future, but his RfC response is utterly defiant. I believe he genuinely can't see what's wrong with what he's doing, and that is probably the fundamental issue.

Apologies for the long reply. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

So he is uncivil, tries to force edits against consensus, uses sockpuppets contrary to policy, and you reasonably expect him to continue all these. That sounds block-worthy to me. His religion may have brought him here; it should not be a reason for us to send him away. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anybody ever suggested that his religion was the problem. But when he pushes his religion to the point where it disrupts Wikipedia, then it's a problem. The disruption's the thing. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly agree with this. Jason Gastrich is disrupting Wikipedia to push his religious POV, accuses everyone else of disrupting Wikipedia, not assuming good faith, making personal attacks, being religiously intolerant, etc. etc. Stifle 16:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I appreciate your point that using words like "ministry" and whatnot doesn't necessarily taint the fellow's contributions, and I agre that his religious motivations aren't the issue here. Since he contacted me he has been very quiet and I think he's just waiting out the block. This doesn't bode well; I had hoped to see him make a full disclosure of socks and start a dialog, but no response so far. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Which seems to be par for the course. From what I can find of his participation in other fora across the web, he's treated each as a vehicle for self-promotion and witnessing. I counted four different fora that he has permanently blocked from participation, all for self-promotion and/or witnessing and refusing to abide by policy. I don't doubt he'll follow the same pattern here. FeloniousMonk 18:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony; I don't oppose blocking him. As Katefan0 says above, the disruption is the thing. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Kosebamse's law - People of strong opinion are not banned or blocked for promoting strong opinions. Eventually, they are banned or blocked for violating social standards in the attempt to defend their views." Very applicable in this case. Radiant_>|< 21:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I just checked my email. He did get back to me (there was a confusion over my identity which wasn't his fault, and one reply went astray). He has identified the following accounts as socks, but they're all blocked already.

• Adelaey (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Big_Daddy (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Big_Hater (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Big_Lover (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Chacha1 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Chochi (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Neutered (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

These were all blocked in November by Karmafist (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves).

He says that Wiggins2 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and God's child (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) are people known to him and coordinating with him, not socks per se.

He has noticed the block on his account by Felonious Monk:

• 05:35, 24 January 2006 FeloniousMonk (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) blocked "User:Jason Gastrich" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Continued participating on AFD despite RFC and admitted sockpuppetry disruptive. Blocked pending outcome of checkuser investigation)

His comment on this is "I do not use sockpuppets and I have done nothing wrong." Hmm, I think this chap has some re-education ahead of him. I've replied saying:

• Well I think you've admitted using socks, and there do seem to be quite a lot of things wrong with your behavior. I advise you to step back a bit for now and try to work out what all these people are upset about, and how you are going to make things right for them. It's a hard job to do but essential if you are to learn how to work with Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated personal attacks

Wikipedia's policy on No personal attacks gives as an example "Negative personal comments", and "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views". How many is an individual allowed to get away with? The latest (although quite mild) was posted a few hours ago (references show diffs):

These are all from user:ScienceApologist, who used to by the username of user:Joshuaschroeder before changing it [33].

• 23 Jan 06: "...not in the mood to educate you on improving your baloney detector at this time" [34]
• 21 Dec 05: "Marmet and Carezani are well-known woo-woos" [35]
• _9 Dec: "...it's only fair that Arp's pathological skepticism (reference to scientist Halton Arp) [36]
• _5 Dec: "Iantresman is on some strange personal vendetta may be true" [37]
• _3 Dec: "User:Iantresman, very incompetent in this regard,"[38]
• _1 Dec: I am "...an avowed Velikovskian and hasn't received formal training in physics or astronomy."[39]
• _1 Dec: I am a "nonscientist layman" [40]
• 18 Nov: "... a list full of "critics" who range from geologists to the out-and-out insane (such as VanFladern)." (Referring to astronomer Tom Van Flandern) [41]
• _8 Nov: Removing credentials from physicist Dr. László Körtvélyessy [42]

--Iantresman 15:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Not a personal attack.
2. Are these Wikipedia editors? If not, then it's not a PA.
3. As above.
4. You do appear to have a personal vendetta against Joshua, as evince by your rejected RFAR and harrassment like this. He is describinb your behaviour, not your personality. Not a PA.
5. Questioning your competence on a matter is not a PA.
6. Is it an attack to call you a Velikovskian? This is not a common insult, but if you are offended by it maybe you should have advised Joshua that you consider it an attack. As for the second part - either you have formal training in physics (in which case it's a factually inaccurate statement) or you don't. But it's not a personal attack.
7. "Non-scientist layman" is not a PA.
8. Again, unless VanFlandern is a Wikipedian, this cannot be construed as a PA (and even if he were one, I don't think NPA forbids one to comment on the quality of a person's off-Wikipedia professional persona).
9. Nowhere near a "personal attack".

Guettarda 19:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda, on reading the Wikipedia's policy on No personal attacks, the 1st two sentences read "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." (my emphasis). Bearing that in mind,

(1) "not in the mood to educate you" is clearly aimed at the contributor, and questions their education.

(2) (3) (8) These may not be aimed at Wiki Contributors, but are still personal attacks, because (a) they are aimed at individuals, (b) seem to fail the very first sentence on the policy page. I wouldn't expect to see any of these comments in an encyclopedia, or professional journal.

(5) "User:Iantresman, very incompetent in this regard," again is aimed at the contributor

(6) "... hasn't received formal training in physics or astronomy" (6) "Non-scientist layman", again are both aimed at the contributor. ScienceApologist, doesn't know my education beyond what I have on my personal web page, and whether the comment is true or false is irrelevent to the content of my contributions.

--Iantresman 23:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

At the head of this page is the following text:

Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors.

What do you want? If it is some kind of sanction for those comments, then it is extremely unlikely that you'll get it here. You should consider a WP:RFC (and whatever follows in the WP:DR). Latinus 23:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If Adminstrators have limited authority to deal with Personal attacks, then of course there is no point my mentioning it. I just assumed that if there was a Wikipedia policy against something in order to focus on content rather than contributors, we'd get a better encyclopedia. It also seems pretty ironic that Guettarda suggests that I am harrassing ScienceApologist, merely by bring to attention evidence of contravention of a Wikipedia policy; a bit like punishing whistleblowers for speaking out --Iantresman 00:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saugeen Stripper protected in violation of WP:PP

I am highly concerned by the precedent being set here, although I still hold out hope there was a mistake. To summarize. Article was created in december and was AfD'd. Result was non consensus/keep. Immediate deletion review. It was immediately AfDd again. Again result was non consensus. Now there is another deletion review. Fine, that is the process. But while it is deletion review, a couple of users have chosen to redirect the article endlessly, despite the fact that the AfD result was keep. I posted a message requesting temporarily page protection of this article at least until the deltion review took place, and now (either as a mistake or out of spite) the BLANK article has been protected. Can someone please do something about this? Phantasmo 20:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry... there wsa no consensus to DELETE, but that doesn't mean there is no consensus to redirect. 46 people wanted the article removed, only 20 people wanted it kept as is... that's a clear consensus. So it's been redirected. No we have people who were on the side that had less than 1/3 of the vote trying to claim that they can force their will upon everyone else and being deceptive about what the votes were in order to try to keep it as a full article. The redirected article has been protected, which is certainly clearly within process of how things should be handled. Deletion review has no bearing on whether the article is redirected or not. If they do consider redirecting as part of the official delete vote, then they would also have to consider the 46 votes to remove and then go ahead and redirect anyway. People who lose votes need to stop playing little wikilawyering games where they try to claim that no consensus to do one specific action means consensus to do their action, because that's not how things work. DreamGuy 20:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Who lost the vote? The result was non consensus KEEP! Those who favored deletion then put this up for deletion review. While the deletion review is taking place, the article should remain in the state that the AfD result dictated, which is KEEP. The guy who placed the article up for deletion review (below) even agrees that the redirect is a misuse of power!!! All I ask is that the process be honored. I have no personal stake with this article, but I do have a stake in wikipedia's processes being honored. This is an end around at best, a blatant violation at worst.Phantasmo 20:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the result was "no consensus", which defaults to keep. It's an important subtlety. AfD and DRV have no bearing on what form an article takes, only whether or not it exists. android79 20:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is semantics. The article in question is up for discussion in deletion review. Those who supported deletion redirected as an end around. Now, the deletion review process is meaningless because there is nothing left to judge. The article was a non con keep. Not a merge redirect. That also results in a clear difference. Secondarily, no matter how you slice it, R Fiend has violated WP:PP. That much is a fact. Phantasmo 20:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's time to trot out that old comment that too many people keep bloody forgetting: AfD is not a vote! Maybe I should make up a template. Or a userbox? They're all the rage, right? "This user knows something about AfD that you evidently don't."

Oiy vey...For goddsakes, this is not a hard concept. I understand that AfD is not a vote. I am not the one falling back on #'s! I am basing my comments on the closure result. The simple, unalienable stance that I have is this. AfD twice was closed with the result of No Consensus: Keep. Not Merge redirect. Not delete. Not KEEP. I believe that there is no detriment to leaving the article as a standalone article while the deletion review process plays out. If the result of deletion review is delete, let it be deleted. If it is relist, let it be. I just believe that is the most acurate representation of the process as it is supposed to be. I understand that the power to redirect is always there, but following a 2nd non consensus keep, a redirect/protect in the middle of a deletion review by an admin involved in the back and forth editing REEKS of impropriety and abuse of power. It just does. There are even proponents of deletion who believe this. Just because something CAN be done doesn't make it the right thing to do. Phantasmo 01:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the admin that protected the page has also been involved in the edit war itself. This is, unfortunately, a violation of WP:PP. --OntarioQuizzer 20:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so perhaps it's not appropriate for me to comment. I voted "keep" in that latest AfD, but when I did so I counted the votes, and it looked pretty clear that "redirect" would be the result. If WP:PP was violated, that's another matter, but I think the vote's result was pretty clear. | Klaw ¡digame! 21:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Klaw, perhaps, but the closing admin declared it non con/keep as only 40 of 66 favored deletion. Whether or not that was a correct closing is a discussion for the deletion review page. Until then, the AfD decision should be upheld. That is policy. And the WP:PP violation was blatant. Phantasmo 21:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

A redirect is fairly clearly in line with policy in this situation, so long as no content gets lost. However, while I was tempted to protect it myself, I don't think that's the right thing to do. The Land 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Since there was an obvious edit war, protecting is proper. Since one side was supported by strong consensus on the AFD page, protecting it in that version is acceptable. Please stop wikilawyering, an AFD is neither binary nor a vote. Radiant_>|< 21:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I heartily concur here with Radiant!. The closing admin's decision was no consensus which, as he said in making the closing, supports neither keep nor redirect. Johnleemk's closing decision was most definitely not "keep". Either keeping or merging would be acceptable purely as a result of the AfD; which one ought to have been hashed out on the Talk: page rather through an edit war. The edit war resulted in page protection, as always on m:The Wrong Version. -- Jonel | Speak 01:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not up to date on this whole debate, but I'd just like to comment that an AFD result is never an argument against creating a redirect and/or merging. This is a wiki, and creating a redirect is an action any editor can take.. -- SCZenz 22:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

True, but the issue is one of page protection. It would be appropriate the create a redirect and protect it if the consensus had been delete, but the article kept being recreated. There are two concerns here - one is that the page was protected by someone who was involved in the edit war, and the other is whether the page needs protection at all (the decision should have been made by an uninvolved party). Guettarda 01:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I was the closing admin, and anyone who is claiming the AfD supports them should be shot (yes, this means both Phantasmo and DreamGuy are wrong). The AfD got no consensus, defaulting to keep. This does not preclude the formation of consensus in the future (and not necessarily through AfD) nor can it be used by itself as a reason to either keep the article as is or redirect it. I intentionally typed this message in caps to highlight this on the AfD, since I've noticed more and more of this retarded "OHNOES NO CONSENSUS === KEEP SO FUCK OFF YOU DELETIONIST REDIRECTORS" occurring in the wake of no consensus AfDs. Apparently the message didn't get through: AFD HAS ZERO BEARING ON THE CONDITION OF THE ARTICLE NOW. IT'S OVER. IN THE PAST. IRRELEVANT. FORM CONSENSUS BASED ON DISCUSSION NOW, NOT A DISCUSSION OF TWO DAYS AGO. Johnleemk | Talk 06:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

John, again, I have to defend myself here. I understand that the closure of AfD does not preclude a redirect. All I am saying is, I think it is inappropriate for those who were pushing for deletion to suddenly reverse course and push for a redirect as soon as the AfD is closed, and while the deletion review is taking place. I also think that it is inappropriate for an admin involved in teh debate to protect a redirect version of the page. I think that your remarks in your post above are unnecessarily hostile. The deletion review should have taken place and then redirect could have been considered. There would have been no great harm in that, and it would have shown greater adherence to the spirit of wikipedia policies, if not the actual letter of them. Phantasmo 14:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason this dispute can be hashed out on the talk page. No reason at all. Shifting this out to DRV or AfD is a delaying tactic from whichever side is behind this (I honestly don't care who it is) to delay getting consensus. You can discuss this on the talk. There's no need for a DRV, and even if the DRV is filed, you don't need to discuss potential redirection there -- the talk page isn't automagically deleted if a DRV or AFD is filed. I honestly don't care if those "delete -- be gone!" people changed their minds overnight, but without bothering to examine their actions in depth, it makes sense to me, unless they all specifically stated "delete -- no redirect". All this reflects is the pointless AfD custom of having only one "vote". I wouldn't be surprised if, when asked to prioritise, they would have put delete first and redirect second. Perhaps this sort of instant run-off voting (except we don't call it voting; we call it alternative recommendations in the debate. ^_^) would be helpful, if people actually practiced it. Johnleemk | Talk 15:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes...the BS that AfD has become. It should NOT be a vote. If many people want to merge or redirect, then no consensus obviously does not equal keep. The article should be a merge at best, consider that only at Wikipedia would you find such untterly unnoteworthy cruft and ignorance to the process. If THAT cruft is notable enough, then Wikipedia is .01% of what is size should be right now, 99.90% of this site should be BS cruft that only a small of minority (often related to the topics themselves) want in there. This is getting way out of hand. Process...process...process...people just keep milking this to find any excuse to put in BS, and then complaint about those who try to trim out the fat by protecting. Protecting may have seemed unreasonable before, but it seems justified now. I bet Britannica never has to have editors actually have to argue over the inclusion of BS, its like having arguing why -2^(1/2) does not exist five times...what a waste of time.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 15:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, some of us did just that: "Merge and redirect, don't count this as a keep" I believe is approximately what I wrote. The protection (hell, the closing of the AfD) by an involved editor of the page was a conflict of interest, but this binary thinking about the outcome of the AfD is sort of skewed... -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help me

Please help me contact Bishonen, I want to negotiate the unblock of the fighterforfreedoms, but her page is locked. This is urgent, please. - Talk

negotiate?... PAGE NOT FOUND. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think they mean User:Fighterforfreedom who is indefinitely blocked. This seems to be a sockpuppet of said blocked user. Makemi 00:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet of fighterforfreedom. I am a war buddy of his. He was having difficulty thinking because of the medicine he was taking for the 5 bullets he took in Iraq. He would apoligize for his actions if he was unblocked. Thank You. Fffreedom 00:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

How do we know that he's going to be any clearer-thinking if he's unblocked? User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

We pretty much know he won't, because I've tried it. Yes, my pages are locked — semiprotected — not for long, I hope — and Fighterforfreedom (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is one of the reasons. I've seen his apologies before and I'm through assuming any good faith with them. The first time he apologized I unblocked him. Bad idea. The other times the apologies have expressed desperation, indeed, and a kind of parody of every feeble excuse ever grasped at by a vandal. See here one typical cycle, posted in rapid succession and starting at Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters' page:

"I hope you lose the right to be an admin. you flaming homo Communist bastard, and yes I know I will never be aloud to edit anything again Bishonen you dumb assed bitch truckstop prostiute."[43] Incomplete apology mode: "I am sorry. But I come from a culture that talks like that ... Please accept my apology and let me edit again or else me and my KKK friends will come into your house at night and slit your throat.".[44] Full apology mode: "I apologize from the bottom of my heart. I am from a minority, and I feel I have been discriminated against not only on this but all of my life. I think Jimbo Wales would be disappointed if he saw this kind of racism on his own creation."[45] My sister used my computer: "I accidentally left my computer on this and my sister pulling a prank decided to cuss everyone out. Please let me back in. If I put one toe out of line you can bann me for life."[46]... Back to full abuse mode: "I took five bullets in Iraq for asswipes like you, and the lulu faggot, just so you can block me and write books about sexual wars!!! It outrages me!!! You both can be expecting a visit from my neo nazi friends, and when I get issue 457 passed, it will pave the way for me to seize power in Washington, and I will have people like you murdered by the thousands."[47]. There are zero good edits. I understand that FFF has problems and is experiencing a strong psychic need to post on Wikipedia, and feels frantic. I'm sorry for it, but I don't really see that we can help. Bishonen | talk 01:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

He has been off his medication for a week now and is doing all the things he was before he got shot except moving his left arm which was hit by the bullets. Fffreedom 00:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are not Fighterforfreedom, why did you make the exact same edit to Ward Churchill that he did? User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. That was a mistake on my part. I was looking through the damage he had done and accidently saved that archive. I apologize for my mistake. Fffreedom 00:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Fighterforfreedom is still wondering whether he will be unblocked soon or not because he would like to make some good, well thoughtout contributions to wikipedia on his time in Iraq. Also he would like to apologize for the creation of fighterforfreedom2 and fighterforfreedom3. Fffreedom 00:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

(And the creation of User:FighterforfreedomIV, huh?) Not, if I have anything to do with it. I'm sorry. Bishonen | talk 01:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

Thank you for replying Bishonen. I was not aware of FighterforfreedomIV. He did not tell me about that one. Once again he was on a rough doseage of pain medication that made him not think straight. He is now off of it and is thinking clearly. He is not here to get therapy or anything. He is trying to return to this wonderful community to further his knowlege and make good contributions when he can. Fffreedom 01:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Um hum. FFF is now also posting from 69.223.69.87 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), using the soft tone you see on this page (sorry, but I refuse to pretend this isn't him), yet, please note, concurrently still abusing Lulu in the other tone he has.[48] Bishonen | talk 02:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

I'm with Bish. And stop using the "got shot in Iraq" ploy, please, it won't buy sympathy, not especially with what's going on. If he's "off his medicine" and no longer "not (thinking) straight" he shouldn't be attacking Lulu. NSLE _(T+C) 02:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

He didn't vandalize Lulu in the past 3 days. I am beginning to think the admins are discriminating against veterens. I saw a post where a vandal apologized and he was immediatly unblocked. I don't care if you don't support the war, just don't take it out on the soldiers. Fffreedom 20:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it matters. Are not the death threats cited above enough to get him blocked for a loooong time, if not banned for good? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. No apology is enough to make up for "me and my KKK friends will come into your house at night and slit your throat." Just saying that is a crime offline, and we have zero tolerance for it here. It's way beyond vandalism. To characterize his ban as discrimination against veterans is to suggest that veterans are above all standards of conduct - false. We discriminate against anyone who throws death threats around. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm done bickering about this. It simply isn't worth it. I'm sorry for wasting all of your time. Fffreedom 22:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Fffreedom has seemingly http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=36565147 vandalised] this discussion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple Accounts / Admin Abuse

I'm having an issue with an admin who claims he can reveal one of my other editing accounts if he feels like it even if I'm not violating or planning to violate WP:SOCK. I think I'm protected by WP:SOCK#Multiple accounts and Wikipedia:Harassment since it's very easy to find personal information about me with the other editing account. The admin in question disagrees and also claims that a supposedly personal attack I made (disputed since the admin himself is personally involved in the matter) justifies his claims. Are there any official/unofficial guidelines for this situation? --ZimZum 23:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Requesting review from (an)other admin(s) would be a sensible step, but we'd need more information for that. -- SCZenz 00:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

From user's contributions said admins seems to be Tomer. NSLE _(T+C) 01:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

How does he know that your 2 accounts are connected. If you told him, I don't really think it would be harassment for him to reveal that publicly. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

From the conversation it became clear that the admin in question used admin privelidges to compare IP addresses. I'm mainly asking if it is normal for admins to 'reveal' double accounts whenever they run into one, especially when in a situation where they are not in a neutral position. To me it felt like harassment, the admin in question states his behavior is acceptable. --ZimZum 10:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No, he didn't use admin privileges to compare IP addresses. It's a common mistake to think that admins can do that, but they can't, for privacy reasons. Only the handful of people with Wikipedia:CheckUser privileges can identify the IP addresses of logged-in users, by using the CheckUser tool, and they're only allowed to do that if there's independent good evidence for suspecting that a pair of accounts are a) related, b) being used abusively (for instance for one person to vote several times). Please see the CheckUser page for these safeguards of users' privacy. Tomer had no special "admin" way of finding out you were running a sock, so I suspect you told him, maybe unintentionally. Anyway, that's why Greg Asche is asking how Tomer knew. We can't say what's "normal" when admins "run into double accounts", because they simply don't run into them. You'll have to give us more information. Bishonen | talk 12:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

People have all sorts of reasons for running multiple accounts, e.g. people who edit a type of article they'd rather not have associated with their main account, admins who like actually editing articles without having trolls follow them around, etc. I don't (I have User:Querulous but haven't actually ever used it for anything), but if they're not doing evil with them then that's not actually a problem. If I spot multiple accounts with CheckUser, what I do about it if anything depends if they're actually doing evil with them. If one person is using two different names in two different areas, it actually looks just like two different people.

(And now I expect some idiot to follow up with "Ah but who are YOU to define evil?!" or something) - David Gerard 12:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah but who are YOU to define evil?! ;) Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 12:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe there were any traces linking the two accounts. The admin in question didn't deny when I accused him of using admin priveleges, leading me to believe he did use an ip based method, or had someone with checkuser abilities do it for him. I also think it's questionable when an admin engages himself in 'user account guessing' which I believe is frowned down upon as well though I'm not overly familiar with wikipedia's guidelines. --ZimZum 12:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I really don't feel a need to "defend myself" here. The ZimZum account was initially created for the specific purpose of endorsing User:Dabljuh's bizarre response to RfC. Anyone with one working eye and access to Special:Contributions/ZimZum can figure that out. Examining those contributions and the writing style that accompanies them and comparing them to the interests and style of the other user makes the association a no-brainer. "ZimZum" might think there were no traces linking the two accounts, but as they say, a leopard can't change its spots. Of course I didn't deny using admin privileges to link the two accounts, as I said in my RfA, responding to trolls is counterproductive. There really was very little "user account guessing" required. Regardless, ZimZum himself confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt exactly who he was by his response. As for what's "questionable", that'd be the claim that ZimZum is Bo Peep's sheep. The account is being used to harass another user on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dabljuh and elsewhere, and to engage in other truly questionable behavior. Tomer^talk 12:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Linking the accounts is a far stretch, and I find your explanation not very enlightening. You and another user seem persistent in continueing the harassment. Justifying this kind of harassment by throwing wild accusations toward me in turn isn't changing much to the situation. TShilo12's post shows a rather disturbing viewpoint on how to settle disputes. --ZimZum 13:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

ZimZum, if you have a problem with me, I recommend you draw up an RfC, or try to resolve it some other way. In the meantime, please cease and desist from the accusations of harassment until you can provide evidence. Tomer^talk 13:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Like I explained the other account can be used to trace my indentity which makes me uncomfortable when editing controversial topics. This falls under Wikipedia:Harassment, and I already asked you to stop it. I guess we'll just leave it at this and I'll quit contributing to wikipedia. --ZimZum 13:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I was more than happy to leave it rest. You're the one who brought it here. Tomer^talk 13:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPA Violation?

Does this diff rise to the level of WP:NPA violation, or am I being oversensitive? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan 00:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, in my humble opinion, but it is uncivil. We know it was mean in any case, so what exactly it violated doesn't really matter, now does it? -- SCZenz 00:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

A little uncivil, not really an attack. But, really, you should know that you're not the boss of him. ;) · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 01:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless you're Boss Hogg, that is! El_C 01:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User WoohooDoggy has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:WoohooDoggy has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 04:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Good block, page move vandal. They got away with much more than usual. Cleanup is needed.-gadfium 04:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup is complete. (Mostly done by others, not by me)-gadfium 04:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians who dislike George W. Bush

is obviously not an "attack category" unless dislike is now a form of attack, there are clearly too many people in this category to simply delete it anyway, can't you just leave it alone?! Or at least stop the double standards and take all the anti-liberal templates and categories with it--205.188.116.65 04:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• and yet it still gets deleted--The Creatorer 05:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• double standard? nah--The Creatorer 05:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This category was marked as deleted by a deletedpage template, which is silly. I removed it. I'd say that it's an extremely divisive and toxic category and I'm sure I'm not the only one, but those who delete it really should first ensure that it's depopulated first, Sticking deletedpage there won't delete the category, it'll create it! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As it was apparently deleted out of process, I have recreated it pending any vote that occurs at WP:CFD. I encourage any interested parties to discuss it there, as the neither the Admin noticeboard nor the deletion log are appropriate places. —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 20:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see this discussion in time and deleted the category again. I'll now work on depopulating it. (Update: The categories are essentially depopulated, but this is not reflected in the category pages, due to a well-known shortcoming of the MW software.) I'd like to point out that I also deleted Category:Wikipedians who like George W. Bush and Category:Wikipedians who support George W. Bush and replaced all three of them with Category:Wikipedians interested in US politics. It was pointed out that not everyone who has an opinion on George W. Bush is necessarily interested in US politices. That may be true, but then again, why should we care? If a user is interested in US politics, that's potentially useful information as far as the 'pedia is concerned: that user can be invited to join various politics-related projects, etc. But if a user is decidedly not interested in US politics, why should we care about their opinion on Mr. Bush? That's irrelevant, non-actionable information as far as the project is concerend, in the best case. I'd still like to ask anyone who disagrees to list these categories on deletion review, rather than simply recreating them. Thanks, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• a nice empty gesture, since Category:Wikipedians who dislike George W. Bush has 65 articles under it, where as Category:Wikipedians who like George W. Bush and Category:Wikipedians who support George W. Bush have a total of three one articles under them, one of which is a template userfied template--152.163.100.65 21:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The number of articles in each category is a random number determined partly by the number of templates that referenced each category, the number of users who transcluded each template, the number of users who who subst:ed each template, as well as the server's current mood. Most of these categories are essentially empty, what you currently see is just the ghost image still present in the cache somewhere. And I strongly resent the implication ("empty gesture") that real-world politics has anything to do with this, precisely because real-world politics is entirely irrelevant on this wiki, as I've tried to explain above. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I have now confirmed that all three categories are indeed empty. The fact that some pages are still being listed under these categories is due to a cache issue, which I was unable to resolve for now. This issue is expected to vanish during the course of the next couple of hours or days. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it would be in order to restore the deletedpage template now. I was fooled by the cache issue. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MR. BRUXVOORT IS A WANG!!! vandalism by 67.162.148.73

User:67.162.148.73 is vandalizing the macroevolution article, replacing subject headers with "MR. BRUXVOORT IS A WANG!!!" This IP has zero other edits. Justforasecond 06:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Disposed of. Thanks. --Golbez 06:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006

I am being bold and have recreated this deleted article. It was deleted by an AFD a few days ago as it was speculative. As Liberal leader Paul Martin has tonight announced his resignation the reasons for which the article was deleted no longer exist. As this is a significant news story in Canada and the article will be in demand immediately I have taken the initiative of recreating it rather than going through the deletion review process. Homey 07:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that. But couldn't you write this entire article as one section within Liberal leadership conventions? There are already sections for all the other leadership conventions by year, and the article is not big enough to break into separate subarticles. There's nothing special about this year's leadership convention that gives it merit as a separate topic. silsor 08:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2003 has it's own article. The current one will doubtless grow. Homey 22:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 66.211.223.200 Vandalism

This user has some earlier edits and cleanups that appeared to be of marginal use, but then started going a little crazy. Since those weird edits, he's just been going around engaging in subtle link vandalism (with an odd obsession for articles on the French Revolution). Can an admin look into this guy? JoanneB has done an admirable job of following him around and reverting his vandalisms, but it would probably be better if we had a more lasting solution. KrazyCaley 08:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ack, just noticed that the aforementioned JoanneB is one step ahead of me and has already blocked the guy. Apologies. KrazyCaley 08:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zanimum2

I have blocked this account indefinitely because I think it is an impersonation of the administrator Zanimum. Looking at the contributions list I see only user talk page edits, can anyone please review? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes it has to be.

So is user:kooorooo,after edirting a ku klux klan userbox,he joined zanimum and zanimum2 on an editing spree,deleting fair use images from user pages until he was blocked by user:Curps.

As he edited,the summary was given as -user:zanimum asked me to delete the images.

Zanimum2 also did a similar thing and made peronal attacks on user:booren page(also blocked).

he is probably a sockpuppet of kooorooo Batzarro 09:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

User:zanimum2 is not me, nor is Kooorooo. Three ways of telling Zanimum2 is not me...

1. I have an odd habit of not using the ~~~~ thing, and just going [[user:zanimum]]</wiki> to sign posts, leaving the user part visible; Zanimum2 has used the <nowiki>~~~~ thing.
2. Not that you can really prove this, but I never write or speak swear words. (I do think them occasionally.)
3. The userboxes on Kooorooo's page are on Zanimum2's.

As for proof Kooorooo is not me, I can offer little, except the fact I'm Canadian, and his userboxes are very Amerocentric. -- user:zanimum

I'm with zanimum on this. I have made a request for CheckUser on all impersonations of zanimum. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 13:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slow-motion edit warrior

An anon at a moveable IP, most frequently editing at 129.241.94.253 (talk • contribs) but also using 129.241.94.254 (talk • contribs) and 129.241.28.247 (talk • contribs), persists in changing the disambiguation page Lost into a redirect to Lost (TV series), without discussion. Multiple attempts have been made to engage editor in productive dialogue (see Talk:Lost and the user talk pages for all the IPs); when these received no response, user was repeatedly warned, most recently at 15:27 UTC today, by Kukini. User ignored this, and made the same edit at 17:50 UTC. I think it's time for a block. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that blocking is the best answer, since he's used so many IP's. I think a page protection might be the best course; perhaps that will compel him to actually use the talk page. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

That does make sense, although I think that if the warnings are to be taken seriously they ought to be followed by action. In this case, 129.241.94.253 was given a level 4 warning, which is supposed to be the "final warning", and then another one after that. A short block might be in order, just to show the user that the warnings aren't empty threats. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If it's an anon, them semiprotection is probably a lower impact option. Guettarda 21:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

True, but the anon isn't vandalizing, it's a content dispute (or rather, a dispute over where the content should be housed), and semiprotection is explicitly not to be used to exclude anons from participating in a content dispute. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 21:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem User

Troll Penis (talk • contribs), potential long term vandal, unconstructive edit wars, vandalism, trolling, all efforts at dispute resolution seem to have failed--152.163.100.65 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No such user. Typo? -- Curps 21:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hoax. -- Curps 21:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

User created after the above. Blocked. Impostors too. -- Curps 21:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kempler video

User:Kempler video (David Rutstein) has, for months, been editing Wikipedia for the sole purpose of promoting a conspiracy theory about the murder of Yitzhak Rabin. In recent weeks he has been re-writing articles to promote his view, and to insert links to his personal conspiracy website. He has also developed another conspiracy theory, that User:gidonb is actually a writer named Stephen Plaut who is paid to keep "truth" about Rabin's murder out of Wikipedia (gidonb made the mistake of linking to an article by Stephen Plaut). Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to manage this self-promotion and conspiracy theory mongering? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I vote for declaring the third tuesday of every month as an official Steve Plaut Wikiholiday. As for the constant insertion of conspiracy theory stuff, if it's obvious self-promotion, demonstrate it and get the user blocked if he reverts it into the article. WP:NPOV is a policy, not an idle recommendation. If it's crackpot stuff, WP:UW and WP:V come into play. The Kempler video tho, is not exactly obscure...its release and the apparent government cover-up surrounding it (in which Peres was widely implicated) is often credited as what won Mitzna the `Avoda elections last time around. Tomer^talk 00:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matlock Town F.C.

I have written a new article on Matlock Town F.C. I believe that this version does not infringe on any copyright laws. The new article is written in the temporary subpage. Will an administrator remove the Possible Copyright Violation notice as soon as possible? Thank You! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)