Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive110

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 User:Ibrahimfaisal userpage 2 User:RevolverOcelotX deleting and modifying talk comments at will 3 User:IronDuke 4 User EM MD continues to blank section after admin warning 5 Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jidan 6 User talk:Konob protected 7 Wrongful block must be stopped - URGENT ! (prior blooper corrected) 8 TheWolfstar reincarnated part 235. 9 Are blocked users allowed to just reappear with a sockpuppet and post RfC? 10 User:Rotating magnetic field 11 Help fixing a page move. 12 Question: Is it possible to remove a comment? 13 I need help. 14 Legal action threatened re: Esteban Carpio 15 Josie the pussy cat yet another Thewolfstar sock, short introduction in 37 volumes 16 Instantnood socking? 17 Users 220.239.134.188 and 140.159.8.2 18 DreamGuy: Case of multiple 3RR/Sockpuppet/PA abuse 19 User:Dabljuh 19.1 A partial defense of Dabljuh 20 User:Dabljuh - continued block evasion 21 Ais523 22 Sussexman 23 User:71.158.149.97 and Amber Benson and Rick Berman 24 Unethical Behavior and Possible NPA Violations 25 Blu Aardvark: wait for the ArbCom to decide or reblock now? 26 Block message problem 27 {{PAGENAME}}, {{PAGENAMEE}}, and {{PAGENAMEEE}} 28 Block User:84.194.99.177 ASAP ? 29 User: Bradyp continues to blank pages 30 Wikipedia:Justice Court 31 Malfunction may cause sock problem/ also will not allow people to remained logged in 32 User:Mais oui! stalking and blindly reverting 33 David Allen Hulse article 34 If we block AOL, the terrorists win... 34.1 less drastic solutions 35 problem with PAWiki 36 Five week block for spelling change? 37 User:Israel shamir - anti-semitism and personal attacks 38 69ersforever (talk · contribs) 39 If In The Future If I Should Happen To Have A Complaint 40 Ongoing sock warfare over Rajput articles 41 User:67.22.244.93 on Shock site 42 AOL mass image vandalism 43 Taran Rampersad 44 Yousef al-Khattab 45 The ongoing return of banned user User:PatCheng 46 Major vandal attack 47 Two IPs posting "in my name" to throw mud on me 48 User 213.157.193.136 (aka User:Grandmaster) suspected of avoiding a 3RR block. 49 User on WP only to row with someone, and do not editing 50 Añoranza 51 Sockpuppetry confirmed but not blocked 52 Blocked user URBAN_MEDIA_INC. evading block with sockpuppet 53 WoW/milkman Possible 54 AntiVandalBot blocked due to malfunctioning 55 User:Awaskow and User:71.126.119.154 56 Math formula vandal 57 User:SteveLo and Western Sahara-related articles 58 Fair Use Images on User:Magicz's Userpage 59 User:Lucy-marie and counter/anti-clockwise 60 Bizarre anti-Semitic attacks from User:Halwomack 61 "Jobjörn is attacking me personally and calling me stupid"; or, "Thewolfstar, episode 2,000" 62 Repeated attack on Jake Gyllenhaal and editor's pages who had edited it. 63 Copyright issue 64 Afd issue 65 Disruption of Ordo Templi Orientis talk page 66 I need an advocate and help with mediation 67 A Voice of Sanity 68 Someone's been trying to take over my user account 69 Moderator3000 misleading people and inserting vandalism 70 Kmweber blocked for personal attacks 71 User:Kylests 72 WikiProject help 73 Mediation editing 74 User:Boobyman 75 User:Vaquero100 76 User:Feline1 77 User:Rms125a@hotmail.com evading block 78 Userbox proposal

[edit] User:Ibrahimfaisal userpage

Speaking of user pages...User:Ibrahimfaisal...it's every bit as much in violation of WP:USER as the last report. Frankly, I think the one provokes the other, in both directions. My feeling is, don't ask, don't tell. All editors ought be brought into compliance. Tony Sidaway is the best example here - he doesn't even have a userpage.Timothy Usher 12:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't really true. I actually have lots of userspace pages, but they're all subpages of the user page, which for convenience points to my hybrid user/talk page at User talk:Tony Sidaway. There is a navigation bar at the top that makes it easy to access the subpages. --Tony Sidaway 13:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I will remove myself from wikipedia if it cannot give me freedom to have such a simple userpage. However, here I want to talk about Dhimmi article only. You can start another section about my user-page. --- Faisal 12:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look at the user page User:Ibrahimfaisal and I have to say I think it's really well written. It expresses his islam-inspired approach to a number of issues in a way that commands respect, without straying into proselytism. It expresses some disquiet (which I think most of us share) at the lamentable state of the religion-related articles on Wikipedia, specifically those about Islam. --Tony Sidaway 13:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I'm flummoxed. That's totally absurd. Weren't you just saying that we want editors who will treat subjects neutrally? Also, see WP:USER. To wit: "What can I not have on my user page? Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia...Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia."

Timothy, if there were a double standard in the treatment of religions on Wikipedia, it would work to the advantage of the disfavored religion; readers would see us bending over backwards to accomodate one. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we do, Tom. Editors which show up and blather on about Jesus saves, accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior etc. are immediately dismissed as spammers, trolls or vandals, even by editors who personally wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment.Timothy Usher 14:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

So, are you saying we are not bending over backwards? Pecher ^Talk 14:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. To the extent that we are going out of our way to avoid offending some sensibilities but not others, the reader sees that and reads more skeptically to accomodate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the evidence that the readers are reading more skeptically? And why should they; are you really arguing that NPOV has become a joke? People come to Wikipedia anticipating a factual and neutral account; 99% of readers don't even look at talk pages, and they have no idea of what's actually going on here. We must be fair to all editors regardless of religion, otherwise Wikipedia will indeed become a soapbox or, rather, a pulpit. Pecher ^Talk 15:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I read more skeptically when I sense political correctness. I hope others do as well, but I guess it is only hope. I agree that we should continue to work toward a presentation that neither favors nor disfavors any religion. I agree that we should not bend over backwards to show respect to one religion while telling followers of another to lighten up. It looks to me like we still have a ways to go. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The guideline you cite emphasizes that "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants." I don't know anything about Faisal's edits, and if they're non-neutral that is a quite separate matter. The user page, however, is a very respectful and Wikipedian one, emphasizing the tolerance and high moral values that he atttributes to his religion. That is a very good use of a user page. --Tony Sidaway 14:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, okay, I think you need some diffs then. The talk page contributions are essentially continuations of the user page. I never met Jason Gastrich, but it sounds like the same idea. At this point, I've little choice but to post here, but it'll have to be tomorrow.

However, I'm still very confused about how you can take such offense at Chooser's statements, but not this. Are you under the mistaken impression that Islam promotes abortion? Guess again. In any case, neither can be squared with "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia...Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia." I'll say this until I'm blue in the face: the enforcement of established policy is the key to all of these conflicts. It doesn't matter if it's "well-written", or interesting, or in some vague and subjective way "wikipedian" The only thing that matters here is if it has to do with Wikipedia.Timothy Usher 14:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, one question: you say "I'm still very confused about how you can take such offense at Chooser's statements, but not this". My question: what makes you think any of this is about anyone taking offense at anything? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony's edit, " Let's wipe this crap off the face of Wikipedia"[1] is a little less than civil, and suggests that he'd taken offense (if not, how much less justified the summary!) I'd be fine with it were it consistent, but since then I've seen a defense of transexual advocacy and now a defense of user page Islamism...go figure.Timothy Usher 15:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't suggest offense to me, it suggests that he was appalled that someone was using Wikipedia for hosting a fundraising link. Is User:Ibrahimfaisal hosting a fundraising link? I don't see anything like that on his page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

GTBacchus, Chooserr has removed the editorial statment, "MAKE ABORTION HISTORY" along with the link. If the former is allowed, someone ought let him know, so that he can restore it toute suite, as I'm sure he'd be inclined to do.Timothy Usher 12:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Does this policy prohibit FairNBalanced's post? Well, yes obviously. That's my point. Just get rid of it all. No userspace preaching, proselytism, polemic, extraneous userboxes, nothing. If it's not about wikipedia, take it elsewhere. That's the solution.Timothy Usher 14:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This report is sooner superfluous and unmerited. The justification for it based upon a false analogy comparison to User:FairNBalanced's previous user page. Netscott 14:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In this case, Tony, may I ask you to read Talk:Islam_and_anti-Semitism#Why_does_this_article_exist.3F and especially Ibrahimfaisal's last comment? Pecher ^Talk 14:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[copied from Talk:islam and anti-Semitism ]

It's not my view, but that of Ibn Hisham/Ibn Ishaq and the Hadith. All the data comes from devout admirers of Muhammad, who considered his actions and those of his companions - the cold-blooded execution of Jewish POWs, the taking of female Jewish captives as slaves and wives, the sale of Jewish children into slavery, the confiscation of Jewish property and the imposition of serfdom upon its former owners, the murder of Jewish poets, etc. - right, just and glorious.Timothy Usher 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case then every Muslim should do what you have said above. I idealize Muhammad (PBUH), and after having above information I will also follow Muhammad (PBUH) Sunnah. Thank you for the information. --- Faisal 13:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[end of copied section]

Instead of reading what Pecher has pasted above read it completely at THIS . Then you can understand my above comments. --- Faisal 14:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tony; I don't see anything wrong with this user's userpage. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify the copied comments above: "Sunnah" means "way"; Ibrahimfaisal is declaring his intention to follow Muhammad's example. Pecher ^Talk 14:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes Indeed I will try to follow each and every thing that Muhammd(PBUH) sunnah offers me and yes I love him. But I do NOT believe that Muhammad (PBUH) has done those things. That is why there was an IF in the beginning of the sentence. Those comments was sacarcitic to what Timothy had said about my Great prophet, Muhammad (PBUH) is blessing to the whole world. Pecher please do something better than this. --- Faisal 14:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is what now passes for a neutral approach to Wikipedia?Timothy Usher 14:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Everybody love something. A person without love is a nothing. You might have love for your country. I do NOT love Pakistan (my country). I love my religion and hence that means I am not acceptable in wikipedia. I do not want to hide my love, why should I hide it? Is it a crime? Oh, I become non-neutral when I say I love Muhammad (PBUH) and Timothy after having above comments (against Muhammad(PBUH)) remain neutral? --- Faisal 14:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, my comments were first and foremost about Muhammad, a real historical figure, not against him. They are based wholly on the most reliable Islamic sources, Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham, etc. - this idea that we're supposed to compromise between verifiable sources and the sentiments of editors to the talk page is an ongoing misconstrual of policy.Timothy Usher 15:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, there are many people/authors who have great things to say about Muhammad (PBUH). It is your choice to select some sources and reject others. You have strong feeling against Muhammad (PBUH) as you have expressed above and me in favor of Muhammad (PBUH). However, I think we both could still be neutral. I have to go now. I hope till tomorrow you will be successful in banning me. Good luck. --- Faisal 15:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What are we going to do with the editor who first says "I'm going to kill the Jews just like Muhammad did", and when pressed, switches to the reverse gear by saying "take it easy, folks, I was just kidding"? Are we going to tolerate that? Pecher ^Talk 17:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious that Faisal's statement was sarcastic. As expressed eloquently on his user page: "I am not biased towards any nation, race, and religion; I try to judge people on individual bases. I assume good faith towards each new person I meet because my religion teaches me that; I will never want to abuse anyone because my religion teaches me that." --Tony Sidaway 17:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Netscott. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Faisal's userpage is perfectly within our guidelines. We don't expect editors to be unbiased, but we do expect them to try to avoid allowing their judgement to be clouded by their personal opinions. I don't know about Faisal's behaviour, but his userpage is perfectly acceptable. Johnleemk | Talk 10:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The relevant policy - which we've apparently all agreed to totally ignore is "Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia." Opinions on Islam, or of any religious or sociopolitical doctrine, are, according to the most straightforward understanding, "unrelated to Wikipedia." I'm still waiting for someone to address this very particular point of policy. If it's not actionable, then let's remove it from WP:USER.

As for behavior, we can discuss this after I've posted with diffs.Timothy Usher 10:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised at Pecher's and TimothyUsher's recent edits here. There seems to be a certain amount of scrabbling for discrediting evidence going on that is most disquieting. On Faisal's part he makes a routine complaint about a content tagging dispute, but does so without incivility. Pecher describes that as "whining about being on the losing side in a content dispute" and TimothyUsher makes an off-the-wall attack on Faisal's user page. This is not a good way to interact with other editors. --Tony Sidaway 10:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, you've clearly no idea what we've been dealing with, and one reason is we haven't provided diffs. It's not an issue of "scrabbling for discrediting evidence", but rather one of processing a mountain of it. If this could wait until tomorrow, that'd be great.Timothy Usher 10:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

guys, as long as we allow expression of personal bias, including religious bent, on userpages, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with Faisal's page. If we disallow expression of religious affiliation, we should do away with userpages altogether. I have no idea what this is doing on WP:AN/I. Is it an "incident" that Faisal on his userpage says he tries to be a good Muslim? I don't see how this is polemical at all. dab (ᛏ) 10:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested to see how people who pillory Muslim editors for expressing their beliefs (remember the shit Joturner had to put up with on his first RFA?) feel about all the users - including admins - who express their Christian beliefs on their user pages. Gastrich was a nut, which is a different matter. Faisal's conduct on the article in question is irrelevant when discussing his user page. His page is fine. Proto||type 11:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've answered below, but let me say it again: it should all be removed, as per the userpage policy.Timothy Usher 11:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"as long as we allow expression of personal bias, including religious bent, on userpages" - for starters, we shouldn't, it violates WP:USER as it's written. WP:USER should either be rewritten, or enforced.

• How does one enforce a guideline like WP:USER? Last I checked the only things truly enforceable were policies. Am I wrong? Netscott 11:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As stated below, let's treat WP:USER as seriously as we treat other guidelines such as WP:RS.Timothy Usher

Second, I'm not sure who created this section. It wasn't me, as the history will show, and I'm rather upset that my comments have been resectioned to create the impression that I'd meant to file a report against this user for his userpage.

I'd only brought up Faisal's userpage as related to the block of FairNBalanced, then someone else sectioned it off. My point was that the real issue comes down to WP:USER. Either editorial statments on matters unrelated to WP are allowed, or they are not. If there is some nuance here, it's not adequately expressed in policy. For example, write, it's okay to express support for a religion, but not to express opposition. That would be clear enough. I don't think it wikilawyering to ask that written policy bear at least some resemblance to enforcement. If WP:USER is considered unactionable, then I really can't see the basis of FNB's block, particularly in light of the fact that the image was speedy deleted (by me). We can't say, controversial statments are okay, and then block people for making them. Conversely, if controversial statements are not okay, we're kidding ourselves to pretend that promotion of religion - any religion - is not inherently controversial.

I once again refer to the text of the userpage policy, which prohibits "personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia." Are we just going to proceed as if this text means nothing? For the record, once again, I advocate the aggressive removal of all such statements from all userpages as per policy. It would spare us a lot of controversy, such as the perennial userbox nonsense, go a long way towards busting cabals or the appearance of cabals (both of which are harmful), and in cases of instransigence, purge editors who are here for the wrong reasons, as per, wikipedia is not a soapbox. Allowing userpages to be soapboxes sends precisely the wrong message.Timothy Usher 11:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• User:Timothy Usher please do proper research when trying to argue your points. WP:USER is not policy. It is a guideline, there is a rather significant difference. Netscott 11:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

this should be discussed on WP:VP/P, not here. There is lots of WP-unrelated stuff on userpages ("this user drinks beer"??). WP:USER is a guideline attempting to describe what is acceptable and what is not. As all guidelines, and indeed policies, it should be applied with common sense. Invoke it when people begin being disruptive on their userpages. I don't see how it is disruptive when people say "I love my wife and try to be a good Christian/Muslim" on their pages. If you think it is, try debating it in policy fora, not on "Incidents". dab (ᛏ) 11:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

DAB, once again, it was never my intention of reporting this on incidents, and the history will show that I didn't. The original point of contention was that another user had been blocked for editorial statements in userspace, and I'd mentioned this userpage as a counterexample. That's all. What you call "disruptive" is highly interpretive: to a feminist, "I support Sharia" might be considered offensive. To a Palestinian, "I love zionism" might be considered offensive. I'm not saying there are no common-sense rules we can apply here, but frankly, writing the arabic word for "God" on a pig is not offensive to many people, and the choice of whose offense to mind is at best a concession to real-world fears of extra-legal threats - in which case let's say so - and at worst, arbitrary. Besides the copyright violation, which is a real issue, I still fail to see how or that FNB's editorial statement lies outside the policy as it's being represented here.Timothy Usher 11:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, now you are contradicting yourself. We can see that if you truly believed this last statement you yourself would not have submitted the pig image for speedy deletion. Also you wouldn't have removed the pig image yourself (prior to speedy deletion) nor would you have removed the "Anus Gigantus Assholicus" user box from User:FairNBalanced's user page as it appeared at the time. What gives? Netscott 12:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Pecher was the individual who sectioned off this talk by the way. Netscott 12:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, I removed these images not only because I found them inappropriate to Wikipedia, but also to protect this naive user from being involuntarily recruited as your whipping post. My goal was not only to protect others from offense, but also to protect him from controversy, because I saw him as a good-faith, potentially valuable contributor, in spite of several missteps. My position on userspace is 1) the policy should beno unrelated material whatsoever, including Allah Pig, I love Islam, I follow Pope Benedict, Make Abortion History, etc. 2) whatever the policy is, it should be explicit and consistent. I'm very sorry if/that you interpret this as hypocrisy.Timothy Usher 12:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, your mischaracterization of my motives (ie: "whipping post"?) are unfounded as I have previously explained to you on your talk page, I previously counciled User:FairNBalanced to refrain from inflammatory editing that sooner demonstrated a lack of good faith. In response to my last council, he put up the pig image, really stabbing the sword in to the hilt in demonstrating a lack of good faith. Let me remind you that I have been similiarly involved in examples similar to this one relative to both Muslim and non-Muslim editors. Again, you keep referring to policy, there is no policy there are only guidelines. Are you in fact expressing your position on userspace relative to those guidelines? Netscott 13:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As it seems we're wikilawyering, how about this: let's treat WP:USER as seriously as we treat other guidelines such as WP:RS?Timothy Usher 13:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I suppose it's logical that guidelines related to actual content might be taken a bit more seriously when the content is what the project is composed of. Hello? Netscott 13:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that FairNBalanced is being treated too harshly, and I am pleased that (apparently) an indefinite block is not in the picture. However, I don't think User:Ibrahimfaisal's userpage presents a comparable situation. It is obviously non-neutral. But is there anything in that page that offends people? Maybe I'm missing something.

My question is this: Are there users with photos just as offensive as the one FairNBalanced posted who are being left alone? To be fair, such offenders should be dealt with.--Mantanmoreland 01:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality was raised by Tony Sidaway when, in his very first comment regarding the FairNBalanced block was, "Seriously I question whether we want to allow Wikipedia to be edited at all by people who are obviously not here to write a neutral point of view encyclopedia."[2]. It's unclear how his approach to this section can be reconciled with that statement.Timothy Usher 01:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I hear you, and I agree the general principle needs to be applied uniformly. Also the user's statement that he will leave Wikipedia if not allowed to express these views on his user page is not encouraging. However, I think there are more egregious examples. User:Ramallite comes to mind, and I am sure there are a lot worse.--Mantanmoreland 01:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:RevolverOcelotX deleting and modifying talk comments at will

This user has been involved in an edit war over at 2008 Summer Olympics, which is now full-protected, and has carried over his warring into the talk page, where he is attempting to modify and delete my comments at will. First he moved all of my individual responses to a separate area. When I reverted this, he reverted me, then proceeded to unindent something I was quoting, revert me again, claiming that I'm "not allowed to insert comments between other's comments", and finally, DELETED my message pertaining to this from the talk page.

In the meantime, he sent over yet another template my way, threatening to get me blocked for 3RR. Can someone step in? 72.65.68.229 22:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I didn't delete any of your comments on the talk page. I only moved them because you place your comments in between other users's comments. 72.65.68.229 have broken the 3RR on the talk page of 2008 Summer Olympics. --RevolverOcelotX 22:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? Where did you move the comment at the bottom of this? The page history? That is vandalism. Your comments pertain to guidelines, not policy; stop trying to force in non-issues to provoke edit warring. 72.65.68.229 22:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, there's no difference between guidelines and policy except that policy is completely set in stone and takes an act of god to edit - guidelines aren't quite so fussy, but no less enforceable. Shell ^babelfish 23:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it true to state that I am "not allowed" to reply directly to certain comments, in the very specific context of how the talk page was laid out? 72.65.68.229 23:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved your comments to the bottom of section chronologically because you retroactively inserted them in between other user's comment which decreases readability and confuses the reader. But you keep reverting your comments back to in between other user's comments and in the process, you broke the 3RR. --RevolverOcelotX 23:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:72.65.68.229, it is true that you're not allowed to start edit wars or edit the talk page as if you "own" the talk page. Doing so is highly disruptive, leads to misattribution, and confuses the other editors. It is also true that you're not allowed to break the 3RR, which you have clearly done so here. --RevolverOcelotX 23:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, yea, don't insert comments in the middle of another user's comments in general. Just respond below it. Makes it a lot easier to read and understand. And if you seriously are going to complain about indentation or moving comments to another place, it will probably be ignored. Get over it. Frankly, there's no point to block over 3RR on such a pointless issue either. Just don't do it again. Edit wars are bad no matter where they are. Sasquatch t|c 23:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sasquatch, you misunderstand. I was not parsing anyone's comments. Look at the diffs. My comments were in between two comments, not within a comment. He is trying to say that if someone has posted a message below an existing comment, that I can not put a reply to the first comment at anywhere but the very bottom. 72.65.68.229 23:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, User:72.65.68.229 clearly placed his comments in between my comments and another user's comments to try to make it appear that he "refuted" them. That is against the talk page guidelines because it is disruptive. User:72.65.68.229 should have placed his comments at the end of the section so it would have been easier to read and respond to, but he keeps reverting back to the disruptive version, and broke the 3RR. User:72.65.68.229's edit wars are highly disruptive and he clearly broke the 3RR and should be blocked as such. --RevolverOcelotX 00:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't - he replied underneath each separate post, as is normal. see below.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Then take it to WP:AN3. JDoorjam Talk 00:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I already did reported User:72.65.68.229 at WP:AN3. But it seems the administrators still haven't blocked User:72.65.68.229 yet. --RevolverOcelotX 00:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There were a series of different comments lined up in a row, which were separated by signatures. It appears that User:72.65.68.229 has replied to a whole series, indenting to indicate that he was replying to each question individually. There is not instance where he butted into a person's comment at all. It is more convenient to have the reply indented below the post to which it replies, rather than having them at the bottom in chronological order, as RevolverOcelotX did by moving them. The positioning of the comments was not against the guidelines. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:72.65.68.229 has replyed in between each comment making it difficult to respond to and difficult for other editors to follow. It would be more convenient if User:72.65.68.229 replyed at the end of the section so its easier to respond to and easier to read. Its more appropriate to respond at the end of the section instead of retroactively in the middle of existing comments per talk page guidelines. It would also appear that User:72.65.68.229 has broken the 3RR while reverting. --RevolverOcelotX 03:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It is customary to respond under the individual comment you are responding to, indenting to keep it organized. Revolver, as Blnguyen has pointed out the anon has done nothing wrong with his style of comments, and furthermore, I refer you to WP:BITE-M^ask 06:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the anon for 3RR (3h), without paying attention to the value or otherwise of the edits. If anyone feels that this is wrong, do please review and correct if necessary William M. Connolley 07:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure User:72.65.68.229 is not a "newcomer" here. He has been revert warring for a while on this and other articles with various other IP ranges. User:72.65.68.229's revert warring is highly disruptive to the article and other editors have complained about this. User:72.65.68.229 keeps insisting on reverting and will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. I feel a block is appropriate for 3RR.--RevolverOcelotX 08:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:72.65.68.229 and User:151.205.36.69 appears to be the IP addesss of TJive and YINever. Here he admitted it. [3] --138.130.126.104 12:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to point out that User:72.65.68.229 and User:151.205.36.69 does appear to be the IP addresses of User:TJive and User:YINever. They both have the same disruptive editing patterns and a WHOIS shows they are from Reston, VA. Perhaps another check user might be in order for suspected sock: User:72.65.68.229, User:151.205.36.69, 141.153.90.177, User:TJive, User:YINever. --RevolverOcelotX 02:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:IronDuke

Continues to remove Talk page comments from Mike Hawash and removes warnings from his personal Talk page. He does not respect the contributions of anonymous editors and constantly accuses them of being "socks" (without any proof). -- 88.149.150.47 07:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if anyone has any questions on this feel free to ask me or Jayjg, who is taking care of it. IronDuke 16:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Any admin, please answer this: what is the justification, given the edits involved, in Jayg's protections of this page (and others)? IronDuke claims "socks", but provides no proof. Please say what is improper with the edits. -- BlindVenetian 17:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should talk about sockpuppets considering this is your first edit. Newbies don't tend to find WP:ANI straight away and then jump right into talking about admin actions. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 17:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming to be a newbie. I've edited for a long time anonymously. I created an account because Jayg and IronDuke seem to have decided that anon's have no rights. I am simply asking whether any of the edits on the pages that have been protected have been out of order. I think they are edits completely within the range of normal on Wikipedia, and I am being targeted because of a desire to be anon. -- 88.149.148.0 20:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add to this: Jayjg, an admin who edits many of the same pages as User:IronDuke, and with a similar POV, has protected Mike Hawash and several other pages, without explanation, without posting a protection tag on the page, and (perhaps worst), has protected the Talk pages as well, effectively stifling dissent. The edits involved were a real content dispute, not vandalism. I would ask that someone look into this potential abuse of admin power. -- 88.149.150.163 10:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User EM MD continues to blank section after admin warning

User ER MD continues to blank out the "criticism" section in the American conservatism article even after we had an admin step in and restore the section and recommend better consensus editing. I and others have appealed to ER MD on both his talk page and the article's talk page to join the discussion. He does so only long enough to insult our intelligence, condescend, pseudoflame, and then he blanks the section anyway. I've tried discussing things with him but he generally declines to respond to any logic thrust of my discussion and continues to re-state that the criticism section is POV, we're all dunces for not seeing it his way, and then he blanks the section. It's become frustrating enough that I'm prepared to abandon work on this article entirely. Bjsiders 12:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This is continuing to happen. The issue at question is that there is a "Criticism" section in the American conservatism article. A number of editors, both liberal and conservative, have been trying to craft a fair and accurate description of these criticisms. One user, User:ER MD, doesn't want it in there, and after an admin stepped in and said, "it's valid, keep it," he continues to blank it out anyway, or modify it so that instead of being a list of things that critics of conservatism actually believe and say, it's a list of things to laud and recommend conservatism ideology. ER MD's defense is couched in semantics (philosophy vs policy, etc). I've run out of patience with this article and have stopped working on it. I've never run into a more belligerant and uncooperative editor on Wikipedia. There will be no satisfying this guy until the criticism section contains no criticism. Bjsiders 19:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jidan

A CheckUser revealed User:Jidan has been editing through open proxies. I have indefinity blocked his sockpuppet for this, but am unsure about what to do with User:Jidan himself. Advice requested. —Ruud 23:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If the socks were being used to circumvent policy, I think a couple days block and a stern warning would be in order. --InShaneee 15:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Konob protected

Konob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism and has created numerous accounts, Konob2, Konob3 etc. up to Konob14 at the moment, to continue vandalising. He has continued to edit User talk:Konob to document his vandalism and those that block him ("I am going to start adding administrators that banned my accounts ~those ass holes~"), as well as to proclaim his hatred of emos, gays and communists. Rather than let him continue to glorify his own vandalism I have removed all that and fully protected the talk page. If he wants to request unblocking, which he hasn't so far, he can use email. As this does deny him the ability to request unblocking in a public forum, I bring this here for review. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of his talk page and repeated attempts at editing while blocked are certainly grounds for protecting the Talk page. I concur. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrongful block must be stopped - URGENT ! (prior blooper corrected)

Since this user persists in breaking his block, I've decided to discourage him from that and asked him to take his complaint to the Wikien-L mailing list. --Tony Sidaway 16:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• 15:58, 15 June 2006 Tony Sidaway blocked "213.216.199.2 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Used for block evasion. Please take block challenges to Wikien-L mailing list) --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this related to persistent edit-warring and POV-pushing at Kven - which has gone on for years? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems so. Thatcher131 17:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TheWolfstar reincarnated part 235.

207.210.64.48 (talk · contribs) is making odious comments and more or less suggesting this is our well-loved and always friendly editor Thewolfstar (talk · contribs). Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Another backslashing proxy. [4]. Thatcher131 17:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are blocked users allowed to just reappear with a sockpuppet and post RfC?

Just wondering, because apparently User:PatCheng, having had several administrators already review the block and have plenty of opportunity to comment, waited for the relevance of the ANI post on this matter die down in order to create more sockpuppets and post Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Blnguyen. Quite frankly, everything he claims there can be demonstrated to be a lie, but I'm wondering if this is considered an appropriate move for a blocked user. --TJive 16:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Uh, no. Blocked is blocked. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I believed too. Can you or another administrator take action on this matter, then? So far it has been left up to Blnguyen to clean up, leading to this user's hysteric claims of impropriety. --TJive 16:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony. For what it's worth, I archived the RfC contents, which are basically a short retread of his rant on the mailing list, and can respond point by point on the matter if and when necessary. --TJive 16:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked the sock and deleted the RfC. We're getting a spate of blocked editors openly socking and trying to Wikilawyer. This is never acceptable. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rotating magnetic field

Can someone checkuser to see if User:Rotating magnetic field is a sock of User:Reddi? If so, arbitration rulings may have been violated. --ScienceApologist 18:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Go over to WP:RFCU. Sasquatch t|c 18:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help fixing a page move.

Someone incorrectly moved the article U.S. 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment to U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and I cannot move it back. The Army does not title this unit "3rd", as one would incorrectly expect. The unit is in fact the "3d" cavalry. (Atfyfe 20:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

• Thanks (Atfyfe 21:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

An administrator has moved the article back. -- Kjkolb 21:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question: Is it possible to remove a comment?

Hi, another user added an unpleasant comment to my user page and I would like to see it removed. See history of my user page, the one with hell. Is that possible? JKW 22:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am able to change the template on my own, can you please change the comment in the history? JKW 22:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This can be removed because it's your user page and it's vandalism by someone else, and it will involve deleting and then restoring your user page minus the offending edit. It's not regular practice to do this however except in cases of excessive vandalism (e.g. to the featured article on the main page). -- Francs2000 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks! I just do not like rude comments, since it would have been more polite to leave me a message first. JKW 22:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I need help.

I am trying to make important additions to Hugh Everett's Many-Worlds Interpretation. I am having a problem with one or two editors who are hostile to Hugh Everret and theory. They revert everything I add. I help obtaining a mediator and mediation. I find Wikipdia procedures arcane and highly esoteric. If you can help me, please email me. Michael D. Wolok 22:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Michael, I will try to help also. Can you use your or my talk page?? Thanks --Tom 01:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal action threatened re: Esteban Carpio

See this edit; threat was removed from article and text modified ('convicted' => 'accused') in this edit. 'Threat2' template added to User talk:72.192.39.170 in response. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Claiming that someone has been convicted of murder who hasn't been is usually considered libel under US law. Especially in the midst of their trial. That's an issue for Forestfufighting (talk · contribs), who added that statement, and I would place more blame there than on the person who pointed out the problem. Is there a template for "Please don't make libellous statements"? Checking other edits for that user, he did change Rhode Island's reference to "Vincent Cianci" from "indicted" to "convicted", but that checks out; former mayor Vincent Cianci is now Federal Prisoner #05000-070. --John Nagle 06:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It is definitely fair to go to the original editor and investigate other edits to make sure they are above board, agreed. Regardless of the original editor's activities on-wiki, making legal threats is not to be excused ... or so I thought. I've added the Template:verror2-n to the editor's talk page and reverted another problem edit at Carpio. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Josie the pussy cat yet another Thewolfstar sock, short introduction in 37 volumes

Josie_the_pussy_cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) seems to be yet another bann-evading Thewolfstar sock. Yawn, compare "TheWolfstar reincarnated part 235" above. This because of the cat theme (compare metrocat, etc, etc ), and because of Josie's recommendations to other people of the only two policies TWS knows, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF (in hilarious counterpoint to her own rudeness and suspicion), and because of her posts to users Ed Poor and CorbinSimpson, two people TWS has frequently contacted in other incarnations, and because of her trademark greeting--and, you know, I started writing this up as a Request for CheckUser, but why bother them? For my part I won't block it yet, but suggest giving it a chance to edit responsibly (even though the self-righteous pugnacity of the start isn't very promising). Anyway, what's the point of blocking, when it's far quicker and easier for the user to create a new sock than for admins to block and post sock templates? It would be nice if a few more admins would watch this one, and block and roll back in case of (the usual) escalating aggressiveness. Bishonen | talk 00:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC).

Update: the sock has gone into Thewolfstar mode with a vengeance at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kimchi.sg, and has now been indefinitely blocked. Stand by for volume 38. Bishonen | talk 01:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)..

Yes, ran across this one on my own. Hello. Mackensen (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Mackensen, thanks. Looks like we commented with uncanny timing on Kimchi's RFA. :-) Bishonen | talk 01:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC).

You'll have to excuse me for this one — I thought it was an old girlfriend, XD. - Corbin ^{Be excellent} 05:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Instantnood socking?

I'm a bit suspicious about RevolverOcelotX's evident experience with Wikipedia. He looks like somebody's sock. As it happens he seems to share similar interests with Instantnood. And also, he first edited at 0447 UTC on 19 May, just 35 hours after Phil Sandifer blocked Instantnood for two weeks, implementing the two week Wikipedia ban under Instantnood's General Probation. This was a ban that was proposed by me as part of my enforcement of the arbitration remedies on Instantnood.

In his short time at Wikipedia, RevolverOcelotX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) has managed to get himself blocked twice, the second time by Blnguyen (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). At 0235 UTC today, RevolverOcelotX reinstated an entry on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, an RfC aimed at Blnguyen, that had been inserted by the self-declared block-evading sock of another editor blocked by Blnguyen and removed by me.

I think it's time to throw this open to other administrators. Thoughts? --Tony Sidaway 04:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway, do you have any evidence of this? Many different editors here share similar interests but that does not mean they are sockpuppets. Accusing somebody of sockpuppetry just because of their "evident experience with Wikipedia" is contrary to the policy of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Posting a different RfC aimed at Blnguyen because I question his use of admin powers is completely legitimate. --RevolverOcelotX 04:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that "republishing" material contributed by blocked or banned users is disruptive de facto. So regardless of the sock issues that edit on the RFC page concerns me greatly. Nandesuka 05:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka, I did not "republish" material by a blocked user. I posted a different completely legitimate RfC. --RevolverOcelotX 05:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

See this archiving of an ANI post regarding PatCheng. Note ROX's later removal of a comment that he will "will cease from defending him [PatCheng]". Now, after so many PatCheng socks have been blocked, and the mailing list has so far not overturned it, ROX decided to repost effectively the same thing on RfC? Hm. --TJive 05:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

TJive, I only removed that comment because I saw that the administrator Kungfuadam had unblocked PatCheng. And I posted a completely different RfC on Blnguyen. --RevolverOcelotX 05:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

So you admit that your level of defense for PatCheng is contingent upon his ability to edit at any given time. Hm.

You didn't post any RfC that I can see. You simply re-added the link to the already deleted one. And what would it concern if not PatCheng? --TJive 05:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

TJive, that is a complete red herring. I had only removed that comment I made because I had saw that Kungfuadam had unblocked PatCheng and justifyed it by saying "removal of personal attacks does not constitute 3RR".

The RfC that I posted was removed because I did not make a document to link to. It concerned Blnguyen POV abuse of admin powers including unblocking an anonymous IP address who had broke the 3RR. --RevolverOcelotX 06:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users 220.239.134.188 and 140.159.8.2

The first user has been rightfully blocked by Kukini for 31 hours for making personal attacks and vandalising articles, but I doubt this will be worthwhile. The user responded to the block with racial slurs and personal attacks.

Of more concern is the second message [140.159.8.2 posted] after the blocked, by 140.159.8.2, repeating similar racial slurs and saying "you can't block me". Note that 140.159.8.2 has now also been rightfully blocked, for vandalism, by AmiDaniel. It's possible, I suppose, that by "you can't block me" he was referring to his own blocking in a confused way. Another theory would be that he is a meat-puppet of 220.239.134.188.

A look at both users' contribs indicates a history of extremely similar edits: vandalism of pages with the word "gay" and repeated personal attacks against other editors, usually using racial slurs. I haven't see one constructive contribution in 220.239.134.188's contribs history, and very few in 140.159.8.2's.

I think it would be worthwhile to consider whether these two accounts, or at least the first, are vandalism-only accounts, one possibly the meat-puppet of the other. 220.239.134.188 in particular does not seem to have anything to offer this project but abuse.

This is the first time I have brought an issue to this noticeboard, so please bear with me if I've left out any important details. Thanks, Kasreyn 09:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

They're both Australian but probably shared by multiple users, so long-term blocks would likely affect other users down the road. Thatcher131 11:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

To add to that - one's an ISP, and the other's an academic site, so it's possible that it's the same person editing from home and college/uni. The problem with blocking academic IP addresses is that often the same physical machine is used by many unconnected people every day (and also that a single person will have easy access to many machines within the same IP range), and the problem with ISPs is that sometimes they reallocate IP addresses (extremely frequently, in the case of AOL). --ajn (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DreamGuy: Case of multiple 3RR/Sockpuppet/PA abuse

A recent Request for check user has determined that it is likely that DreamGuy and Victrix are the same person, and shows evidence that each identity has been used by the other to deliberately subvert the 3RR on multiple occasions. DreamGuy has a long prior history of being blocked for abusing the 3RR. --Centauri 02:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment As a curious observer of the situation who has experienced DreamGuy’s behaviour before, I feel that he has stepped up a gear in order to try and provoke another edit war/conflict intentionally. A quick look at his edit summaries will suggest this. However, this time he has been found out for used socks and he has used them to break the 3RR.

A few examples of this are when Dreamguy was in an edit war with Beelzebub and had made three reverts (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3), Victrix appeared and reverted reverted the article to Dreamguy's preferred version.

The same applies with Spring Heeled Jack, after Victrix got into an edit war and reverted for the third time revert 1, revert 2, revert 3), DreamGuy came and reverted reverted the article, to Victrix' version.

If you look at their contributions, both use the same aggressive edit summaries, both edit the same style of articles and both are guilty of being extremely uncivil, with edit summaries from DreamGuy such as “what kind of fucked up nonencyclopedic claptrap is that?”[5], similar edit summaries apply with Victrix. DreamGuy has been in trouble for being uncil and breaking 3RR before, however he has often escaped unpunished. Englishrose 09:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears DreamGuy hasn't used the DreamGuy account since May 31, meaning it's likely this behavior has stopped (unless another user has stepped in). Seeing that, I'm inclined to ask DreamGuy/Victrix to pick an account, and indef block the other one. Usually users are permitted to use sockpuppets, but DreamGuy/Victrix was using them maliciously, and I see no reason why both should remain unblocked. Ral315 (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, hey, I think you're getting ahead of yourself, Ral315. The scale of likelihood that the CheckUser admins use goes Confirmed-Likely-Possible-Inconclusive-Unrelated. In other words, "likely" is not "confirmed". I also can't find any Victrix instances of the type of language in edit summaries that Englishrose claims is typical of both accounts. Where are the examples of that? Bishonen | talk 18:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC).

Note that checkuser is an aid to determining sockpuppetry but it can be fooled and can also be wrong. Quoting Essjay, "Checkuser, as David Gerard says, is not magic wiki pixie dust, and is never the be-all-end-all of evidence; it's the similarity in edit pattern and interests that confirms sockpuppetry, checkuser just helps confirm or refute what is already known." Thatcher131 18:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I rather more agree with Ral315. Quite a while back I had my run-in with DreamGuy so I can't claim to be totally un-biased on the issue. However, I think the style of contributions from Victrix is very similar to what I saw from DreamGuy, that combined with the 'likely' checkuser result is very suspicious. I'm talking about edit summaries like this one, and in general the long summaries like this and this as pointed about before (many examples). See also the non-checkuser evidence present on the checkuser case page. Therefore I would fully support a block on one of these accounts. Petros471 18:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I too am not unbiased, as I was the recipient of multiple personal attacks and accusations of being a sockpuppet by DreamGuy several months ago, but I would point out that at right about the same time on May 31st, both Victrix and DreamGuy ceased posting for several days [6] [7], and the first action done upon Victrix' return, was the removal of the "odd tag placed there by some unknown vandal." I agree with Petros471 that there is a clear similarity in edit summaries between the two accounts, especially the style of removing warnings from their respective talk pages, in combination with an abusive edit summary which accuses the original poster of harassment. Most Wikipedia editors, in my experience, when faced with vandalism simply use a variation of "rv" or "rvv", without the harassment/vandalism commentary. --Elonka 20:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The evidence does certainly suggest that they are the same person. While many users can be sharp and rather bitchy sometimes (*hold up hand here*) the scale of edit warring and personal attacks by DG is deeply unpleasant to users. A glance at his edits suggests that the clear majority are concerned with edit warring, with abuse attached.[8] I've had my own experience of dealing with him: he posted a merge tag on some articles a long time ago, trying to merge any mention of a topic anywhere else into "his" article. Though not a single person has supported the merge, any removal of the ancient tag leads to chronic abuse. I thought I was the only one receiving it and ignored it, but he really goes overboard in his edit warring. It is bad enough putting up with one DreamGuy edit warring and abusing users. But two of them? Yuch. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

<unindenting>If DreamGuy and Victrix are socks, they've been used in violation of WP:3RR policy, and one of the accounts should probably be permablocked. Can we avoid the general piling-on regarding DreamGuy's character, though? His article edits are good ones; they improve the encyclopedia and maintain the integrity of articles which seem to attract every kook, crank, and POV-pusher on the internet. Yeah, he gets cranky. I would too if I tried to maintain a set of articles like that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cranky? Let's put things in perspective here - DreamGuy is downright abusive - consistently, at length and in the most repugnant manner possible. Many many other editors have been banned for a lot less than he's been allowed to get away with to date. WP:Civil doesn't just apply to some editors - it applies to all - and last time I checked, editing "difficult" articles didn't come with a free pass to abuse anyone with whom one happens to disagree. --Centauri 05:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying that, Centauri, but don't provide much evidence regarding it. Open up an RFC and provide your evidence; don't drag people through the mud on AN/I with unsubstantiated allegations. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite a few people have opened up RFC's against him, have they not? [9][10]. There's no smoke without fire, there have been many complains about DreamGuy being abusive. I myself have encountered his abusive comments during DreamGuy'S tirade against anybody who voted keep on the aladin debate, which included Elonka who suffered much more personal attacks than me. So much so that they had to be refactored. As far as I'm concerned DreamGuy has not and will not change his ways. To be blunt, the only thing that saves him from being blocked is that certain admins seem to want to stick up for him no matter what he's done. Englishrose 15:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. "Certain admins" are probaby just crazy to try to keep around someone who improves the encyclopedia even under constant attack from nutters, trolls, and harrassers. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware that making good edits to the encyclopedia meant that you could then ignore WP:BITE, WP:AGF, and WP:CIV. Can you look at my contributions and tell me if I can start being abusive with immunity yet? DreamGuy just about made me give up on the entire Wikipedia project because he was being so abusive and unsupportive of absolutely everything that I was doing when I was a newbie (and didn't know how to properly call attention to his behavior). EVula 15:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't refer to the likes of me and Elonka as nutters, trolls, and harrassers. You've got to admit, you do have a history of helping out DreamGuy. It's nearly always the same unimpartial admins (ie Android79 who is on wikibreak, Bunchofgrapes, Bishonen etc) who stick up for him. It amounts to bullying, it's like saying this is our gang and anyone who doesn't like us will be eliminated. As I said, DreamGuy has issued personal attacks to a number of users.I personally think some of the personal attacks DreamGuy makes are quite nutty but maybe you can't see that. Englishrose 16:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Victrix is continuing to remove the sockpuppet warnings from his/her userpage. Is there an admin that could please re-add them? Verification is at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DreamGuy, thanks. --Elonka 10:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The only "nutter, troll and harrasser" here is DreamGuy / Victrix. Methinks that "certain admins" definitely protesteth too much in leaping to his defense at every possible opportunity, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary - particularly as it was "certain admins" who suggested that I bring the matter here in the first place. The fact of the matter is that his edits are of little significance, contribute almost nothing to "improving" Wikipedia, and mostly appear designed to provoke edit wars. That constitutes the definition of serial trolling in most people's book. All of that aside, the purpose of this discussion is to determine what should be done to address the matter of his using sockpuppets to subvert the 3RR - a reality that has now been established to the satisfaction of all (except for "certain admins"). --Centauri 21:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you having trouble remembering my name, Centauri? Or is it just that an even-handed admin approach, such as my both advising you to take it to ANI, AND pointing out that "likely" is not "confirmed", is a complete mystery to you? Bishonen | talk 00:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC).

As far as I can see there are 3 admins who have consistently defended DreamGuy despite his abusive behaviour, so use of the collective term is accurate. What's a mystery to me is how you can continue to defend the indefensible despite a mountain of contrary evidence staring you in the face. --Centauri 02:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's quite a good point. The majority of DreamGuy's edits are reverts and these reverts do not follow consensus. He removes what he sees fit even if the majority of editors disagree with him. Englishrose 22:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Damn it, are people going to do something constructive, or is everyone who has ever disagreed with DreamGuy going to play to the bleachers non-stop? If you folks have an RFC complaint, then open the RFC. Otherwise, Bunchofgrapes and Bishonen are right: the proper thing is to say that a Checkuser request suggests that it is likely that DreamGuy and Victrix are the same person. We can take it from there on the sockpuppet front, and no one can take anything from the "he was mean to me" front except the people with the complaints. I've not seen Englishrose be thuggish before, but the same cannot be said of Elonka or Centauri, so their allegations aren't winning the day because...well...they just don't have a great deal of ethos for their complaints. That said, let's leave everyone's character alone. If someone wants to announce an RFC and invite input, cool. If folks want to report the Checkuser request, fine. No more, and no more mugging in absentia, please. Geogre 03:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been 2 days since I posted here, and it's clear from the level of discussion that the matter is of serious concern to quite a number of people, but neither of DreamGuy's identities have yet been blocked. When are you intending to do something constructive about that? --Centauri 06:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean that, having determined in your own mind that these are one person, you now feel that you should demand a block, in the absence of process? Wow. I see four people expressing concerns, and two are admins. You've made the matter public, so now you can either go on to process, like an RFC over actions, or not, but stamping your foot won't help anyone's nerves or your cause. Geogre 11:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no call to be flippant. Due process has been followed in bringing a matter of serious concern to wider attention. A serious problem has been identified and thus far nothing has been done to address it. Either deal with it or not, but don't insult those of us who've taken the time and energy to report the problem. --Centauri 13:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Centauri, stay clam and don't raise to the bait. RFC may be a good idea as it will allow you and other users to detail DreamGuy's continued actions more clearly. Englishrose 13:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So... is anything going to be done about this? More importantly, is there anything to be done? I'm not suggesting that he be banned forever (not that I'd oppose that, mind you), but it's been stated that DreamGuy and Victrix are likely to be the same person, and that the accounts have definitely been used to bypass 3RR... and nobody that can do anything about it seems to care. Meh. EVula 22:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dabljuh

Dabljuh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a extremely disruptive user that has a interesting take on our content policies. He speaks freely of destroying them, and acording to his block log, has been blocked numerous times for edit warring over policy pages and for engaging in conistant personal attacks. This note can be viewed with more clarity by reading his talkpage.

Proceeding the most recent slew of personal attacks, he has been blocked by PinchasC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) [11]

This has been a non stop process of arguing policy, edit wars and disruptive behavior. I'm not paticularly concerned with the sensibility of his policy arguments as its edvident they will bear no changes on the policy pages. This is acceptable. However wikipedia does not condone personal attacks.

As of this post, Dabljuh has decended to the usage of sockkery to circumvent the block with User:80.218.7.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Comments..? -Zero^Talk 17:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User also has 217.162.112.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet as well. I've notified both the puppeteer and the puppets. -Zero^Talk 17:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(Removed comment by blocked user)

IP's involved include

217.162.112.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

217.162.112.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

80.218.7.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

84.73.116.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

80.218.7.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

217.162.112.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I have blocked them and extended the block for Dabljuh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) to 1 week. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Further evasions of this block will result in longer blocks. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(troll comment and personal attack removed)

• This is unacceptable disruption and block evasion. I have extended Dabljuh's block to a month, and any further evasion of the block for the purpose of disruption should reset or extend that block. --W.marsh 18:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Any comments made on pages other than the respective user talk are to be reverted. This user's difficult demeanor has persuaded me he's an obvious troll with the sole intent of disruption. -Zero^Talk 18:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(removed troll comment)

By the way, if he will promise to stop evading blocks, that would be a start and I would reduce his block back to a week (he knows how to contact me on IRC, and I can be e-mailed). But further disruption after that week would still warrant blocks. --W.marsh 18:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have warned him about block evasion. I believe he uses rotating IPs, similar to ROHA who aggressively edits Adolf Hitler, Bob Dylan and Pizza Hut. --Sunholm(talk) 19:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Anyone know how to deal with ROHA?? --Sunholm(talk) 19:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(Blocked user comment removed)

Fair enough. Dabljuh, I strongly encourage you to comply with your block and stop evading it with comments like that one. --InShaneee 21:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(Comments by blocked user removed.) JDoorjam Talk 23:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You know well that using sockpuppets or editing while not logged in is prohibited and will cause further bans and extensions of them. You also know quite well that your constant efforts to change wikipedia policies against consensus do not have support (even though you try and redefine 'consensus' and 'support' frequently). Endorse continued ban; user is well warned. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Endorse as well. Matthew is spot on. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Full disclosure: Jayjg is not a neutral, disinterested party in this matter. He is on the opposite side of an ongoing content debate on circumcision and should therefore recuse himself from this matter. The same applies, of course, to Nandesula. Al 22:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. I'm not involved in any content dispute with Dabljuh on the Circumcision article. Please try to remain factual. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but your claims are demonstrably false. Even a quick glance at the edit and ban histories reveal that you are a long-time ally of Nandesuka and JakeW. The three of you have a strong pro-circumcision POV, while Dabljuh is known for his strong anti-circumcision POV. In short, you are in opposing factions, which is why a failure to recuse yourself would taint the results. Al 19:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I also endorse a continued block, for anyone keeping score at home. JDoorjam Talk 22:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to a ban at this point. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A partial defense of Dabljuh

I think this entire affair has been unfortunate for everyone involved. I'm not an administrator and haven't had much involvement with Dabljuh outside the confines of Talk:Circumcision, so I'm new to this discussion. Within that talk page, I had already become aware that he was an iconoclast, very outspoken, and as he has described himself above on this page, a "smartass". However, there are a couple points I think should be made. Some editors seem to be of the opinion that Dabljuh cannot be reasoned with and that he should therefore be ignored as incorrigible. I was a bit bothered by this, since I prefer to believe people can always be reasoned with. All you have to do is put yourself in their shoes and understand their frame of reference and their initial premises.

For instance, User:Politician818 began his Wikipedia use as a typical POV-pushing MPOV editor, convinced there was a liberal conspiracy preventing the "truth" from being told about such right-wing luminaries as Ann Coulter and Michael Savage. I believe he got blocked a time or two in there. By extending Politician818 courtesy and sticking up for him on the occasions that he's been correct, I seem to have gotten him to calm down and edit in a more constructive manner. At least he isn't railing about cabals and revert warring as often as he used to. Maybe I'm assuming too much credit for this, but from what I can see, the turning point was about when I talked with him.

With this recent experience in mind, I visited Dabljuh's user page, read up on his interests, and read his Politics subpage, which for some reason which escapes me has now been deleted, despite containing nothing offensive that I could see. So rather than applying a label to him or calling him a name, I posted a polite and careful critique of one of the proposals on his Politics page. What did this incorrigible "troll", who some feel cannot be reasoned with, do in return? He replied with equal civility and thoughtfulness, and conceded the point and abandoned the proposal due in part to the objections I raised.

This does not appear to be the act of a megalomaniacal "troll" who cannot be reasoned with. This is the act of a person who certainly is not obeying Wikipedia policy at this moment, but I feel can be reasoned with. Anyone who's capable of listening to a critique of their ideas and politely responding, recognizing the flaws in their ideas, and conceding a point, can be reasoned with. To me this indicates that Dabljuh should not be driven away from Wikipedia, but instead encouraged to do better. I believe the reason Dabljuh listened to me was because I did not base my comments on a presumption that he is unreasonable. People respond well to being treated with respect; this is the entire point of being civil.

Furthermore, it appears that some of his comments on other topics, such as his vocal opposition to the NOR policy, are being responded to in a way colored by the respondants' opinions of Dabljuh the person. This is not appropriate. I do not agree with Dabljuh's critique of NOR but I will listen to what he has to say about it. Refusing to acknowledge someone's arguments because you feel they're a jerk is called the ad hominem fallacy. Every argument should be dealt with on the face of its own merits. The history of the person making that argument does not enter into the equation unless givens are proposed, in which case trust becomes an issue.

I'm certainly not defending Dabljuh's attempts to evade his block, but if a comment was removed, make sure it's removed for the reason stated. I'm sure there are aspects of this I haven't considered, and there are probably policy violations he's committed which I'm ignorant of. These considerations do not alter my main contention, which is that Dabljuh responds better to engaged debate than he does to being ignored or punished. Thank you for your time. Kasreyn 01:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the original block of Dabljuh lacked any basis and I can very well understand that he feels treated unfair. I suggest both sides apologize and use their time for something more fruitful. Socafan 02:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to add my support here. Dab is outspoken and blunt, but he is quite capable of reason when treated reasonably. He is also entirely impatient with blocks that appear to have no basis whatsoever, which is understandable. Of course, he shouldn't be evading the block but I'm not clear why he was blocked in the first place. I realize he speaks out against popular policies, but since when has that ever been justification for a ban? I would think we should want editors to be active and controversial, rather than suppressing all dissent.

My take on Dab is that he's the sort who acts out only when provoked by unreasonable behavior. The solution, then, is not further unreasonable behavior but simply letting him speak. If you remove the block that shouldn't have been set in the first place, there will be nothing to evade, hence nothing to punish him further for. Al 02:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've said on my talk page, evading blocks to disrupt is not acceptable, period. But if he'll promise not to do that, I'll remove my block. So far, he hasn't contacted me. --W.marsh 03:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think he will even look at his page after being blocked for a whole month with an original reason of absolutely nothing? Please email him. Socafan 03:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This might be a case of Ignore all the Rules. The initial block might have been a mistake. It sure seems not only ineffective but counter-effective. Its creating a bigger problem than we started with. If the goal is not submission, obedience but to get him to behave in accordance with the system and rules then we sometimes must be creative and use the right kind of tools to reinforce good behavior. Sometimes sticking to strict punsihments for rebelling, resulting in more rebellings, resulting in greater blocks, just spins negative cycle that only adds to the distruption. I say first the admin who did the block apologize and say he was sorry, he blocking was the wrong solution in this case and ask Dab to forgive him and that if he will be nice so will all the admins. Be extra nice and see if he will be nice in return. Use kindness as a tool. The carrot, not the stick. This approach will probalby work much better with Dab. If it fails, then too bad, back to the classic model. But, this is a good case to experiment given the personalities and the issues.Giovanni33 03:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I was kind of leaning toward an indef block against Dabljuh for disruption. I am shocked that you are suggesting that I should appologize for blocking a user who makes personal attacks after having a history of being blocked for personal attacks. If he cannot deal with a block for making personal attacks he should have not made them to begin with. He has outused the carrots a long time ago. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I am, shocked that you refuse to apologize for blocking someone without any basis. There was no personal attack in the originally contested statement, and four users already told you so. All you do is to repeat yourself, unsupported with any argument. I find that offensive. Socafan 23:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not clear we have exhausted the carrot approach. Dab didn't see his comment as a personal attack and therefore we should assume good faith that didn't intend any such thing. Lets not hold his history against him, lets focus on the incident itself. I think a polite warning should have been tried first before the block, which is excessive. This is, in my view, part of the problem and is feeding a negative cycle. Oppression breeds resistence. He is just rebelling against what he pereceives to be an injustice. This is not wrong. We should back down and start over on a more correct footing. Otherwise we turn a good editor into a real distruptive bad one--even if he was never perfect to begin with. We should not be doing that just for egos. We can admit we are wrong and start over and make Wikipedia happy as that should be our real goal.Giovanni33 04:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't it trouble you that he could make such a comment and fail to see that it is inappropriate? It's not as though he's naive. He's basically said in an RfC on his behaviour that he knows he's incivil and he doesn't care. It's an attitute that is readily seen in his evasion of this block: "my opinion is more important than Wikipedia policy and other editors".

The question is: does Wikipedia care? Do we just tolerate gross incivility, or do we declare that it's unacceptable? Jakew 14:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

PinchasC, I and several editors do not view Dabljuh's comment as a personal attack. Please explain exactly which words or phrases in Dabljuh's comment you consider to be a personal attack. -- DanBlackham 09:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's debatable as to whether it's a personal attack or simply extremely incivil, but why don't you try wandering into a synagogue and saying "hey, I hear you guys don't want to hear about why your stupid practices should be outlawed"? (That's paraphrased from the comment which I originally reported.) You might want to wrap up warm, because I expect that the air temperature will fall a few degrees. Why? Because it is incredibly insensitive, disrespectful and downright rude. Jakew 14:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a complete distortion of his statement. His statement was a reasonable and thoughtful explanation of why he thinks people may feel offended if the state of their genitals is described in a derogatory way. He used vulgar language, but in no way offensive neither to anyone personal nor to any group. I find your distortion of what he wrote very incivil. Socafan 23:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And if I said pork was delicious, should I be banned for anti-semitism? There will always be topics that certain people are unreasonably sensitive about, but that's no reason to walk on eggshells or to ban people who refuse to. The whole point of Dabljuh's post was to warn a newcomer about how unreasonably sensitive the pro-circ group is, and it's clear that he was correct. Unfortunately, there is still no basis for the original block. Al 19:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing anti-semitic about saying that pork is delicious. Your opinion on the flavour of pork cannot in any way affect other people. Try to find a better example.

As for 'warning people about how unreasonably sensitive' people are, that is itself incivil. You do not, in a civilised discussion about editing an encyclopaedia, 'warn' people about other editors. As a minimum, it's divisive, and - as here - it unfairly misrepresents the editors and the situation. Furthermore, by giving such examples that would clearly violate NPOV, and dismissing objections as bias, it encourages the assumption of bad faith. Jakew 19:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's simply false. It is entirely civil and reasonable to warn people about a pattern of blocks caused by the oversensitivity of others. In a perfect world, there'd be nothing to warn about. Sadly, we do not live in a perfect world. Al 19:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is policy, as is WP:POINT. Dabljuh's blocking was justified on either grounds, and his subsequent block evasion, and insistence that he would only stop evading his block if he was unblocked, only stengthened that. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

COuld you please elaborate on why his statement in any way violated the policies you cited? Vulgar language alone is no reason for a block. Socafan 23:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find the diff in question, so for those who are new to the discussion, here it is. If this was a first-time offense, then there should have been a warning, not a block. (If you can't see why lambasting people's beliefs and opinions is incivil and inflammatory...) However, as this appears to have been part of a pattern, and is not an isolated incident, the block is warranted. Johnleemk | Talk 15:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dabljuh - continued block evasion

Despite being blocked, and despite this having already been extended for evasion, User:Dabljuh continues to evade his block and edit Wikipedia.

I reverted this edit to Talk:Circumcision, and added a polite note to his user talk page, inviting him to add it once his block expires.

He left the following message on my talk page in response:

There is no provision in policy that allows vandalizations of legitimate contribution to wikipedia. In fact, policy explicitely discourages "kicking someone while down" such as personal attacks directed at blocked users. The rules serve to protect everyone, explicitely including blocked users. You appear to have the "Policy is whatever I like it to be" problem. Please stop removing my comments from Talk:Circumcision. One could assume good faith and say "You simply didn't know". But if you do it again you will be reported for disruption of Wikipedia, which may result in you getting blocked for it.

In addition, despite my explicite wishes you have again posted on my user page. Please abstain from this, it is extremely incivil. 213.113.27.69 11:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Jakew 12:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This editor has decided to willfully and repeatedly edit despite being blocked, and has indicated that he has no intention of stopping. Therefore, it's my personal opinion that it is time for an RFArb on this user, focusing specifically on his unacceptable behavior in evading his block. But I might be a little too close to the situation to evaluate that objectively. Would any uninvolved editors and admins care to weigh in on that issue? Nandesuka 14:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If he's going to ignore blocks this flagrantly, I think it may be a good next step. --InShaneee 15:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFArb#Dabljuh. Nandesuka 16:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ais523

Ais523 (talk • contribs) seems to be a sock puppet of some busybody. I refer to my article start in Jimi Tenor. As a non-English and non-perfect user I have enjoyed the welcome-atmoshpere yet. -- Simplicius 17:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF, please. My only encounter with Simplicius (talk · contribs) before this appears to be this, where I {{db-bio}} tagged a very short article with no notability assertion (this is the use of {{db-bio}}). The tag was later removed by a third user who knew about the notability considerations and replaced with {{importance}}. That user's edit summary was (technically is an A7, yes, but this guy is quite well known. Will replace with an {{importance}} tag.) [12], which to me implies there was nothing wrong with the placing of the A7 tag. --ais523 14:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Simplicius (talk · contribs) gave me no warning about this AN/I, and I have only just noticed it. --ais523 13:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sussexman

I call Administrators attention to a discussion on the Gregory Lauder Frost Talk Page which is rapidly spiralling out of control.

• Rubbish. Its what a "Talk" page is for. 86.129.79.148 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. 81.131.58.28 11:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Sussexman has used this talk forum in order to make a series of barely concealed legal threats against me on the grounds that I have made mention of a criminal conviction obtained by the subject Gregory Lauder Frost which in my opinion and the opinion of other administrators is essential to a fairer understanding of the article.

• I am happy to act as an investigator here. Sussexman has not "legally threatened" anyone. What he has attempted to do is to make clear the legal implications. I cannot see that he personally has said that he is acting for anyone or that he personally is personally "threatening" anyone. 86.129.79.148 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The debate has also spilled over on to other sections of the web and it appears that Mr Lauder Frost himself has intervened: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conservativedemocrats/message/8915?l=1 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conservativedemocrats/message/8973?l=1 http://www.quicktopic.com/16/H/XCG9j5kNnxPaa (Message on this site is a little hard to find, you have to keep flicking through the list so I shall reproduce it here) You don't have to look far on the WWW to discover that these Reds on Wikipedia have smeared a lot of people. We should be complaining about this organisation's Tax-free status to: Internal Revenue Service, Exempt Organizations Determination, P.O.Box 2508, Cincinatti, OH 45201. 60 pence for an airmail letter is a small price to pay in the battle against The Left. Who said communism is dead?

• This complaint by Chilvers is against Sussexman. Not one of the above quotes which are not from the Wikipedia are by him, or by Lauder-Frost. So what is the point here? 86.129.79.148 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot find Sussexman or GLF making any comments about Wikipedia. This is a smear. 81.131.58.28 11:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sussexman#Regarding_banning

• What is the relevance of this link? 86.129.79.148 20:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be kind enough to mediate in this matter? User:Edchilvers

It appears (from the article's Talk page that it was suggested by another editor, User:HOTR, that Ed come here in order that he might reference Sussex's legal threats and incivility. SlimV, Fred Bauder, JzG, and other admins seem to be active in editing the article and discussing edits and user conduct on the article's talk page, so I'm inclined to think Ed's concerns might be better directed to them; they are, I think, already intimately familiar with the situation. AFAICT, Sussex has made legal threats (although, in this case, the new off-wiki comments guideline shouldn't apply; he has made on-wiki threats); many on the talk page, though, also seem to think Ed's been inserting material inappropriately (though I disagree), so I think this is a situation best dealt with my those who are well acquainted with the discussion. Joe 18:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In the past hour I have received the following threatening message on my talk page: Good, 81.131. Let's hope that our British compatriot will be held to account for his activities. 86.129.79.148 17:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC) (Under section "Your points answered") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Edchilvers

• The problem with Chilvers is he came onto Wikipedia as part of his off-Wikipedia campaign (all to evident on Google - just type in Ed Chilvers) and has gone into overdrive smearing people, vandalising articles, etc etc. Hoping for something is not yet a crime or a threat. Or is it? He can give it but he cannot take it. 86.129.79.148 20:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I also feel the need to point out that an outstanding editor,User:Humansdorpie has been hounded to quit Wikipedia altogether after a series of disgraceful legal threats made against him on his talk page by supporters of Mr Lauder Frost: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Humansdorpie#Gregory_Lauder-Frost (See sections 'Gregory lauder Frost') User:Edchilvers

• I have been on Wikipedia for about six months. I have witnessed more bullying, unnecessary smearing, biased attacks on articles, by politically motivated Users than anything Sussexman or GLF's supporters ever dreamt of. Humansdorpie made his fair share of irrelevant and sneering remarks and got a robust response. If he has drifted off it is of his own accord. One might say don't give it, Mr.Chilvers, if you cannot take it. 86.129.79.148 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, I wish to give my support to Sussexman who, unlike troublemaker Chilvers, has obviously done substantial research on the many good contributions to Wikipedia articles. He has defended Gregory Lauder-Frost's natural civil and human rights out of respect he had for someone he was familiar with and clearly respected some 15 years ago. That is all. 86.129.79.148 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

To repeat what I posted on Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost:

I would like to point out that veiled threats by indirection are in my opinion still threats. I would urge Sussexman and sundry IP contributors to avoid anything along those lines. Further, I would encourage the cessation of personal characterisations of other Wikipedia contributors. Bluntly, it is going to do you no good and will simply serve to weaken your argument among Wikipedians neutral to your conflict, regardless of their appeal to your own factions. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Then I must repeat also what I said on that page:

I hear what you say, but are you saying that anyone who supports GLF should just lie down and take everything that is often very provocatively thrown at them and various other articles on Wikipedia? As for "sundry IP contributors" most people with their funny titles (HOTR, et al) are 100% anonymous to the rest of us and act with impunity. Why does not having a funny name make us second-class citizens here? I am not appealing to any "faction" but to commonsence decency. 86.129.79.148 20:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

To sum up (more detail on that page), my response is that you look better than an opponent if you comport yourself with dignity and do not stoop to their level. While IPs are no more anonymous than usernames, I have trouble distinguishing one from another and prefer addressing people who give me a name to use - my personal preference. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, having seen the venom with which 86.129.79.148 has just attacked myself and anybody who agrees with my line I may as well rest my case

User:Edchilvers

Not venom but simple facts. After all, it is you who came onto Wikipedia with your campaign, prompted deletion nominations for three different biographical articles, and called for smearing materials to be inserted into them. Naturally you inspire anger in all decent men. 86.129.75.212 05:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• I too wish to give my fullest support to Sussexman. All he has done is to advise malicious posters that they are breaking UK laws. He has not personally threatened anyone. How could he? You'd think people would be grateful for the advice. But the smearers have an agenda. 81.131.58.28 11:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• For values of advise which include offering novel interpretations. Just zis Guy you know? 13:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:71.158.149.97 and Amber Benson and Rick Berman

I removed some gossip about Amber Benson's personal life, which User:71.158.149.97 reverted see here, and then presumed to 'warn' me about it. Inspection of the "sources" indicated they are not even vaguely reliable. I notice also this user had a week ago posted an unsourced serious libel of Rick Berman here - I've never even heard that rumour before. I'm going to bed - can someone keep an eye on this person. Morwen - Talk 00:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The user User:Cuthbert11, presumably the same person, then proceeded to warn me again that I would be 'blocked' if I reverted again. Since I have no inclination to play games at the moment, and don't take idle threats kindly, I have blocked them for 24 hours. Morwen - Talk 00:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who post these kind of libellous statements on Wikipedia without having reliable sources to back themselves up are a dangerous to Wikpedia. The IMDB message boards are not reliable sources when adding such information regarding someone's personal life. Morwen is right to block this user, who should stay blocked in my opinion until they truly understand the concept of reliable sources. If the Seigenthaler incident taught us anything, it should be that we should not post this kind of information about a person unless we can get some truly reliable sources to back us up. jaco♫plane 01:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any block in their history. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked the user: the IP autoblocker would have got the IP. Morwen - Talk 09:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

B&B are not exactly popular among devoted Star Trek fans ... so it's no particular surprise that stupid vandalism shows up. I occasionally used to hang out on Star Trek message boards and I've never heard anything like that "rumor" ... (it's well known that Lt. Hawk was going to be gay ... but the reason given in the vandalism for not mentioning his sexuality is patently silly) ... probably from a disgruntled fan who wishes Paramount would clean house and get some decent writers and producers in there BigDT 03:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And certainly we didn't have a source for crap like "on her official message board are immediately removed and denied, as are similar references here on Wikipedia (her entry is continually edited to eliminate such information; see page history for details)." !!! The tv.com page referenced does not appear to be fact-checked, and certainly isn't a source in itself: they get their trivia from user submissions and might check it - but how much? TV.com's credits and 'biography' page are probably more reliable. And I simply can't believe anyone is proposing using "amiiannoying.com" as s source : in this particular case it says "Credit: Julie C", who doesn't appear to even be a regular poster, having submitted only that page as far as I can tell. Who did fact checking?

Bizarrely a new user User:Cheezypoofs has requested I enter into mediation over this issue! Morwen - Talk 09:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

OMG cheezypoofs? That's funny (and totally irrelevant, sorry, Friday File); that's a 'word' used by the botts who spam the yahoo!chess boards trying to get people to pay to watch them on cam, lol.--Anchoress 21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unethical Behavior and Possible NPA Violations

On the Laura Ingraham talk page, user Sandover has repeatedly cited a temporary block that I had to serve. This is not relevant to the discussion and is merely being used to fallaciously discredit me [13],

On top of that, and mainly the reason I'm here, I've discovered some underhanded methods on the Keith Olberman talk page[14].

I have addressed this on the Laura Ingraham talk page for full disclosure [15].

I look forward to your input. Haizum 07:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this needs administrative action. I deleted my former statement, and replaced it with this; I realized I needed to be more concise and will bring the specifics up later. There have been numerous AGF, NOR and NPA violations as well as a refusal to listen to fellow editors' input. Karwynn 20:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blu Aardvark: wait for the ArbCom to decide or reblock now?

Blu Aardvark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who is presently unblocked while his ArbCom case is in process, has declared that he no longer wishes to return to Wikipedia and wants ArbCom to drop his case. It seems like he has some newfound animosity towards some editors because of something that was said on IRC, or I dunno why, it doesn't much matter, right? The point is, if Blu Aardvark no longer wishes to move towards becoming a productive editor, the account should go back on the block list. I have made a motion in his ArbCom case, but maybe it should be done sooner rather than later. The ArbCom did ban him from editing any pages other than his talk page and case page, yet he has been demanding apologies from Kelly Martin on her talk page. This seems to me to be a violation of the ArbCom injunction. What do you think? -lethe ^{talk +} 11:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Without knowing much about the ins and outs, it seems he was unblocked to participate in the RFArb, and has now expressed a wish to leave Wikipedia altogether. As he is no longer participating in the case, I would imagine that re-blocking his account would be the correct choice. Any possible violation of the injunction is irrelevant. But I would suggest hold off until the ArbComm make a decision. If he starts vandalising, then a reinstatement of the block would, of course, be in order. Proto||type 12:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If he violates the injunction, block him immediately. Otherwise, just leave it up to ArbCom, even if he has left. Better to do it by the book ... because we all know what happened with him the last time when we didn't. --Cyde↔Weys 13:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough then. -lethe ^{talk +} 13:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block message problem

Some blocks in the block log are set at 'infinite', when it should be indefinite. --Sunholm(talk) 13:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Its always been 'infinite' for indef blocks, as far as I can remember. Syrthiss 13:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There was misabuse of the word "infinite" for a couple of days in the relevant Mediawiki page. It has since been set back to "indefinite", which is, in fact, what it usually is. -Splash - tk 13:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{PAGENAME}}, {{PAGENAMEE}}, and {{PAGENAMEEE}}

moved to WP:VPT#.7B.7BPAGENAME.7D.7D_.7B.7BPAGENAMEE.7D.7D_and_.7B.7BPAGENAMEEE.7D.7D

--GeorgeMoney ^T·C 04:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block User:84.194.99.177 ASAP ?

This is an anonymous IP used by User:Timburhelgi, User:limowreched, Braekmans, etc... (all the same troll, the author and inventor of High Icelandic) Blanked about 5 pages: talk pages, Wikipedia: Archive pages, etc... See contributions: [16].

This guy has many sockpuppets blocked on the NL and EN wiki, only has HEAVY personal attacks and blanking pages under this IP. Please no patience with this guy. Is there someone in the admin team who can follow this up closely and who I may contact when he returns with a different name... cause his been active for days again now, without any action whatsoever; and he's been promising for months he'll continue "attacking wikipedia"

You might ask admins on the NL-wiki to confirm the history of this guy.

I hope some quick action is taken. Regards --LimoWreck 14:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The IP is blocked for 24 hours now. --HappyCamper 14:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, although I'm afraid this won't be enough (as long as he keeps this +/- dynamic IP). We'll see... --LimoWreck 14:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk more about this on your talk page? There are some other things I'd like to follow up with. It's somewhat more complicated than what a typical IP does on Wikipedia. --HappyCamper 14:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've been following this case since a few months when he started making trouble on the NL-wiki; so if you have any question about this guy, feel free to ask --LimoWreck 14:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User: Bradyp continues to blank pages

Just ran into another page blanked by Bradyp, and from his talk page it's apparent he has a history of doing it to pages. He's hit The Long, Hot Summer several times according to history. Kammat 15:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, looked this over and saw that he indeed has a history of page blanking. I blocked him for 48 hours for now, but I'm at work and don't have time to really look into his activities so somebody else may want to really go over his edits and detemrine whether a stronger action needs to be taken. – ClockworkSoul 15:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • A quick check of his contributions indicate page blanking ([17]) is all he does ([18]). I've permanently blocked him. Proto///type 15:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I must commend you on your quick and thorough action.Sweet Pete 17:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Justice Court

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Justice Court. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malfunction may cause sock problem/ also will not allow people to remained logged in

I have had a ongoing malfunction that is causing my sig. to foul up and will also not allow me to remained logged in. I have done everything on my end to try to clear up this malfunction.

The malfunction is this:

I log on as "Martial Law", which is the correct designation, only that this: 66.82.9.69 appears. When this first hit, I have reported it to the techs and other pertainable personnel. Was told that someone may know what is going on. The malfunction is also not allowing me to remain logged in at all. Others have also experienced this malfunction as well. A Tropical storm had just visited FL. Wikipedia servers are in FL. Are any of the servers damaged ? 66.82.9.69 18:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be only local to you, so it wouldn't be a server problem. Have you tried clearing your cookies, especially the ones for Wikipedia? User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

My settings were not adjusted correcty. You may have the same functionality decrease.Sweet Pete 18:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I also forgot to adjust my pcb port. You may wish to tryit!Sweet Pete 18:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mais oui! stalking and blindly reverting

Right, I don't wish to violate the 3RR, but this is getting rediculous. User:Mais oui! has recently gone around blindly reverting lots of my previous edits, many of which were on pages that the user has never edited before. The edit summaries usually consist of personal attacks and blatant falsehoods such as "restore accuracy". Here is a recent list of these edit stalking revisions, including one of my archived talk page:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brynmawr&curid=556346&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Riding_of_Yorkshire&curid=153612&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Scotland_counties&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangor%2C_Wales&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marches&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Owain/archive3&curid=4214825&action=history

Please can this be stopped, it is very childish (assuming this page itself isn't reverted). Owain (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt calling him a "rabid Scottish nationalist" is helping anything. --InShaneee 19:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't you get frustrated if your edits were being stalked and blindly reverted? I have been accused of being a vandal, sockpuppet, persistent abuser, County Watch propagandist, &c. Mais oui! IS a Scottish Nationalist as is clearly evident by continual attempts to remove United Kingdom references from Scottish articles. That is not the issue at hand, it is the edit stalking and blind reverting. Owain (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive89#Block_of_User:MonMan, and the following section. --Mais oui! 19:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What is that supposed to prove? Owain (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That you've been shown to use sockpuppets malaciously to win debates. --InShaneee 20:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Allen Hulse article

Recently, the David Allen Hulse article was deleted although I contested it and posted comments. I was working on adding info to his biography when it was deleted! Can this be done? I wasnt notified as to why it was deleted or anything. There wasnt even a vote/survey that I was aware of. Any comments will be appreciated. Zos 20:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The article was deleted by admin User:JDoorjam as a non-notable biography. Please see our criteria at WP:BIO for notability, and our policy at WP:CSD as to what can be speedily deleted. There was nothing in the article which even asserted any notability. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it did mention that the article's subject was the author of four published books. I would have counted that as an assertion of notability. Jkelly 21:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Only if there were proof that the books had sold over 5000 copies (at least one of them). User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You can re-create the article if you can place within it enough information to let us know why he is notable (look at the criteria Zoe posted) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have pasted the article content into User:SynergeticMaggot/sandbox, in case you didn't keep an offline copy. Jkelly 21:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing this. Not to prolong this or anything, but now I need to cite how many copies he's sold? I feel this is a bit extreme. Just because a few people havent heard of the author, doesnt mean that he is not a worthy source. While I understand why this article was deleted, it does appear that requiring 5000 of his books to be sold merits some bias. He has had 4 books published. WP:BIO is a guideline, not a policy. I feel that this is a wrongful deletion and I quote Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Articles:

• Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion.

I was getting ready to add to the page, previously stated here, and on the talk page of the article in question, so I do no see why this was deleted so fast.

• The "Speedy deletion" policy governs limited cases where Wikipedia administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media "on sight" without further debate, as in the cases of patent nonsense or pure vandalism.

This is also not the case. So I feel I can reopen the article, to add more to it, without using the sandbox. My first comment on the talk page was a request for other who have book sources for his bio to please add to it.

I will wait for futher comments. Thanks. Zos 23:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please only re-add it if he has sold at least 5000 copies of one of his books. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a policy on this statement. Where does Wikipedia say this on WP:BIO or WP:CSD? Zos 23:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It used to, that seems to have disappeared. However, it does say Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work . User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes and its also a guideline, and I do not have to submit to it. So thanks for commenting, but the page will in fact be reinstated unless an actual policy is stated to me. I've already requested that the admin who deleted it comment on the wp:ani page, but alas, he is on wiki-break. I'll continue to add to it in the sandbox until I feel it has enough context. Zos 02:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, Zos, please don't be rude about this. I disagreed with the speedy delete, but the article that was deleted was, in fact, completely unreferenced. Refusing to follow Wikipedia guidelines when writing articles will, in fact, lead to their deletion or avoidable disputes. If one of your readers, in this case Zoe, is telling you that they're not absolutely clear that the article belongs in Wikipedia, that should be a clear indication that the article needs work. We are, in fact, trying to write a great encyclopedia here. Jkelly 02:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Continued at User talk:SynergeticMaggot/sandbox -- JDoorjam Talk 02:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If we block AOL, the terrorists win...

Today has been especially active for folks incorrectly blocking AOL proxies. User:Can't Sleep Clown Will Eat Me blocked the IP range, and Curp's bot got a few users who resolved to AOL, and Drini blocked some IP's that resolve to AOL. The point is that at least one of the vandals operating from AOL appears to know that being blocked is going to result in damage to the project. He's counting on it. In other words, when people blindly reach for the indefinite blocks or the big blocks on him, that's actually accomplishing his vandalism and giving him his jollies. Again, if the IP resolves to AOL, please don't block for more than :15. I know they're pests. I know AOL sucks. I know that AOL shouldn't have access to the Internet. All of that is true, but there is nothing we can do about it except use SProtect more and debate whether or not the autoblocker should hit logged in users. (If it doesn't, the AOL problem is lessened, but the sockpuppet catching is destroyed.) Geogre 20:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that checkuser abilities be given to every admin? How are admins supposed to know that the username they're blocking is editing via AOL? --Carnildo 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is mostly about range blocks, I think, which can't be done on usernames anyway. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. We cannot semi-protect each and every article that an AOL vandal touches. If there is evidence that some roaming AOL vandal is systematically hitting articles within a finite AOL range, it is completely reasonable to block that range, temporarily, for 15 minutes. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how bad is the collateral damage from AOL blocks? I mean, is it really bad enough that a vandal would have that as his intended goal? I know that Geogre has gotten fucked by AOL blockover, but how many logged in editors does it happen to? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? -lethe ^{talk +} 21:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

An interesting question, I know I check and undo some of the more obvious AOL autoblocks each day and often they've been outstanding for an hour or two and no one has reported them anywhere, other times with a few minutes of the autoblock someone has place a {{unblock}} request relating to it. --pgk^(talk) 21:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

we are pretty sure some vandels are motivated by trying to get AOL blocked.Geni 21:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

When someone is being deliberate about, they can be a very serious pain. -Splash - tk 01:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As a note to this, User:Benon has showed me a quite nifty trick to clear up AOL autoblocks; simply block all of the the AOL IP ranges for 1 second. I'm also working on a script currently to make this easier. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note still check the ip block list after you do this occasionally an autoblock or two still sneaks through Benon 01:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

oh, not that again, I'm sorry, but the 1 second range blocks don't have any effect on autoblocks, this is one very unfortunate rumor--152.163.100.65 02:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment I hope my history shows I am a good editor despite/because of my use of AOL (and I'm a Brit, I mean honestly...) Anyway, I am all in favour of assisting in the blocking of vandals and general trouble makers, and whilst I have been struck down by "collatoral damage" in the past and not been happy with it, I understand it is all down to being an AOL user. If I am stopped from editing for a short while then it is understandable; I know the problem will be resolved in time. I would rather know something was being done to stop the vandals than leaving AOL alone. doktorb | words 23:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Why can't we do what Wiktionary does with AOL? Scale? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

simply because its brutal on the servers, en wikipedia is by far the largets foundation wiki and the servers would groan Benon 01:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Then we need to do what any sane operation would do -- prohibit anonymous edits from AOL. Anonymity is one thing; complete irresponsibility in any way for ones actions is another. (Reminds me of when, at eBay, we realized we had to treat AOL customers quite differently) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit of a reach.. Look at it this way: Would blocking all AOL users cut down on vandalism? yes, obviously. Would blocking all users period cut down on an even larger amount of vandalism? Even bigger YES.. so why don't we do the latter? I think the answer is pretty obvious--152.163.100.65 03:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Beg pardon? Did I suggest what you are reducing to absurdity? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, last I heard wikitionary had banned all AOL ranges, even the static ones, guess I never checked back to see if that was still true, still the .js they seem to be using to block AOL edit access is very messy, almost browser crashingly so, which would almost certianly be too large a drain on en.wiki's server resources anyway--152.163.100.65 04:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I expect the problem comes from the fact that Wiktionary demands AOL editors use HTTPS, which is exponentially harder on the server than plain HTTP. - SoM 04:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It sometimes sounds to me as if AOL is one big open proxy.... And yes, we might want to take a different approach to that. :-/ -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] less drastic solutions

template:AOLdos finally works, complete with media wiki autoblock indicator (with a little help from PAGENAMEEE), if someone could volunteer to watch this category and undu and mass autoblock sprees, the problem would be a lot easier to deal with, now that the template is finally able to link to a complete list of autoblocks--152.163.100.65 03:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] problem with PAWiki

Wikipedia,

I'm just beginning to learn about your site and how to edit it. A few hours after I first edited the Emmaus High School, Emmaus, PA section, "PAWiki" deleted my comments without ground, etiquette or civility. I then went to "PAWiki"'s discussion area after viewing the history. Apparently other people have had trouble with this person. I just wanted to infom Wikipedia that I am very upset in my first efforts to contribute because of "PAWiki"s actions. My letter to the user who deleted my info is as follows:

to PAWiki-

Thanks (sarcastic) for deleting my first-ever edits on Wikipedia site. I put some data on the Emmaus High School page. I added information about Marty Nothstein being a noted alumni as a professional and olympic cyclist, and the Marine Fitness Team frequently being ranked #1 in the nation. I cannot link articles as you requested to my statements- I am a newcomer to Wikipedia. I was a cyclist myself who followed Marty closely in his Olympic debut though, and was on the Marine Fitness team under Coach Gibbs when the team won one of its many national championships. Maybe you are a self-proclaimed know-it-all about Pennsylvania, but you need to go back to college to learn how to deal with people and accept the fact that there are things out there you don't have a grasp of. Please feel free to correct my grammar as you choose- apparently you know everything about that also.

-an outraged first-time Wikipedia user

Although I think that PAWiki was overzealous in deleting the Olympic medalist, the assertion of the marine fitness team's national championships really did need a link to something which verifies the claim. See WP:V for explanation of proofs of claims. I do think that PAWiki should have discussed it first, or at best, put a "citation needed" tag on the article before deleting completely. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zoe. The Marty Nothstein article was a redlink, and I think it's within an editor's discretion to want an article, to establish notability. Your personal involvement with the team is really irrelevant to the article, except that it perhaps makes it a little harder for you to keep this issue in perspective. Obviously more discussion would have been good, but that wasn't a bad edit, and the edit summary was constructive and civil. I think you should try to calm down and realize no offense was intended, and there was nothing personal in the edit. · rodii · 02:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I did need to calm down, and more time and knowledge of the Wikipedia site has helped. I recently read an article about the creator or Wikipedia and how he wants more quality information and less quantity on the site. With that, I'll be sure to do proper research before submitting again. Thank you for your discussion, I'll contribute again sometime. -no longer a first time user

[edit] Five week block for spelling change?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have a few comments:

• Six different admins have blocked this user. This isn't just one admin getting over-zealous.
• Some of his edits have been very blatant vandalism (e.g. [19], [20])
• The user is occasionally very incivil in his edit summaries (e.g. [21])
• This user spends a lot of time in revert wars, often with really strong POV statements such as this one
• This user has almost no productive edits
• The user does not seem to listen to warnings. See the user's talk page

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

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

In the very brief period before he was reblocked, his edit summaries included the misleading "revert vandalism" twice and he tells an editor " "Program" is the preferable spelling, like it or not" [22]. That does not suggest to me that this editor is close to being 'reformed'. Note that "being right" is never an excuse for continuous edit warring (since everyone's right in at least one person's opinion). We have a dispute resolution process for people who think they're right when the other editors don't, and "edit warring" does not feature in any stage. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this conversation leading to consensus to fit the block on User:Pnatt soon, and give him a chance to demonstrate good faith editing? For what it's worth, I'm one of the previous blockers and reached for the Macquarie Dictionary before hitting the block button this time, and decided he is right (I would have kept "programme"). I think Pnatt has the potential to be a good contributor, although he shows poor judgement in selecting the changes to make at times, and certainly needs to learn to step back and take a deep breath instead of stepping forward with fists up. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to say having followed his edits that I see no evidence of good faith whatsoever. All I see is a user who has consistently sought to pick fights, waged edit wars, attacked other users and contributed little of value on WP. The fact that his second action after coming back from a month's block was to pick a fight and start an edit war suggests no evidence whatsoever of good faith. His behaviour has not changed one iota no matter how many warnings and blocks he has had. Do you really believe that removing a block will produce a change? I very much doubt it. If the block is removed the odds are, going by past behaviour, that he will be edit warring within minutes and will end up blocked again almost straight away. Even when blocked he then uses his own talk page to cause so much trouble that that ends up having to be locked repeatedly and users who have had no experience with him before end up leaving messages on his talk page in sheer frustration telling him to stop. Users who cause the amount of trouble, who cause so much edit wars, who get so many warnings and so many blocks in such a small space of time (he has only been on since April) at this stage usually find themselves blocked indefinitely. If he is unblocked, the odds are that we will be back here almost straight away dealing with yet more edit warring by him, with those who have had to deal with him in the past saying "I told you so." If he is let back, it needs to be made clear to him that any more abuse of his position will lead to a long block. But then if a month's block isn't enough to cure him of his edit warring, what length will? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

His second action after coming back from a long block was to correct an error. That wasn't picking a fight or starting an edit war. He quoted sources and was quite justified in his edit. You seem to want to punish him all over again for his actions of five weeks ago, which seems wrong to me, especially as he has stated that he wants to be a good editor from now on. We should aim to talk things over and find a satisfactory solution instead of inflaming a situation.

And with all due respect, your comment that All I see is a user who has consistently sought to pick fights, waged edit wars, attacked other users.. could be seen as the height of hypocrisy. The only difference is that you have contributed a great deal of value and this editor hasn't. But he hasn't had much of a chance, has he? May I suggest that when this user returns, you stick your hands in your pockets? If he is as awful as you say he is, then it will soon become apparent, and you may say "I told you so" with full justification. Personally, I intend to ride at his shoulder and keep him on the right path, if he is at all capable of following it. --Jumbo 23:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Jumbo, you are missing the point. That user didn't simply correct an error. His past behaviour involved edit warring over use of language, spelling and Australian English usage. He had been involved in very bitter exchanges with Xtra. There are over one million articles on Wikipedia, yet he chose the same issue, with the same users, to start off his post-block edits. Going straight back to the very topic that had got him repeatedly warned for his behaviour, picked up where he went off and started yet another row on the issue is tactless to put it mildly. Posting an edit summary revert vandalism by Xtra sums up his approach. It is hard to believe that someone who deliberately targets the same topic after repeated blocks for his behaviour on the issue before, and who seems to target someone he had been rowing with before, is anything other than a troll. He could have edited anywhere on Wikipedia. He chose to go straight back to his old fighting on the same topic with the same users. That pretty much sums up his attitude and explains why he has been repeatedly banned, and going by past behaviour, why he will no doubt be banned again. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in. Am I allowed to ask this editor how old he is? I know, I know, it shouldn't matter but after reading his/her talk page I sense alot of immaturity, sorry dude,dudette...If Jumbo would like to mentor/monitor this editor, that seems like a nice solution, imo. I know there is a definate learning curve to this project, but after repeated attempts at correcting behavoir, the wood has to be layed down it seems. This user says on his talk page "I can't help myself" and that concerns me a little...anyways, I'll butt back out now, thanks! --Tom 14:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to help him become a better editor. I've received friendly assistance in the past and if I can pass some of it on, that's good. We're all volunteers here, and I'm all in favour of co-operation instead of confrontation. --Jumbo 00:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Pnatt has expressed intent to be a good citizen. As we agree, it was an unwise choice of edit for soon after his block, but it turns out that this spelling change has been accepted in those articles once they were considered. Both spellings appear to be acceptable in Australian English, and "program" is listed as the primary one in two different Australian dictionaries, as well as having been the original spelling in at least one of those articles. I feel confident that he knows he is very closely watched, and in fear of being blocked again. A previous version of his user page said he had some sort of compulsive disorder, which perhaps explains the "can't help myself" comment (but does not excuse bad behaviour, only explain it). The debate on this page should be about whether 5 weeks was an appropriate response to this action. Would I have been blocked for making that edit? I have been known to change "kilometer" to "kilometre" in Australian articles without getting myself blocked. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The only way you would have been blocked for that length is if you had received repeated final warnings, had gotten yourself repeatedly blocked five times in almost as many weeks, had ignored each block and when back continued the exact same edit warring against the same people despite appeals to stop, had been told unambiguously that the length of block would climb each time until the provocative edit warring stopped, and after a months block had finished had gone straight back to the exact same edit warring on exactly the same edit war you had been warned about, coupled with posting provocative edit summaries to someone you have been warring with accusing them of vandalism. The issue is not the spelling. It is the behaviour continually since April. Maybe the five week block will finally get it through to him that when users all over the place tell him to stop picking fights and waging edit wars he'd better stop. Or else, as has happened with the various users who have blocked him in the past, the length of block will continue to climb until the fighting and provoking of edit wars stops. All he has to do to stop being blocked is contribute to Wikipedia and work with users. All he has done practically every time is, as soon as a block ends, come in fists first to start off the next round. That was the game behind the spelling change. He starts his fight off that way, and users who was had to deal with him knew immediately that this was no "oh lets correct a spelling". It was round six of his warring, his opening move in the next edit war he wanted to ignite. And that is why, as he had clearly been warned, he was blocked and the length of blocked upped from the last time. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In the face of improving behaviour, handing out ever-longer blocks is hard to justify, as has been demonstrated above. This user made a spelling correction, he was 100% correct in this, and his anger and frustration at being reverted and then blocked are understandable. He's a new editor and I am happy to help him continue to improve. --Jumbo 22:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"improving behaviour"!!! lol He has consistently been getting worse, making less credible edits and trying to provoke more edit wars. Jumping straight back in to restart an edit war on his second edit is anything not improving behaviour. Deliberately posting an edit summary calling the edits someone he rowed regularly in the past made "vandalism" is not evidence of improving behaviour. I'm afraid your efforts to santify someone who has contribution little to Wikipedia but rows, edit wars and who got more warnings and blocks in two months (from a host of users) than most users would get in a decade, is wearing a little thin. He wasn't making a spelling correction. He was, as in the past, trying to provoke an edit war on the topic of language usage. Anyone who had dealt with him in the past knew exactly what his game plan was. They'd seen it over and over again. You, who didn't deal with him, still niavely don't get it and think him some niave little newbie. He behaviour since April shows him to be anything but some niave little newbie but someone constantly edit warring in a provocative way on the same topic and trying every time he gets the chance to restart his battles and attack his critics. Credible users don't spend two months doing that despite constant warnings from everyone to stop. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I should not have to ask an admin to calm down, but please do so. Looking at Pnatt's edits, there is no doubt that he began his wikicareer with some very disturbing edits, but he recently said, "After the recent 4-week block I made a choice that if I wanted to stay on Wikipedia, that I would have to make reliable and factually correct edits." His first act was to correct "programme" to "program". In Australian usage, "program" is the far more widely accepted spelling. That is not provoking an edit war, that is improving our encyclopaedia. The fact that he got reverted and given a very long block was understandably unjust to him, and expressing his indignation a natural thing to do. On examining the example he has been set, who can blame him?

I would like to see how he performs when he returns to editing. If he returns to the behaviour he exhibited at first, then I shall have no hesitation in dropping any support. I have the same repugnance for vandalism and personal attacks as any other editor. But I must ask that he not be antagonised and goaded into misbehaving, especially when he has expressed a desire to follow the righteous path. Let's see if we can turn him into a worthwhile contributor. Please. --Jumbo 00:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jumbo. In the short time between the current and previous blocks, Pnatt demonstrated improved behaviour. He edited three articles, and all of his changes remain in those articles almost two weeks later. Theses are not "less credible edits" as User:jtdirl AKA FearÉIREANN claims. The first two edits had correct and useful edit summaries (3rd and 4th had no summary). User:Xtra (who had previous run-ins with Pnatt) almost immediately reverted the first two edits, also with reasonable edit summaries. Six hours later, things went downhill. Next time, Pnatt will be expected to use a talk page after the first revert, not the third, and to keep his edit summaries civil like he has showed he can. If he stuffs up again, he will have no supporters at all. Past behaviour should not have been used in the decision whether to block, only to decide how long it should be. This time round, a polite reminder note was the appropriate solution, not a block. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree to a certain extent with everyone. Yes, I do see improving behaviour. However, I believe that it is only marginal. It is the difference between a blatant vandal that is blocked on sight to a person that would end up being blocked through a WP:RFAr. Look at the examples of his very recent behaviour such as this personal attack on Jtdirl and this vulgar response to one of his only advocates. Please keep in mind that his most worthwhile edits are changing of spelling. I hope that his behaviour will continue to improve. But at this point, I am not counting on it. -- JamesTeterenko 18:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm rapidly becoming fed up with the behaviour of everyone involved in this. Including myself for poking my curious nose in. Please, could everyone stop provoking each other over such utter trivia? When his block expires, we'll all keep an eye on him and his behaviour will be obvious. What is obvious at the moment is that some of the admins involved are engaging in undiscussed reverts and abuse ("morons" is hardly professional language, Xtra!) and these are the very things that got Pnatt blocked. Understandably he perceives the whole Wikipedia thing as a case of "ignore the rules if you are an admin". --20:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the best thing we can all do is just close this discussion and when the block expires watch his behaviour closely. We can hope for an improvement, though given his recent behaviour since his talk page was unlocked the evidence of it seems thin. With one one page out of one million to edit (his own) he still manages to fight with people! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Israel shamir - anti-semitism and personal attacks

User:Israel shamir, who may or may not be the same person as the subject of the Israel Shamir biographical article has been in an edit war concerning that article.

He has made the following comment on his personal Talk page:

"Don't you think here you guys prove there is a Jewish conspiracy? Or three Jews against one Christian is rather a pogrom? Israel shamir 18:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)"[23]

In my opinion, making a doubly offensive anti-Semitic slur such as this should result in an immediate block - preferably indefinite. Homey 19:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the person for 24 hours (revert warring, incivility) pending further discussion here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If he is not the person of the article, the name should be block for inproper username. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC) After reading his comments, I am pretty sure it is himself. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

He basically seems to accuse anyone who removes the pov passages from the article of being Jews. I am really not sure that Shamir is even notable enough for an encyclopedia article, and especially not such a long one.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think he's notable enough to have an article. I have no reason to believe User:Israel shamir is not Israel Shamir (though, to be frank, there's some debate on whether Israel Shamir is Israel Shamir), I just have no proof that the user and the subject of the article are the same person and don't want to make an assumption either way.

My problem is with this user's anti-Semitic slurs both in asserting a "Jewish conpiracy" and in inverting the historical fact of anti-Jewish pogroms by accusing Jews of launching a pogrom against him, a Christian. He's crossed the line from incivility into base racism and should be blocked indefinitely. Homey 19:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. Accepting Shamir's "philosemite" slurs against editors would be much the same as putting up with a contributor calling opponents "niggerlovers". Also the user has steadily ignored, as far as I can see, the exhortations on his talkpage to say whether he's really Shamir or not, and to either a) stop adding OR and opinions to the article if he is, or to b) change his username if he's not. As for notability, I doubt that he's remotely wellknown even in Sweden where he lives. I'm Swedish and take an interest in these matters, and I haven't heard of him. Bishonen | talk 19:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC).

There's no excuse either way. If User:Israel Shamir really is Israel Shamir, he shouldn't be editing the article on himself per WP:VANITY. If he isn't Israel Shamir, his username is inappropriate and should be indefinitely blocked. Either way, there is no way such a username should ever be editing that article. Kasreyn 19:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. His comments are clearly stupid and offensive, but how is that grounds for an indefinite block? Al 19:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I can imagine saying to some noxious troll, "The community has found you to be stupid and offensive. You have been blocked in perpetuity." Let's do more of that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Judging from his contributions, the editor in question (username issues aside) has already demonstarated sheer contempt for the rules of conduct on Wikipedia, clear unwillingness to improve the quality of Wikipedia as a neutral encyclopedia, and inability to work cooperatively with other editors. I think there is a consensus that Wikipedia will be better off without him. Pecher ^Talk 19:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree woth an indef block at this time. He just has been blocked for the very first time, and to jump immediatly to indef, no go with me, because he could get the point. It is clear that just warning is not going to help, but I will assume good faith and recommend that we see if he improves. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose in good conscience I have to agree that this first block should not be indefinite. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's ignoring the username issue. Jkelly 20:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not think there is an username issue, and that it is indeed himself. Dealing with the person in question at the page about the person in question requires some more tact, because that person on one hand does know MUCH more about himself (Duh!), but also is more likely to want to skew the page in favour of himself. However, just reverting does not help out, as I just found that some links he updated are actually the new versions, and the old links do not go anywhere anymore. I have left some tips at his page, and I hope the other editors will deal with it in a concious way. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. There is a significant username issue, no matter whether he really is Israel Shamir or not. I quote from Wikipedia:Username:

Wikipedia does not allow certain types of usernames, including the following:

Confusing, misleading, or troublesome usernames:

...

Names of well-known living people

Wikipedia:Username is an official policy and it states clearly that usernames must not be the names of well-known living people. The username is not acceptable, regardless of whether it is genuinely him. As far as I can tell, if a famous person wants to edit Wikipedia, they must do so under a pseudonym. Kasreyn 04:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Humm, I always have seen those rules as for using a name that it is not your own name, and I personally do not see anything wrong with having your own name. Otherwise, we should block Jimbo for using a well known name. That does not make sense as far as I can tell. I also recall older discussion in which the question was whether the person of the name was really that famous person, because in that case, it would not be an issue. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The single quote Homey gives seriously understates the problem. A visit to User talk:Israel shamir shows this to be not an isolated remark, but an ongoing mode of discourse. It appears he's not bothered to appear on the talk page of the article itself, instead content to repeatedly revert. Finally, his edits are not just unsourced and stridently POV, but also objectively disruptive, as they insert references to the Jewish editors he's attacked into the article itself:

“He (and this article) is an object of a concentrated attack by many identity-concealing Wikipedia-based philosemites.”[24]

Israel Shamir is a writer and journalist who demands full equality of Jew and goy, everywhere from Palestine to New York. Such demand is considered antisemitic by Jews who are used to privilege. That is why Jewish critics and other philosemites created a Black legend around Shamir positively demonising him. The main source for the black legend is the string of ADL- related Jewish publications from Expo in Sweden to Searchlight in England. Here in the Wiki, where the Jewish presence is as great as anywhere, you can find a lot of sick stuff about Shamir.”[25]

Simply outrageous. I see no reason to believe that he will ever contribute positively to wikipedia.Timothy Usher 04:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I also direct readers to WP:ANI#Proposal for an indefinite block on FairNBalanced, where a one-week block has already been applied for uploading the photograph of a pig wih the word "God" written upon it into his userspace, which is called hate speech. Meanwhile one who openly and relentlessly attacks other editors and Jews generally, even inserting these attacks into mainspace, with no visible good-faith contributions whatsoever, is being given the generous benefit of a non-existent doubt. Appalling.Timothy Usher 04:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for 24 ours pending discussion here. I have no problem if another admin extends the block, or when there is clear consensus that it should be extended, I would do it myself. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Are there reputable and reliable sources that even mention this guy? I tend to think that someone that would spend this much time acting crazy and editing his own article on an online encyclopedia is probably not notable enough for an article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The thread is getting long, so you may not have noticed my comment above: "... I doubt that he's remotely wellknown even in Sweden where he lives. I'm Swedish and take an interest in these matters, and I haven't heard of him." Bishonen | talk 09:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC).

That is a separate issue. The issue here is this user, and any way you slice it he does not belong as an editor here. His comments were deeply offensive even to a parochial school kid like me. The comparison with the swift axe falling on FairNBalanced, an editor who contributed often and in good faith in congrast to "Israel shamir," is well-taken. --Mantanmoreland 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time today to go into much more depth than others already have on this issue, but I have to say Timothy Usher's analysis hits the bulls eye. "Outrageous is only appropriate because a stronger word doesn't exsist...and outrageous leads to only one conclusion: this guy is unacceptable. If we can't get non-trolling unanimity that he should be blocked indefinitely at this point as a useless editor, I don't see that he'll be with us much longer anyways...if we're not going to all agree, we may as well just stop talking about whether or not we should, right now, and just let the blocks get longer and longer until he's finally booted permanently. From what I'm seeing, dragging it out like that does nothing but give him more opportunities to disrupt WP and wastes a great deal of other editors' time.

The username is a separate issue--WP:Vanity quite clearly prohibits him, if he is "Shamir", from editing the article (but not its talkpage, which he hasn't bothered to do)... if he is not Shamir, he shouldn't be editing any article as User:Israel shamir nor as User:Israel Shamir. If anyone can ascertain that he is Shamir, then he has to be told in no uncertain terms that he is prohibited from editing Israel Shamir, and blocked as appropriate for violation. If he is not Shamir, then the account should be blocked until the real Shamir stands up. Cheers, Tomer^talk 22:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This user continues to revert war at his eponymous article, continually re-inserting a massively POV version. - Merzbow 00:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for a week for immediatly continuation of revert warring despite being warned etc, and in line with the nmore general sentiment here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Kim, somebody — I presume Shamir himself — has neverteless reverted Israel Shamir to Shamir's preferred version, first RhinoRick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and then 86.139.10.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). I have blocked the RhinoRick sock but don't know what's best to do about the IP (except revert it). Time for an indefinite block of this disruptive individual? Or does anybody doubt that those are his socks? Meanwhile I've semiprotected the article so other editors have a chance to actually work on it. Bishonen | talk 11:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC).

If hw goes on like this, I think he will be very soon indef blocked because of the disruptive nature. Having said that, I think the article does need a serious rewrite, and some information should be deleted as based on very unreliable sources. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is a new disruption, which I've reported at the bottom of the page. I say that one tips over the scales towards an indefinite block; what say ye? Discuss at the bottom of the page please, as that's where people will notice. Bishonen | talk 16:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

[edit] 69ersforever (talk · contribs)

69ersforever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Made some edits of vandalism with a possibly inappropriate username. Yanksox 22:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Indef-blocked by me. Jkelly 02:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that's a little extreme? I can't see anything wrong with the user name at all, and an indefinite block for what, 6 bad edits seems overly harsh. I would have blocked him for a few hours at most. Exploding Boy 00:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a play on the SF 49ers football team. So what if the number is 69? If you find that perverted, it's in your own mind. 69 is a number you know. Haizum 08:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, it may not have anything to do with the 49ers or sex (although both are good guesses). If you google '69ers', there are oodles of hits including this one, a motorcycle gang [sorry, club]. I agree that on the sex front it's a pretty weak criticism, but isn't there a rule about alluding to proper names?--Anchoress 08:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I'll say one thing for those "69'ers," they're guilty not only of the wanton misuse of apostrophes, but of egregiously bad web design. As for the user in question and her/his name, I don't think the average reader is going to associate the name with some obscure motorcycle club. I still think an indefinite block was extreme in this case. Exploding Boy 00:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it was intended for vandalism based on the term[26][27][28] Yanksox ^(talk) 01:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think so too. But even so, an indefinite (in other words: permanent) block for six bad edits seems extreme. Certainly as it appears to have been his first block. Exploding Boy 03:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't even notice that there was a conversation about this. I don't understand the American football comment (off by twenty?), but it was pretty clearly a vandal account. Regardless, if someone wants to unblock, they should feel free to. Jkelly 02:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If In The Future If I Should Happen To Have A Complaint

Such as my jerk/ex friend Sid that stole my passcode! I'm afraid he may vandalize, is this where I report it?MarkMcGavel 19:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Change your password, in case of vandalism (by any person) the account will likely be blocked. Conscious 19:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Sid" must be quick, since the account only started contributing today. Could this be your famous "ANI troll?" - David Oberst 19:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup. --InShaneee 00:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Here I thought the AN/I troll was quoting a missing Italo Calvino novel title. Geogre 12:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Geogre, dear Geogre, you have no complaint,

You are what you are, and you ain't what you ain't,

So listen up buddy, and listen up good,

Stop wishin' for bad luck and knockin' on wood.

Bishonen | talk 21:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Ongoing sock warfare over Rajput articles

The other day I reported edit-warring abuse by Tatra (talk · contribs), probably a "Rajput" sockpuppet, which lead to an indef block by User:Tony Sidaway ([29]). He was back yesterday with a new throwaway account, Y not (talk · contribs), making the same series of rapid blind reverts (and removing the sockpuppet warning from User:Tatra.) He seems to have access to some automated editing script that lets him make dozens of reverts in a few minutes. Is there anything to stop him creating new socks of this kind every day? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked this guy for 24 hours and rolled back his edits. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to take this to a vandalism forum in future, and cite the Rajput arbitration case as justification for treating these apparently mechanised edits as vandlism.

The reason I didn't block for longer is that I'd rather he waited out the block and restarted from the same (easily identifiable) user, until he gets bored and goes somewhere else. --Tony Sidaway 03:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:67.22.244.93 on Shock site

Hey -- can someone please help me out with this? Through the course of discussion on Talk:Shock site and Talk:List of shock sites before the two pages were merged, we've built some consensus about certain sites. One site in particular, "porkhole," we rejected because it gets very few Google hits, a puny Alexa rank, and we didn't have any sources for it. However, a particular anonymous user, User:67.22.144.93, has added "porkhole" back to the article at least 2 dozen times in the last month. The first several times when I reverted this, I have asked in the edit summary for discussion to be made. Eventually, I started leaving spam warnings on the user's talk page (after all the pleas for discussion, I figured this person must be trying to promote the porkhole site for whatever reason). Earlier today, the user finally asked me on my talk page why I was opposing porkhole, and I explained thoroughly on his/her talk page: basically, the reasons we had for the consensus, and that they should enter the discussion instead of just repeatedly adding the site back. Nonetheless, they have continued to add porkhole back to the list. I don't know what should be done, exactly, so I'd like someone to take a look at the situation and do what they can.

As a note, I requested semi-protection for the page a while back and it was denied. Many other anonymous IP editors have added random non-notable sites to the list that we've had to revert, on top of this continual re-introduction of porkhole, but it was felt that this wasn't frequent enough to justify semi-protection. Mangojuice^talk 03:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? 67.22.244.93 has added the site back a few more times, and continues to ignore. Mangojuice^talk 23:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AOL mass image vandalism

We have an AOL editor rapidly changing IP addresses who is high-speed adding Image:Mrbelvedere.jpg to multiple articles. I've been doing a great deal of reversion, but the only other solution is to lock down all of AOL, which, although tempting, is not acceptable. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed the same vandal. Do you think lots of short blocks are in order? DVD+ R/W 04:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

He changes addresses with each edit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Per page not per edit, but nevermind that, some days I'm convinced that the majority of AOL must be infested with 3 year olds, or monkeys, it could very easily be monkeys--AOL user 04:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Another AOL editor is doing the same with Image:Sarahvulva.jpg. Any help in keeping an eye out for this guy would be appreceated. -Loren 07:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I've found the most effective way to stop it is to go to Image:Sarahvulva.jpg and check for pages linking to it. With normal user tools it is fairly time consuming, but it tends to get the pages. I second that any help would be appreciated. --Alphachimp ^talk 07:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Notable pattern, the IPs all seem to resolve to the range 207.200.116.* . A short range block might be feasible, but as has been mentioned above, there's the collateral damage issue. -Loren 07:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal has moved on to using Image:Time 100 Jimmy Wales stares and grins.jpg. -Loren 07:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have wizened up and is now inserting random gibberish. [30] -Loren 07:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Found another one: [31] Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taran Rampersad

I have recently put up verify and citeneeded tags on this article where information was not cited through direct citations or through the external links. The user Guettarda informed me that it was an abuse of tags but I feel that it is not so since the info in articles must be verifiable and cited and comply with WP:NOR. Perhaps I am wrong but Guettarda seems defiant on accusing me of Wikistalking which I have been adamantly denying and thus refuses to point me in the direction of the appropriate policy which regards the abuse of tags. I'm not quite sure how to deal with this situation. --Strothra 05:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Replied on Stroth and Guettarda's talk pages, although others should, of course, feel free to offer guidance and assistance. Joe 05:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentally, there is no reason to use {{fact}} when the information is not disputed by anyone and has been affirmed by the subject of the article. Sure, we need sources that meet WP:RS. But we don't need a plethora of tags when the content is not in dispute.

The real issue though is one of harrassment. Strothra (talk · contribs) has been engaging in a campaign of low-level harrassment against TaranRampersad (talk · contribs) for the past couple weeks. The dispute between the two users began when Taran complained about a number of articles that Strothra had listed on AFD. Strothra retaliated by adding {{unreferenced}} to the latest articles that Taran had edited. When I saw that, I told Strothra that behaviour like that is often seen as bad form, and that you shouldn't dig through the contributions of someone with whom you were in conflict - that things like have prompted accusations of Wikistalking in the past.

I hoped that I had defused the issue, but Strothra followed this up by nominating Taran Rampersad for deletion, and seeking out the support of other self-identified deletionists when he got no support at AFD (e.g., [32]). He also continued to harrass Taran to the point where he considered leaving the project (note: while he is not a high volume editor, Taran has been here since early 2003 and has also done much to boost Wikipedia in other fora). I honestly think that Strothra has abused his editing privileges. Despite evidence to the contrary (e.g. [33] [34]), Strothra insists that he has not been in conflict with Taran and is doing nothing wrong. Guettarda 06:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not seek out the support of other deletionists because they were deletionists or because I wanted them to delete the article. I asked Proto (the only said deletionist I contacted) to relist the nom as I felt it merited further discussion. He was not the only admin I requested to do that and I'm not surprised that your usage of my requests is selective as it would damage your argument. [35] Other admins have also seen fit to state that this information needs to be sourced as per my WP:3O request to bring in a neutral third party which Guettarda clearly is not. [36]. Another admin who stepped in on the debate confirmed that as well as my good faith in the AfD on my talk page [37]. I responded that I was willing to resume WP:AGF so long as Guettarda ceased making inflammatory comments and hostile remarks on my talk page - especially accusing me of racism.[38] I am simply trying to edit an article which seems that it may survive my AfD. If it is to exist, I might as well work to improve it in the best way that I can. Seeking help for sources is one way to do that. --Strothra 15:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

AGF doesn't mean "tolerate abuse". You are engaging in harrassment. You insist on inserting {{citationneeded}} tags for claims of nationality on this article, but you see no problem with uncited "claims of nationality" in other articles - not even in articles you are actively editing. In fact, you have inserted uncited weasal words into Jesse Dirkhising. This is transparent harrassment. Guettarda 16:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yousef al-Khattab

Could someone keep an eye on this article, some offensive statements are being used in edit summaries, and I'm trying to avoid a massive revert war. Yanksox ^(talk) 07:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Final warning given to user with offensive edit summaries. And I think User:Hakamia may have more than 3 reverts -- Samir धर्म 07:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The ongoing return of banned user User:PatCheng

I sent this information to JzG to forward to the mailing list, and he suggested I post it here as well (modified a bit):

PatCheng continues to rant and rave in the mailing list at the same time that he is returning via anon IPs to continue his harassment and disruptive revert warring.

You can see on his first ranting [39], among other things, that he was observing the Talk:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi page when I briefly visited it around the time of the reports of his death. He mentions my removal [40] of a clear and unambiguous personal attack on other editors, which was curiously put back in its place by an anon [41] (the entire section was later removed) who was busy traversing through several articles I had edited, whether with my name or anonymously. [42]

This obvious sockpuppet was blocked by Blnguyen, and since that time, two more anon IPs have shown up [43] [44], with all three IPs tracing to the same provider in Australia (where PatCheng admits he is from), [45] [46] [47] doing much the same thing, including straight reverts of content [48] and summary reverts which practically constitute vandalism because of the various fixes involved in my edits. [49] Not only is he not interested in discussion and compromise, much less a quality article, but he should not be editing in the first place given that no one has sanctioned his return.

Let's be clear about what the evidence shows. That the anonymous person in question:

1. Was observing the Talk:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi page in a narrow frame of time.
2. Reinstated the deletion of a personal attack (referenced specifically by PatCheng).
3. Is from Australia.
4. Is revert warring.
5. Has been posting harassing information on ANI and talk pages concerning my IP addresses.

PatCheng is the only person who meets all of these qualifications and has reason to do so.

In other words, he has not merely created blatant sockpuppets to extend his campaign for parole, but he is busy continuing the same disruptive practices that helped to get him blocked in the first place, even as he gives token "apologies" for his behavior and pledges to stop revert warring "as a compromise" for his return. He obviously feels he has the license to behave this way unimpeded in any case, but is on the mailing list simply to seek official sanction from administrators to do so with their blessing. I hope everyone can now see his crocodile tears for what they are. --TJive 07:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major vandal attack

I have just blocked the IP address 81.213.91.227 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) for 2 weeks for malicious vandalism. This user has been making a lot of edits today - adding subtle factual errors, as well as more obvious things such as removal of content and categories or replacing it with nonsense, with misleading editing summaries. See also the deleted history of his talk page. Due to seriousness of his vandalism, I believe a complaint to his Internet provider is in order. - Mike Rosoft 10:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two IPs posting "in my name" to throw mud on me

After I got erroneously blocked for an alleged 3RR violation, two IPs appeared, posting "in my name" stupid messages in order to throw mud on me: [50] [51] [52] I got reblocked for this for "evading blocks" by an admin who got since desysopped. Have any such cases happened before? As obviously only users who knew me would do such things, can the IPs be tracked down? Añoranza 10:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• 70.87.34.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) was probably Thewolfstar again, editing from another backslashing open proxy, judging from this edit and the fact that she has used other proxies from this ISP before (it's blocked now, by the way).Thatcher131 01:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User 213.157.193.136 (aka User:Grandmaster) suspected of avoiding a 3RR block.

I strongly suspect user 213.157.193.136 is User:Grandmaster trying to avoid a 3RR block for his reverts on the [Nagorno-Karabakh] page. User:Grandmaster was blocked at 11:47, June 17, 2006 for violating the 3RR rule by continuously re-adding a "disputed" tag on the Nagorno-Karabakh page. Here is the decision to block him, and here is his latest revert just a short while ago. Just minutes after his blocking (12:18, June 17, 2006), user IP 213.157.193.136 joined the site (see his editting history here) and immediately made exactly the same revert (see here). I would like to ask someone to verify if User:Grandmaster is user IP 213.157.193.136, and take action against him. Here is the history of edits on the Nagorno-Karabakh page. Thank you.--TigranTheGreat 13:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User on WP only to row with someone, and do not editing

BaCK2EssEnce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) This user has contributed nothing to WP; no articles or edits of any sort, other than a bitter rivalry with (an equally bitter) other user. Other than that he has added a non-notable image without sources, removed the orphanbot tag on it (I've now deleted the image) and vandalised the other user's page using obscenities, for which he had now been blocked. Is there a policy on users who join WP simply to engage in fights with another user (at least that other user contributes something, even if some of it gets him into trouble!) and don't actually contribute to WP? Can they be removed from the site? Jtdirl 13:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if their entire contribution list is just vandalism, they can be blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. Kilo-Lima

• 00:41, 18 June 2006 Jtdirl blocked "BaCK2EssEnce (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (account used to fight with users and breach copyright, not edit articles)

We should put this in the blocking policy. --Tony Sidaway 23:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Añoranza

This was brought up previously, I am sorry it seems to be rehashed yet again. Following the users block they have continued to revert articles removing all mention of Operation Iraqi Freedom from wikipedia. I once again ask for an admin to please clarify to me if the policy is that operation names cannot be used anywhere in articles. I am fine with them being removed from titles perhaps, but this user is removing them from the body of the articles now. Two previous discussions took place here [53] and [54]. There seemed to be no decission on if Operation names are allowed in articles or not.

Articles affected:

• Foreign relations of France: [55] Edit summary says accusations are ridiculous, however they are sourced and even linked to another article on Wikipedia. The term Operation Iraqi Freedom is once again revert, however its not mentioned in the summary.
• Martin Dempsey: [56]
• David Kay: [57]
• Norman_Schwarzkopf,_Jr.: [58] the edit summary on this one states they are avoiding a redirect, which one does not exist if you see the link its formatted properly with the | character to prevent redirects
• Napalm: [59]
• Colin Powell: [60]
• Colonialism: [61]
• History of Panama: [62]
• George_H._W._Bush: [63]
• United States Marine Corps: [64]
• Manuel Noriega: [65]
• History of the United States National Security Council 1989-1992: [66]
• Military history of the United States: [67]
• Impostor: [68]
• United States casualties of war: [69]
• American Empire: [70]
• List of battles 1901-2000: [71]
• Urban warfare: [72]
• United States Army Special Forces: [73]

There is actually more, you can see the edit history here [74] Can an admin please tell me if operations names are banned from Wikipedia. Is this permitted mass editing?

The user has even gone on to accuse me again of being a sockpuppet [75] after its been proven twice that I am not here and here I feel these accusations are being made to attack my standing and to intimidate me. The first RFCU stated I was an individual user, the second I requested to put an end to accusations, now this third is just more unfounded accusations. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

User has also said I have made personal attacks against him for reverted the edits he was banned for. --mboverload@ 23:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding redirects is nothing wrong and mass edits are needed on many articles where wrong links are widespread. mboverload, as you well know, you got the NPA warning for the edit summary Reverting editor who has been blocked for his edits concerning this using VandalProof) when reverting the fix of a redirect. Consensus shows my suggestion to move "operation just cause" to a neutral title was completely ok. Añoranza 03:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

An admin will judge after reviewing your contribution history, 2 other users have already asked you to seek concensus before making your edits like this, not after, however you seem to ignore this. There is a discussion going on Anoranza page, hopefully they can reach an understanding with this user as they do not let me participate. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 03:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Añoranza is selectively changing operational names, exclusively those of the United States military. Unfortunately this user is no expert in United States military history, which is a factual observation, not a personal judgement. Haizum 00:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry confirmed but not blocked

CheckUser confirmed sockpuppetry but no action has been taken yet. Anwar 14:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll deal with this. --Yamla 15:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked user URBAN_MEDIA_INC. evading block with sockpuppet

User:WESTCOAST_HEAT-2006 has been established by checkuser as a sockpuppet of blocked user User:URBAN_MEDIA_INC.. Their editing patterns are identical, including editing many of the same pages, removing maintenance tags, blanking pages, and ignoring wikipedia convention and ettiquette (neither user has ever used an edit summary or participated on a Talk page other than URBAN_MEDIA_INC. removing warnings from his or her own Talk page). --ElKevbo 15:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WoW/milkman Possible

IceAndSorm (talk • contribs • email) made a couple of minor vandal edits this morning, and claimed to be WoW and Milkman in the edit summarizations. User:Rickyrab has tagged his page with the WoW template. Can anyone follow up with a block, or confirm the account? Kuru ^talk 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him/her. They seem to have decided not to use the move function, instead the {{title}} template, which is even easier to revert. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AntiVandalBot blocked due to malfunctioning

I hated to do this, but I've blocked AntiVandalBot (talk · contribs) due to malfuctioning. It was reverting edits outside of the article namespace, which it was not supposed to be doing. Several legitimate editors had been warned for testing on the introduction page. [76] [77] Tawkerbot2 also made some reverts outside the main namespace, but I didn't block it since it wasn't making bad reverts unlike AntiVandalBot. After all, we should still have at least one anti-vandalism bot running.

I won't have Internet access for several hours today, so another administrator is welcome to unblock the bot once this issue has been resolved. I've already notified Tawker (talk · contribs) and Cyde (talk · contribs) about the block. --Ixfd64 16:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a recent change we made to increase the number of namespaces it fixed vandalism on, obviously it needs some work, so I've reverted the change and I'm running him just on main namespaces now. --Cyde↔Weys 20:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2 is supposed to handle certain special cases on Wikipedia:Introduction, but certainly the logic being used here is wrong. I've fixed it and checked in the change. Joshbuddy 21:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Awaskow and User:71.126.119.154

User:Awaskow is an apparent sockpuppet of User:71.126.119.154. Both have carried out identical edits to Arthur Waskow, adding or reverting nonsourced, non-notable, self-reverential biographical material. Also User:Awaskow has edited Shalom Center for Peace and Justice, which is run by Arthur Waskow, and removed Arthur Waskow from the list of Jewish communists. User:Awaskow is obviously Arthur Waskow or, far less likely, impersonating him. In either case, this is blatant violation of WP:VAIN, as well as WP:SOCK and, at one point, WP:3RR. Both this user and sockpuppet should be blocked from editing indefinitely, since he is clearly here solely for self-promotional purposes. --Mantanmoreland 17:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Math formula vandal

There are numerous AOL vandals going about doing an "Insertformulahere" formula into pages, all in the 207.200.116.*** range. Please watch out for these. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a continuation of the AOL vandal trying to force a DoS for the last two days. See discussion above under "48 Major Vandalism attack" -Loren 18:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:SteveLo and Western Sahara-related articles

This user has been editing articles to push a pro-Moroccan agenda, reverting without discussion, used an anonymous i.p. to break the 3RR, and threatened to vandalize pages. Please arbitrate and/or block. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 18:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use Images on User:Magicz's Userpage

I removed several fair use images from User:Magicz's user page and informed the user of the policy against fair use images in the userspace. However, nine hours after I removed them, he simply put them back. I didn't want to remove the images again because I don't want to get in an edit war over his userpage (although rightfully I should win), but I feel another notice on the user's talk page won't help much considering it would essentially be the same message posted twice in a row. How is this type of thing supposed to be handled? joturner 19:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted back and left another note. If they continue an edit war to keep unfree content decorating their userpage, let someone know and the userpage can be protected. Jkelly 19:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Fancy double checking that rv - I think you've blasted away other edits too... /wangi 19:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume that your concern is about the updates to the "50 Greatest footballers" list that was lost in my revert. I've replaced the updates, but it isn't clear to me that we should be obliged to make sure that someone's favourite footballers list on their userpage is maintained properly remains a priority over efficient copyright-issue cleanup. Jkelly 19:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to piss in someone else's garden then at least respect the grass & flowers! ;)

(I mean you'd not want to blast away edits normally, so this is no different) /wangi 19:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lucy-marie and counter/anti-clockwise

User:Lucy-marie is repeatedly copying the content of Clockwise and counterclockwise to Clockwise and Anti-clockwise and redirecting all pages related to clockwise and counterclockwise there. She has been told to stop but has not listened. It's not vandalism, as I think she genuinely thinks she's improving the encyclopedia by "fixing" the spelling, so I'm listing it here. TomTheHand 19:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I can back that up. See the history. I left her a note on her talk page yesterday, but she seems to not have listened. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I would think WP:MoS#National varieties of English would be dispositive here; because each term is widely used, there's no reason to depart from the status quo. Even as good-faith editing isn't vandalism, it can nevertheless be disruptive, and blocks can, I think, be appropriate even for users who edit toward the end of improving the encyclopedia (I don't think a block is yet appropriate here, but I can imagine a situation under which a short block to prevent continued disruption might be in order). Joe 23:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it sets a bad precedent to suggest a block for an inconvenient good-faith edit, when editors are in the first instance encouraged to—be bold! Then any edit one disagrees with can be classified as disruptive and administrators would encroach into the editing process in a way which has not been seen as their prerogative. There are established ways of dealing with edit disputes, which is what this appears to be. Tyrenius 00:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a matter of "an inconvenient good-faith edit", but rather repeated edit warring, with literally no attempt at discussion, against Wikipedia policy. She crossed out warnings placed on her talk page and proceeded with a further round of edit warring. I'm not sure that your visions of the oppression of minority opinion are applicable. I agree with Joe that a block would be premature, but I believe that if this proceeds an administrator should at least step in and warn her. TomTheHand 01:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, like Tom, I don't mean to suggest that ill-advised or poorly-made edits ought to result in blocks. Where a user edits in good faith, where disruption concomitant to that editing is avolitional, the net effect of his/her contributions may be disruptive; even as one may make valuable edits to some articles, he/she may also make less-than-constructive edits the reversion/repair of which consumes the time and energy of other editors who might otherwise contribute productively. When a user, irrespective of his/her intentions, proves a baneful influence, the community's patience might be exhausted. Never ought we to block a user simply for his/her non-conversance with the project, but where a user demonstrate profound intransigence in dealing with other editors, eschewing the collaborative process on which the project depends, we've a different. Now, the editing here isn't particularly disruptive; it's fairly easy to revert redirects. If we had, though, a user whose English was so poor as to render his/her contributions less-than-useful, and were he/she apprised of the problem and, whether as a result of intrinsic intractability, intellecutal infirmity, or some other factor, didn't reply to the entreaties of other users and continued to disrupt the project, a block might be in order. This would, I think, be consistent with Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy (not, of course, a guideline or policy), a fundamental assumption of which is that an editor who acts in good faith but cannot help but disrupt the project, having been asked by other editors to stop disrupting, may be blocked indefinitely. Joe 04:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've checked out the article history and relevant discussion pages. It seems to me this dispute is at an early stage and relatively light-weight compared with many of the edit disputes in Wiki, and that there needs to be a lot more discussion first. There is hardly any at the moment. It is a penalty of the collaborative process that these differences occur, and they need patience to address. I don't think it's the best approach to this to talk about good-faith edits which are disruptive, as the same argument could easily be put the other way round. However, this edit is certainly a cause for concern. Tyrenius 13:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bizarre anti-Semitic attacks from User:Halwomack

I blocked new user Halwomack (talk · contribs · block log) for posting bizarre anti-Semitic attacks to my userpage. My assumption was that anyone who believed that his role was to "transcend the present global cruelties of the Jewish-American Tyranny" and that Wikipedia was made up of a "joojingo clique" was probably not somewhat we needed as an editor on here. I suggested he try the White Nationalist Wiki if he was really intent on using a Wiki. I didn't think anyone would mind much but thought I should put a little note here to keep it official and all. --Fastfission 20:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur wholeheartedly. Nothing wrong with that. Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 20:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Womack's a long time Jew-hating crank from usenet. No loss. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Jobjörn is attacking me personally and calling me stupid"; or, "Thewolfstar, episode 2,000"

This editor, Jobjörn has insulted me and called me stupid. here: [patient with new - and in this case, stupid - users] This is not the first time he has personally attacked me. thanks for checking into this. PatriotFirst 21:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not new, you've been editing here since at least March 21. But let's check into it by all means, starting here. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC).

Uh, no. I started editing here a couple of days ago. PatriotFirst 09:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not very nice are you? PatriotFirst 10:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're not supposed to just read and respond to the sentence I wrote , but to click on the links I posted and see what they say. I invite everybody else to do the same. That's where the most interesting stuff is. And if you don't want to be recognized for who you are every time you create a new sock, you should avoid acting so much like yourself. P.S. I have clarified the header. Complaining about PA's isn't what the admins' noticeboard is for, so people are ignoring this thread while it has your heading. My addition may get more attention. Bishonen | talk 11:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

It should be noted that the new and stupid user I was referring to was not User:PatriotFirst, but rather User:Together&forever for his crazy edits and image uploads. Together&forever has now been blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 22:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated attack on Jake Gyllenhaal and editor's pages who had edited it.

Yesterday, I, stevenscollege, and others worked together to produce a section on Jake's friendship with Austin Nichols. Since then, this section has been reverted repeatedly by an IP number, 64.12.116.137, which has also, upon looking at the history, also vandalised many other pages.

Since making our edits, both my and stevenscollege's user pages have been blanked, by 64.12.116.7 for my page and 64.12.116.199 for stevenscollege. Given that the vandalism patterns are the same, and my page has never been vandalised before, I can only conclude that this was the revenge of someone who did not want that edit up there, but knew they couldn't fight consensus. However, because all these IP numbers are used by Aol, I don't know what to do. Can an administrator do something? Jake Gyllenhaal is still being reverted and I've discovered I REALLY don't like my page being vandalised. : ) Dev920 22:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Jake's page has since been edited, in exactly the same way, by Spocks brain, whose contribution list is three Jake edits. Dev920 22:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Spocks brain has just reverted again. Dev920 22:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph referencing defamer.com—please read WP:RS. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright issue

Someone just created this page America's Free-Roaming horses (also commonly referred to as "wild horses"), which has its own issues with the title, wikification etc. It was first created here [78]. It is a direct copy of this page http://www.wildhorsepreservation.com/resources/wild.html, however, the creator claims that he/she has the copyright and waives it. What to do with it? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The author needs to send an email to permissions AT wikimedia.org asserting that the content was created by them and that they are licensing it under a free, reusable license. Or they can just update their website with a copyright notice to that effect. Jkelly 23:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have notified the creator, and taged the page with the copyvio tag for the time being. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Just some additional information: all pages (including the one copied) on www.wildhorsepreservation.com bear the following copyright notice: Copyright © 2004-2005 AWHPC. All rights reserved. Reproduction authorized solely for educational purposes, provided www.wildhorsepreservation.org is credited as source.

[edit] Afd issue

A user listed the disambig page Age of reason on Afd on the grounds that it was blank. At first, I advised a speedy deletion, until I checked the page's history and discovered that an anon had blanked the page a while back. Now I have requested that the article be de-listed from Afd, but the article's deletion discussion was accidently posted on another article's deletion page. Do I have the go-ahead to erase the nomination, or is there some sort of process I should follow?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. (i.e. moved discussion to the right AfD subpage, closed it and listed it so that it gets archived properly). Maybe it could just have been dropped under the table, but this way at least the link in the history of Age of reason works. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. By the way, I alerted the nominee about it.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. If anyone is to be thanked, it is you for noticing the vandalism. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption of Ordo Templi Orientis talk page

User:Imacomp is disrupting the talk page of Ordo Templi Orientis by deleting material and moving material around out of context. Given the contentious discussion, and poor use of nesting tools by some users, this is likely to cause a serious problem as we attempt to move forward with the article.ALR 00:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[79] highlights commentary on the repeated addition of superfluous content counter to consensus.

[80] Deletion of same

[81] Moving said comments in response and decontextualising other comments

[82] Moving comments again

I reverted to improve discussion, followed by

[83] reversion and moving part of my own discussion with User: SynergeticMaggot out of it's context, potentially leading to additional friction considering the difficult discussion between us at present

I moved these comments back into context and bearing in mind Imacomps sensitivity about the suggestion that he is disrupting the article added only this:

[84]

Then removed by Imcaomp [85]

Added again by myself [86] and then removed by Imacomp [87]

Followed by yet another shuffling around of the discussion to include non-seqs within other discussion [88]

ALR I'm sure that people can read for themselves. You make a good case against yourself. PS you did not notify me, but this page is on my watch list now. Imacomp 00:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

ALRkept vandalising my comments by deleting material and moving material around out of context, and adding sections around my comments to take them out of the context I wrote. I only re-set my comments back. Imacomp 00:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've also noticed the problem with Imacomp. He removed my citations on the Hiram Abiff article without discussing it first, nor disputing the source. Zos 01:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Always disscussed, hence ALR here, or else what is this all about? Doh. Imacomp 03:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

(Zos comment not even posted in right place) Imacomp 03:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Imacomp is being unfairly targeted here. He made some good faith edits to the article because he has concerns about the veracity of certain statements in the article. He attempted to introduce cited material to show a contrary view, only to have his material summarily dismissed. While I do think he showed a lack of patience in dealing with this dismissal, I do understand his frustration. A look at the edit history, talk page and talk page history should surfice to show that there is another side to any claim of "disruption". Blueboar 17:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I need an advocate and help with mediation

Greetings,

I need an advocate who will walk me through the mediation process.

I am trying to get the following added to the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Max Tegark is a renown physicist and a PhD profressor of cosmology at MIT. He agrees with my addition. Please note that I have supported everything I wish to add on the talk page of the article, and nothing I wish to add is original research. I only wish I had the ability to do original research in theoretical physics.

For a good explanation of Hugh Everett's Many World Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics please see Michael Clive Price's Hugh Everett FAQ: http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm

Hugh Everett's Interpretation does not add one equation to quantum mechanics. An article filled with equations only obscures the significance of his theory.

I am having problem with an editor by the name of Lethe who follows me around Wikipedia reverting all my edits without commentary.

I have tried reasoning with him on discussion pages, but he refuses to read what I write.

Advantages of MWI

If Hugh Everett's theory was just another interpretation of Quantum Mechanics it would have no followers, especially since it proposes the existence of countless other universes which theoretically can never be observed. Because it is not falsifiable it seemingly violates Popper's criteria for a good scientific theory. The reason it has so many adherents is because it offers numerous advantages over the Copenhagen Interpretation, among which are the following:

1. Quantum mechanics becomes a deterministic theory making it more compatible with the theory of relativity and all other physics theory to date which are all deterministic. The Copenhagen Interpretation introduced indeterminacy and randomness into science. Aside from the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics there is no scientific theory that includes indeterminacy or randomness. Einstein particularly objected to this aspect of the Copenhagen Interpretation. In response to it, he said, "God does not play dice with the universe."

2. It eliminates the "measurement problem."

3. It eliminates Von Neumann's "boundary problem": where to draw the line between the micro world where quantum mechanics applies, and the macro world where it does not. Shortly before his death in 1953, Albert Einstein wrote: "Like the moon has a definite position whether or not we look at the moon, the same must also hold for the atomic objects, as there is no sharp distinction possible between these and macroscopic objects."

4. It eliminates the special place for an observer and human consciousness.

5. It restores objective reality of the universe between measurements. Shortly before his death, Albert Einstein also wrote: "Observation cannot CREATE an element of reality like a position, there must be something contained in the complete description of physical reality which corresponds to the possibility of observing a position, already before the observation has been actually made."

6. The wave-particle duality paradox evaporates. It does away with Bohr's "principle of complimentarity." It simply and naturally explains the double-slit experiment. Richard Feynman said, "[the double-slit experiment] has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." David Deutcsh wrote: ". . . the argument for the many worlds was won with the double-slit experiment."

7. Schrodinger's Cat paradox evaporates.

Einstein's main objections with quantum mechanics had more to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation, than with quantum mechanics itself. While MWI does not quite generate the kinds of worlds necessary to justify the anthropic principle, it is a step on the way to Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal and Max Tegmark's All Universe Hypothesis which do justify the anthropic principle.

John Wheeler was Everett's thesis advisor. He put his name on Everett's thesis, but later criticized it as "carrying too much metaphysical baggage." Hugh Everett left physics because of the poor reception his theory received. It initially attracted no followers and was largely ignored. It gained adhereants in the 1980s, and today is considered a mainstream interprepation.

Michael D. Wolok 18:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Voice of Sanity

A Voice of Sanity (talk · contribs) has been modifying Scott Peterson to fit his view point (that Scott Peterson was framed by the Modesto Police Department's investigation). I warned him, and since then he has gone progressively loud about it (see User talk:Nlu#Scott Peterson). Suggestions on what to do next, as well as having someone stepping in, would be appreciated. (See also [89].) --01:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Someone's been trying to take over my user account

I've been getting password change requests a couple of times a week for months now. I'd appreciate any help that could be provided in this area, like maybe if we could stop whomever is doing it from doing it any more. Thanks.

Your best bet would be to temporarily disable your e-mail address. There's really no way to disable requests right now, so... Ral315 (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If you just ignore them you can continue to use your old password. Whoever is triggering those notices is not getting any info about your account. Thatcher131 04:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks guys!

You can also set an email filter on them; that saves you having to turn off all email from WM, and prevents you actually using your password and not being able to get it back. Just filter it into a folder, then scan through it and delete what isn't needed. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moderator3000 misleading people and inserting vandalism

I don't know whether this should be put here or whether it should be reported as a bad username. But User:Moderator3000 is being viewed by the editors of the page Khatri as an administrator or moderator with special power, because of his/her username. I inserted this to inform people that Moderator isn't an admin. But Moderator himself and other IP Adresses which I suspect are his keep reverting my edits so that the people are still under . The page is in chaos and the users expect the Moderator to do something about it...This can be seen in diffs like this which were posted after Moderator had reverted my notice. I request official warning and possible blocking. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, half the people on that page or possibly even more are in violation of WP:NPA but the problem is that the contributors are all IP Addresses and I think some are using dynamic IPs so they won't really get the message. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for this report. I've blocked it for reasons explained here . --Tony Sidaway 03:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kmweber blocked for personal attacks

After three warnings, Kmweber (talk · contribs) persisted in making personal attacks on admins he doesn't like. He's been blocked for personal attacks for 48 hours before, so I blocked him for a week.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kylests

User:Kylests has moved his talk page to an article about one of his ancestors John Mac Street. The same user moved Stupidity to William Street which is another ancestor (this was since corrected). I'm not sure how to fix his moving his talk page to the article. So could someone take a look to correct the situation? Metros232 13:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject help

Does anyone know if there is a relevant WikiProject relating to plants??? I am trying to get thistle-related articles peer-reviewed, and to featured status.

Hope this helps. --Sunholm(talk) 13:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This really isn't the right place to ask. This isn't an incident requiring administrator attention. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 14:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't find the relevant WikiProject. --Sunholm(talk) 14:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A quick search by myself at WP:VP turns up Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects. Please try not to ask questions like this here though. WP:AN isn't a help desk for random issues, least of all WP:ANI. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 14:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Just found it - by trial and error. Apologies. I'm only trying to take part in a few WikiProjects. --Sunholm(talk) 14:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Do try not to bite the noobs, Deskana. --InShaneee 15:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, Deskana, questions like this can be directed to the Help desk (or possibly the Village Pump). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's O.K., don't stress it too much (but do use the venues listed above in the future). Try WP:TOL. Snoutwood (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sunholm knows Im not stressing, we had a dialogue on my talk page. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 15:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, cool. Actually, though, I was talking to Sunholm, but it doesn't really matter, looks like it's all cleared up between the two of you. Snoutwood (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation editing

I have filed for mediation in the long-standing and very problematic Golden Dawn articles, as I am attempting to resolve this situation and make ground with a mediator involved. Frater FiatLux 14:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• I removed the rest of the complaint; it does not seem to require administrator intervention. You can see it in the history if you are interested.

It looks like the page has been fixed; Essjay has asked that the issues be described in brief bullet points. Since Zos has agreed to mediation, the only dispute would seem to be over how to word the application. Why don't you try working on a set of bullet points on a user subpage until you get a description of the problem that you both can live with. ("Zos says article X should say Y; Frater believes it should say Z.") Thatcher131 15:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I will do so as the mediator that contacted me asked me to do so, this was not what I asking advice for.

The problem was that user Zos had edited the medaition page and also added commentary, this is aganst mediation protocol as stated on the mediation page. Please refer to the version in the history that documents this.

Frater FiatLux 15:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• It frankly doesn't look like a big deal. Baba Louis has also edited the page, fixing some minor formatting issues and adding confirmation links. Essjay is not so anal retentive that he will reject the mediation based on a stray remark; the point is the parties should not be arguing with each other in the mediation request itself. To avoid this, you could ask Zos to collaborate with you on the summary of the dispute before you post it. It doesn't have to be perfect, just something you both can live with as a joint opening statement. Anyway, the only thing admins can do that you can't on your own is protect pages and block users, and I hardly think that's necessary, so you'll have to work this out elsewhere. Thatcher131 15:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've left messages on thier talk pages, they won't do this, now there are more users reverting the medaition file. I have contacted the mediator. The carn't even leave the mediation file without editing and reverting the dam thing. They should just simply leave it alone as per the medaition rules on the mediation page. They will turn this into a revert war on the medaition file next. Frater FiatLux 16:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• If a group of users can not create a mediation request without edit warring over it, they are probably not good candidates for mediation. One final thought: in this case, the first one to back off wins. Thatcher131 18:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I was never asked to help. I did however help Frater FiatLux, and he got upset. This is the kind of thing that has happened all over the pages he has listed for mediation. Thanks. Zos 00:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Boobyman

Boobyman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a vandal who has done nothing but vandalize and add nonsense. he has been warned time and time again and likes to blank the warnings on his talk page and replace them with rude remarks. Deserves ban of some kind. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 16:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

taken care of. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Vaquero100

This user has just performed a massive move of articles dealing with Roman Catholicism without any sign of consultation, apparently in some sort of protest against Anglican dominance of Wikipedia[90]. I have left him a warning, but if there is a bot to revert all this, it would be helpful. Septentrionalis 18:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Feline1

I write on request (and also through my own personal experiences with) regarding the attitude of User:Feline1 and the way he reacts to other users. Simply observing his talk page and the Revolver talk page will illustrate my complaint. I oringinally referred my complaint to User:Kingboyk, who has ingnored it and User:Tony Sidaway, who acknowleged it but rather than deal with it himself, advised me to report it here. User:Feline1 is very difficult to work with - he is argumentative, acidic and confrontational. He causticly abuses well-meaning editiors who make honest mistakes and then, when he is questioned on this, further insults them, insinuating that they are "whimps" for questioning him. He seems to think himself infallable - everyone else is wrong, never him. All in all, this is an attitude completely contraty to the wikipeida ethos or respect and co-operation. His actions are likely to put people off working with him, and as a result, important issues may go unattended to. I feel a stern talking to as to the nature of wikipedia is in order (a block probably wouldn't do the job). I realise this may seem hypocritial coming from me as I have been blocked for personal attacks in the past, but I have made a concious effort to amend thisk, and maintain that I was never even close to being as awkward, rude, or mean-spirited as this user. Please look into this.--Crestville 18:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have left a note. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, cheers for actually taking an interest, but what's the sum-total of that? He's clearly not repented. Would you please keep an eye on him?--Crestville 20:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply on your talk page. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rms125a@hotmail.com evading block

Indefinitely blocked user Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has returned as 68.194.14.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), and is continuing his past edit-warring on Irish neutrality. Can an admin block this IP please? Thanks! Demiurge 20:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Already taken care of by User:(aeropagitica). Demiurge 21:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox proposal

Please see User:Sunholm/Userbox Proposal for more details and post on the talk page of the article. Hopefully this will sort out userbox edit wars. --Sunholm(talk) 21:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this more the sort of thing for the Village Pump? --InShaneee 21:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes have appeared on AN/I frequently. I suppose it's appropriate. --Sunholm(talk) 22:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)