Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive117

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] AOL vandal

Some vandal has been repeatedly vandalizing carrot from AOL (using multiple IP addresses). I don't know exactly what to do about it (they have persisted despite multiple warnings, and from the edit descriptions it is obviously vandalism and not some newbie's tests). Mo-Al 04:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is s-protected. (So now I suppose the AOLuser will simply indulge his squalid little masturbation fantasies elsewhere.) Hoary 05:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, they've started on my talk page. (see User_talk:Mo-Al#Quick question!) Mo-Al 15:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your talk page can be s-protected too. Do you want that? Bishonen | talk 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

Not neccessarily. Can I post a warning on their talk page for that? Mo-Al 03:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the vandal edits (and the associated reverts) from the history of Carrot, since some of the vandalism was in the edit summaries (which were also quite long and typed in ALL CAPS). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to again. Looks like there's some more vandalism. Mo-Al 01:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Fixed it again. Bishonen | talk 12:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

I strongly suggest that this IP be banned. They have recieved multiple final warnings, and recently vandalized Today's Featured Article by blanking it and replacing it with hundreds of lines of nonsense. False Prophet 15:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think maybe my userpage should be protected. It has been vandalized twice now. Mo-Al 04:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No more often than mine has. Though "vandalized" seems to aggrandize the relevant, er, contributions of this birdbrain, who seems to be under the delusion that various people here (you, me, whoever) are proctologists. Your user page is on my watchlist. -- Hoary 05:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not like the guy's blanking my userpage or anything, but I do think posting obscene comments counts as "vandalism". Mo-Al 05:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

IP adress 64.12.116.14 needs to be banned. It has recieved 29 warnings, 2 blocks, and 10 final warnings. It blanked yesterday's FA and replaced it with obsene comments. False Prophet 18:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, AOL doesn't work that way. The vandal would continue and hundreds of other AOL users would be inconvenienced when their IP hopped through that number. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, he's vandalized from multiple AOL IP addresses (so, for all I know, all AOL users would be blocked). Mo-Al 19:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read the way Ip adresses work on AOL, but still, This adress repeatedly blanks pages, and I have yet to see a constructive edit. If someone has a problem with it, they can create an account. If there was a reason to believe that this IP was helping Wikipedia, I wouldnt request this, but within an hour yesterday, they blanked the same page 5 times, in 2 waves. Once 3 times in 30 minnutes, then waited a few minnutes, then continued to blank it. False Prophet 23:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

But that's the problem - they can't just create an account :) Logged in users will still be hit by AOL IP blocks (at least under the current blocking system, see WP:BPP). We can't say that IP isn't "helping Wikipedia" because that IP changes ownership every few minutes. That's the big problem with AOL and their proxy system - no one can be held accountable for their edits (even more so than regular anon edits). --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 02:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think Mo-Al should have to put up with that, so I've semiprotected his talk. Mo-Al, please let me know if the person migrates to your userpage (very common move in my experience), then I'll protect that as well. I don't care about most kinds of vandalism to my pages—least of all a blanking—but if some particular kind of idiocy starts to get to me, then I sprotect for a few days. (That reminds me, time to unprotect my pages.) Admins can do that, and a regular user should get to make the same call. (A la lanterne les aristos!) Bishonen | talk 02:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC).

Thanks! I'd appreciate it if you unprotect it in about a week; I figure the guy wil have forgotten about it/given up by then. I'll report if he moves to my userpage. Mo-Al 03:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I was refering in general to the users of the IP adress. All of their edits have since been reverted. I have all ready voiced my opinion on WP:BPP. It isnt like this editor is trying to hide the fact their vandalizing. Their recent edits have listed the text they replaced the article with. I am just sick of tracking down vandals only to find out it's an AOL IP and I cant do anything that will change their editing habits. False Prophet 03:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bazzajf

I wonder if someone could look into the behaviour of Bazzajf . I am particularly concerned about this threat. I have been working with SP-KP to attempt to get a factual verifiable article and this is the response I get from a POV warrior trying to wreck the verifiability of teh article. Robertsteadman 20:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a month - looking over his talk page and his contributions, this sort of abuse and harassment has been going on for far too long. --ajn (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Robertsteadman 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to communicate rationally with the user, but Bazzajf seemed determined to continue to insult people despite the fact that the user has just been blocked for a month for it. I've not intention of letting Bazzajf continue to insult people, including myself. Usertalk page fully protected. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 21:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Bazzajf is relevant here - IP 62.77.181.16 (an Irish government address, apparently) seems to be only used by Bazzajf, and I suspect he'll pop up on his favourite articles again, so it may be necessary to block that too. --ajn (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this makes the connection quite clear - less the edit but the edit summary comment... As does the fact the anon has added stuff to Bazzajf's user page.... If it was me I'd block both - indefinitely!!!!Robertsteadman 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

An indefinite block is uncalled for, although it's fairly obvious he's evading the block right now. Frankly, I thought a month was too much, too, but that's within reason. Bazzajf has shown a complete inability to remain civil, but I don't believe he's beyond help yet, and he does have some value to the encyclopedia. Powers 17:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we pussy-foot around far too much with people who are consistently and unrepentantly grossly offensive to others. I've blocked the IP address for a month too, since it only ever seems to have been used by him. This is his sixth or seventh block for edit warring or personal abuse (depending on whether you count the penultimate one) in the month he's been here. The last time he was blocked for personal attacks it was for a week, I don't see that a month is at all excessive as a further step. --ajn (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the IP address seems to be on a shared computer with several users, including one other registered Wikipedia user, so the address can't be blocked. --ajn (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing the edits of Starsweep, created the day after I blocked Bazzajf, I'm convinced they are the same person. There's now a permanent block on Starsweep, and two months on Bazzajf and the IP address. --ajn (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A User:Bazza 7 has just emerged on British Isles. While they seem to be different from User:Bazzajf, looking at their contribution history and userpages, it is a little bit of a coincidence. Vashti 18:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ackoz blocked

I have blocked User:Ackoz for 3 days for personal attacks and offensive behaviour (mocking users' IQs) on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Trampikey, and for disruptive behaviour in starting an RfC on a completely unrelated administrator whose only involvement was to place warnings for the above behaviour on his/her user page (which this user promptly removed). I have advised this user of ways he can seek to have this block overturned, and if another administrator feels that this block should be overturned, I will respect that. - Mark 09:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

He needed to be in the time out corner, and 3 days is probably good. I endorse the block, although I do think this was a peevish person stamping his foot and might have been neutralized by ignoring. A short block is at least as valid an approach though. (I hate it when people try to be clever and just miss. The belly flop they make is much more noticeable than someone just jumping feet first into the pool.) Geogre 13:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey George, I was pleased to see you talking about me like this. Now that my block is up, I just want to tell you, that you are the most civil admin, an example for all editors, calling me "peevish person", and I wanted to say I am sorry I tried to be clever. Using the same way of argumenting like Mark used when he blocked me (check yourself) you are telling that I am stupid, right? I shouldn't have tried to be clever, my bad, I will never try again. And.. yup.. many thanks for the belly flop story, that also made me happy. How is that that you can be uncivil and call people "trying to be clever" and you don't get blocked?

PS: My user and talkpages were deleted on my request, and I am not willing to return to wikipedia, I have spent too much time in last month creating and editing articles, but once I stepped into discussion with people around wikipedia, I am not keen on contributing anymore. Wish you luck 85.70.5.66 14:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block of Alienus by Will Beback for 3 days

We've had issues in the past with blocks of Alienus being lifted without sufficient consensus first. Will Beback (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) has blocked Alienus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) for three days for recurring personal attacks. Although there was a particular incident that caused Will to review, Will states on Alienus's talk page [1] that the block is for a pattern evident in his interactions, not a specific incident. In response to an {{unblock}} I have reviewed and I concur with the block. Some back and forth has occurred in which I'm accused of not being impartial, along with some possible mischaracterisation of past events surrounding previous blocks. I think further review by other editors may be warranted. I would ask again that consensus be reached here before any blocks are overturned. (note use of the vandal template here is just because it gives the blocklog easily and I don't recall another one off hand, no assertion of vandalism is specifically intended in this case) Lar 17:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason for this block not to remain in place. Looking at the history, there certainly seems to be a pattern of incivil behaviour. Alienus, please take some time out, and come back with a new resolve to get along with other editors. -- sannse (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I second that. We've been down this road before, and there's no reason Alienus can't try to be a little more polite. --InShaneee 18:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Since Alienus has continued to abuse his user talk page to propagate his personal attacks even while blocked, I've requested that the page be protected. [2].

The unblock-en-l mailing list is operational and he can argue his case there. --Tony Sidaway 22:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the block is ridiculous. Calling someone an "edit warrior" gets you blocked for three days? Bizarre. He is being held to impossibly high standards, and is practically being stalked by some, who appear ready and eager to pounce at the slightest infraction. ^^James^^ 19:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You sound just like Alienus. Will made it quite clear that it is the pattern of incivility, not that one incident that resulted in the block. Alienus's constant pattern of incivility and then claims that the rest of the project just isn't assuming good faith at his behavior was likely to exhaust the patience of the community sooner or later. As for the conspiracy against him, yes, there is a conspiracy here against uncivil users, and he is one of them. pschemp | talk 20:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That one incident is what resulted in the block. Yes, context was also cited, but not explicitly - it's all rather vague. There are a number of warnings and overturned blocks for trivial or nonexistant offences on his talk page. Not much substance there, just a lot of hot air.

I sound just like Alienus? What's that supposed to mean? Is that a passive aggresive personal attack?

Considering you and Lar were recently involved in an altercation with Alienus, no wonder this appears to be personal. Your posting here to vehemently defend a ridiculous block certainly affirms such an impression.

You say you are against users whom you consider uncivil (rather than incivility itself), and that Alienus is one of those users. Therefore any infraction, no matter how slight, should be used to get rid of him. That is what is happening here. ^^James^^ 22:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Just keep breathing that paranoia gas. You'll be fine. pschemp | talk 22:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that one its true it wasn't constructive so let me rephrase: No. Also, I never said, "users whom I consider uncivil." I said, "uncivil users", which has nothing to do with my personal opinion, nor does it imply that it does, or that the slightest infraction should be used to get rid of him. Those are your words, not mine.pschemp | talk 18:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Case in point. That's quite insulting. And you are an admin, no? ^^James^^ 22:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't like my behavior? You are welcome to lodge a complaint. pschemp | talk 23:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Without disagreeing with the original block... Al seems to be inducing other editors and admins to behave badly in response, which is not constructive. WP:CIVIL applies all the time. Take a deep breath and don't respond if that's your first reflex... Georgewilliamherbert 08:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note: Template:Vandal redirects to Template:Userlinks. People should really start using the latter to avoid that kinds of conflict. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 20:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've posted this here as well as Al's talk page as it summarizes how I feel about the current situation.

I have had worse said to me by others and have put it down to a learning experience. I also have been effectively bullied by other editors who seemed invisible to the admins. The warnings by Tony Sidaway are worthless as he has nothing short of wikistalked Al and made it his personal task to sort him out.[3] He also called Al an "edit warrior" without getting so much as a slap on the wrist. [4] I hate to go down the same route as Al but I have not been impressed with the conduct of any of the the admins that have so far commented on the block. From previous experience none of them have shown the impartiality or clear thinking necessary to fullfil this role in a just manner. They exacerbate situations also - but this is much more worrying as they should be examples of conduct as admins. Al is an easy target as he does say the wrong thing sometimes and has upset some powerful admins by disagreeing with them on their pet topics. I avoid conflict where I possibly can but I'm becoming increasingly convinced that this is just giving in to the "playground bullies" and a bit of digging my heels in on controversial subjects would help to remove some of the systemic bias that is so prevalent. Al works on the sort of subjects that get heated and to be honest the level of comment I've seen is nicer than your average political party spat. As long as it doesn't get completly out of hand a bit of "growing up" on the part of some editors wouldn't go amiss. We make a big thing of the fact that Wikipedia isn't censored for minors and then get all squeamish about words like "edit warrior". Sophia 20:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about an editor here whose favourite thing is to point out how people are hypocrites, yet he is one himself. Its the hypocrrite calling the hypocrite a hypocrite, which is not terribly original. Admins are not perfect, and nowhere is that a requirement of the job or is that claimed, however, they have been around long enough to show that they make logical decisions most of the time. If they don't, so what? If their judgement is terribly off, the community will correct it and that is the exact same for regular editors. I am really sick of the us vs. them mentality being shown here. Of course the inmates in a prison claim they are all innocent and the victims of a conspiracy and that the guards are abusing them. Never mind most of them are guilty as sin. As for "I have not been impressed with the conduct of any of the the admins that have so far commented on the block." Please show me where User:sannse has done anything questionable.pschemp | talk 21:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone could have said it better than Sophia. There is a pattern of incivility here, that's true. But that pattern appears to be that Admins can say whatever they want and nothing is done. When an outspoken editor says one little thing that an Admin (who already has something against the editor) doesn't like, wham! Slapped with a big ol' BLOCK. This has been going on long enough, and it is about time that people start to speak up! Until recently, I, like Sophia, tried to avoid conflict. But right now, I just can't imagine letting this go. If Wikipedia is going to be worth anything in another few months, trigger-happy Admins must be curbed. We need more people to tell it like it is, and Alienus is being punished repeatedly for doing just that. In the past couple of weeks, my impression of Wikipedia's Administrators has been going seriously downhill. I really wish that someone could show me that it doesn't have to be this way, but this has not happened yet. And I am beginning to think that it never will. There are serious problems here, and one editor who sometimes gets himself into heated situations is nothing compared to the bigger picture. These problems really need to be addressed, before we lose our best editors. Please, get off your high horses and start acting like we are all equal human beings. romarin [talk ] 21:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And, Pschemp, thank you so much for proving our point. Comparing lowly editors to prison inmates is just fabulous. romarin [talk ] 21:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

My analogy is quite obvious for editors who don't follow the rules repeatedly, not the ones who behave. Oh noes! trigger happy admins! Oh the horror! I'm sorry but wikipedia will be the sum of human knowledge, which means that somewhere, someone else has the same knowledge as you, so I don't buy the "we are going to run off our best editors" shtick. If only one person knows something, it isn't verifiable anyway, and certainly not published. We shouldn't run off good editors, but no one here is irreplacable. pschemp | talk 21:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp's apparent lack of concern for editors is somewhat disturbing. We are all volunteers here. We give our time freely to help build a great encyclopedia, and without us, there would be no Wikipedia. Abusing us is, in the end, only going to hurt the project. Exhibiting a disregard for issues of justice, as well as viewing editors as nothing more than knowledge-producing machines is quite troubling as well, especially coming from an Administrator who is supposed to be setting an example that the rest of us can follow. Editors, especially good ones, are valuable because they make decisions, they use their judgement to decide what knowledge should go into an article, and what should be left out. They avoid inserting POV, and they attempt to curb POV pushers who would only twist or censor an article. It seems to be these editors who often are most heavily targeted by Admins, particularly the trigger-happy, apathetic ones. I find it sad that certain Admins would exhibit inflamatory, uncivil, rude, and unsympathetic tendancies when their motives are questioned. It's true that we all make mistakes. It is a virtue, however, to be able to admit to such errors in a civil manner. I simply don't see this happening here. romarin [talk ] 22:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you point out to me for which of Alienus's most recent 9 blocks he admitted making an error? I can't seem to find that. Nandesuka 22:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you point out to me where I said that he had? I can't seem to find it, nor do I remember having typed it. romarin [talk ] 22:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the logic of Nandesuka's comment seems to have escaped you, let me spell it out. I'm quite sure he is refering to your suggestion that "It is a virtue, however, to be able to admit to such errors in a civil manner." and pointing out that Alienus has never done this.pschemp | talk 22:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

My comment was made in reference to certain Admins; I wasn't talking about Alienus and thus Nandesuka's statement was irrelevant. But, since you are all so quick to point your fingers, let me show you one instance in which he has admitted error and offered an apology [5]. Would you like more, or are you done with the baiting and hypocritical finger-pointing? romarin [talk ] 22:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, i'm quite sure he hasn't apologized for any of the latest incidents. If you were referring to me, i was simply interpreting a comment for you, not making any accusations, so calling me a hypocrite is a bit much.pschemp | talk 18:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Context

Re: He doesn't say, for example, "those edits promote a certain POV", instead he says, "you're an edit warrior". That's not the context at all. Alienus was discussing ideas on how to reduce edit warring on the 3RR policy talk page.

Since nobody appears to have examined the context, and since the context is being misrepresented by the blocking admin, here are the relevant bits:

Alienus:

Jossi, if edit-warring is, as you say, a bad thing, then you should lead by example. Start by walking away from your edit war to hide all mention of the view that Objectivism is a cult. Show us that admins are better than the editors they ban, please. [6]

Jossi:

This talk page is to discuss policy, not to discuss content disputes. [7]

Alienus:

Yes, and this policy is about averting edit wars, so the fact that you're an edit warrior is relevant. [8]

Jossi:

Before you call anyone "edit warrior", look at the mirror. [9]

Alienus:

Anyone taking a look at your contributions as of late will see a much clearer picture of an edit warrior. You seem eager to strike the word 'cult' from every article you touch, including the one about your Maharaji.

Anyhow, my point remains. You're here arguing about how well the rules stop edit-warring, yet you're edit-warring yourself and no rules stop you. You're an admin, so you should be an exemplar of proper behavior. Instead, you're a role model for how to succeed as an edit warrior without getting caught. This is distressing.[10]

So we have a user and an admin, who are both admittedly engaged in a content dispute, calling each other edit warriors. One user is blocked for three days, while the admin doesn't hear even a whisper of a complaint for engaging in the very same behaviour. It appears that the admins are held to lower standards that the inmates.

And is this even a personal attack? The fact is, if you are engaged in an edit war, you are a de facto edit warrior. In libel cases, "statements presented as fact must be false to be defamatory". ^^James^^ 17:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a big difference between saying, "That edit is incorrect" and "You're a liar!". One addresses the problem edit, the other is a personal attack. This is not a libel court. A personal attack may be true and still be offensive. As for Jossi's remark, I don't see it on the page as it was apparently removed. If Alienus had been as diligent about removing personal attacks then his comment wouldn't have come to my attention. Instead of withdrawing his attack, he repeated it. I don't see how I've misrepresented the matter. As I've said, the context of the block is the continuing incivility of Alienus. I'm not sure what content dispute you are referring to - the discussion was over a policy proposal. -Will Beback 17:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Are you now claiming Alienus called someone a liar? This just muddies the waters. Please stick to the relevant facts. You misrepresented the matter when you wrote: He doesn't say, for example, "those edits promote a certain POV", instead he says, "you're an edit warrior". That was not the situation at all. They were having a discussion about reducing edit wars, and it had nothing to do with a POV edit. No, this isn't a libel court. But to simply state a fact, even if it reflects poorly on someone, is not a personal attack. You haven't made a case, and now you apppear to be relying wholly on some vague and unspecified "context", which could be used to justify anything. ^^James^^ 18:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Alienus has repeatedly, both before and since his block, stated that jossi, an administrator who presumably practises TM, is a member of a cult. This is an unacceptable personal attack, at any time, on Wikipedia. After his block, I observed, catalogued and cited about half a dozen personal attacks made by Alienus even while blocked for personal attacks [11]. It was for that reason that his talk page has been protected. And this was by no means uncharacteristic behavior for Alienus. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been trying to keep silent, as Alienus is not able to respond until his/her block expire, so I would only suggest to read my interactions with Alienus in Talk:Ayn_Rand#Cult_censorship, as well as the non-so-veiled attacks on his talk page after the block was enacted. Also note, that due to the toxicity of these attacks, I have decided not to edit any longer any of the articles related to Ayn Rand, with which I only got involved after a fellow editor made a request on one of the policy talk pages. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony: So now it's a shell game. If one charge doesn't stand up, simply level another... as long as Alienus gets blocked. When you treat someone blatantly unfairly, you are sure to provoke an unpleasant reaction. To then use his reaction as a new justification for the block seems disingenuous. Perhaps Alienus will wise up to this possibility. But I do think it's difficult for him to have good faith in the process when administrators are ganging up on him so vehemently on the basis of such a flimsy charge. It's only human to get a little upset.

As for the "cult" charge, Jossi states very clearly that he is a proud student of Maharaji. Here are some relevant tidbits from the wiki article:

• "a number of ex-members became critics of the movement, attacking it with charges of brainwashing and mind control"
• "In the aftermath of Jonestown, Mishler and Hand felt compelled to warn of similarities between Guru Maharaj Ji and Jim Jones. They claimed the potential for another Jonestown existed in the Divine Light Mission because the most fanatic followers of Maharaj Ji would not question even the craziest commands..."

If wikipedia describes this religious movement as a cult, if reputable sources describe it as a cult, why is it wrong for Alienus describe it as a cult? This is what their edit war was about apparently: Jossi removing or hiding "cult" references. ^^James^^ 19:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

James, there is no dispute that some critical ex-followers have leveled accusations of cultism agaist Maharaji. But that is very different from a fellow editor calling you one. It is unnecessary. It creates animosity and it is by all measures a personal attack: "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. (Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse). Do you believe that it is OK to use pejoratively your sexual, religious, sexual preference or any other personal affiliation, as a way to make your point in content disputes? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point, and I agree with you in principle, but looking at the diff Tony cites, it appears to me he was simply trying to show partisanship on your part. That happens all the time on wikipedia. You happen to be a student of Maharaji, a cult leader according to some. And the edit war you were involved in had to do with you removing "cult" references. So his statement is both arguably accurate, and relevant. Yeah, Alienus can make snarky comments at times. But the point is that he is being held to impossibly high standards, standards not even expected of admins, who merely get a mild "that's not helpful" in response to far more blatant and mean spirited ridicule, here in this very thread! The fact is, admins are now left splitting hairs in an effort to maintain some semblance of justification for this block. Remove it, show some good faith, and perhaps Alienus will be less snarky in the future. ^^James^^ 20:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. from WP:NPA' policy in a nutshell. Also note that I cannot remove the block, as there is no consensus amongst sysops to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

On James' "shell game" suspicions I must say that I've followed this block from almost the first few hours, and did read what Will Beback said about his reasons for imposing this block.

Will first warned Alienus about calling circumcised men or advocates of circumcision "snippies", saying: "Terms like that make editing a hostile activity. You have been blocked for it before repeatedly, and I will block you again if necessary." [12]. Alienus' response was not promising [13].

Two weeks later, Will remarked that he had spotted this personal attack on another editor but looking at the talk page he found a long series of warnings for attacks, and so he had decided to block for three days [14]. Alienus' attack quoted by Will was an accusation of duplicity, "you're a role model for how to succeed as an edit warrior without getting caught". --Tony Sidaway 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a question that several editors have asked that has so far gone un-answered. Alienus and jossi both called the other an edit warrior. Alienus has been blocked; nothing has happened to jossi. It appears as though jossi is trying to help at this point, and I am sure that is greatly appreciated by many. However, the point remains that there was incivility attributed to both parties, and only one is being punished. Please, please will someone just answer the simple question of why? I understand that Alienus is also being charged with multiple incivilities; fine, but that's not the point here, so please don't just come back (like many have so far) with that statement. This is about one instance, and there is one legitimate question that (unless I missed it, in which case I am sorry) has not been answered by anyone. Thank you, romarin [talk ] 20:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question: 1) Jossi's remark seems to be saying that the ad hominem argument of Alienus is invalid and hypocritical. 2) He seems to have realized that it was unnecessary and removed it promptly. 3) Jossi does not have a talk page full of complaints, unlike Alienus. 4) Jossi has never been blocked for anything before, unlike Alienus. 5) I sent a private note to Jossi regarding his remark, so it did generate an admin response. 6) As I explained to Alienus, the block is not a punishment. Instead it is an enforced break from Wikipedia, a "time-out" or "cooling-off period", so that Alienus can calm down. -Will Beback 21:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your straight-forward answers. romarin [talk ] 21:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

Would this be acceptable to sysops?

1. Removing protection of Alienus's talk page;
2. Requesting from Alienus a unambiguous statement that he/she commits to not engage in personal attacks follow WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL;
3. If such statement is made, remove the NPA block, with the caveat that additional personal attacks and uncivility will result in an extended block ;
4. Starting a user conduct RfC on Alienus, so that the community can give him feedback about his behavior.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @

That's generally acceptable to me. However, since I believe that he doesn't thinks he has committed any personal attacks, a promise not to make anymore is perhaps empty. Perhaps a better request would be a committment to follow WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I appreciate the generous spirit of Jossi, a subject of some attacks. -Will Beback 20:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed proposal as per Will's suggestion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that there is already a request for arbitration underway although not accepted at this time. --Lar 23:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Amended proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My view is that editors blocked for making personal attacks can always be unblocked as soon as they agree, wholeheartedly, to comply with policy. --Tony Sidaway 01:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

How many times does that hold true, though? Simply apologizing after every personal attack does nothing to resolve the issue as far as the targets of those attacks are concerned. Kirill Lokshin 02:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well we don't use blocks as punishment. Persistent recidivism is ultimately grounds for banning. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I will then unprotect Alienus talk page, as per my proposal above. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Accepting Alienus committment[15] to abide by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as per proposal above, I have removed his block. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The above unblock works for me, subject of course to Alienus abiding by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. It should be noted that the judgement of whether he is abiding or not is not his to make but rather the community's, so he should do his level best to abide, as even if he thought he was before, segments of the community think he was not. ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My reblock

Pending an email discussion with Alienus, I have undone the original block as I do not fully agree with the reasons. From the talk page, the original reasoning for the block is that he called jossi an edit warrior which can be personal attack, but to be fair, jossi responded by suggesting he was also an edit warrior. I feel there is some major inconsistency there. However, because Alienus did call jossi a "long-time cult member", along with the consistent attacks on other admins on his talk page, something absolutely insulting and not to be tolerated, I have reblocked him for 48 hours. I realise the undoing may not sit well with some of you but I feel this is much more justified. However, if any of you think this is not reasonable, feel free to undo it. I will not argue. Sasquatch t|c 00:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm at a loss how to assess this new block - the language used above is couched in lovely PC terms but the net effect is Al has yet block in his list and is also now blocked for even longer. Can Sasquatch please confirm whether this was his intention and why he thinks any admin may be uncomfortable with him adding to Al's "crime list" and blocking him for longer than he was? Is this at all motivated by the impending Arbcom case and can I ask what happened to the RfC that should precede this move? Are we skipping the "trial" phase and fast forwarding to sentence (and execution no doubt)? Sophia 17:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can ask, but you'd be trolling if you did. Are you calling the ArbCom a mere rubber stamp? A preparatory RFC is not obligatory, where did that come from? Bishonen | talk 23:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC).

Sasquatch (since you are now the "blocking admin"), do you agree with Jossi's proposal, posted above, for unblocking Alienus? -Will Beback 19:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism to Lukas Podolski page, moved here at other users advice

Note moved here per [16]

Matyldalondyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 87.227.28.6 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) Users, who are likely the same person persistently re-add deleted dubious trivia from the Lukas Podolski after being asked for sources to verify a trivia piece about the subjects singing of national anthem before game. Said users edits are seen here.

• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• [23]
• [24]
• [25]
• [26]

Other users have identified said trivia as dubious as well and have deleted. Only to have it re-added by the said users. Other deletions are seen here.

• [27]
• [28]

Users have been asked for sources to verify information, neither have provided, leaving me to believe that they're only editing for the sake of inserting vandalism. Their contribution history clearly affirms this. [29], [30]. I thank you in advance for helping to deal with this persistent inclusion of dubious and unsourced vandalism. Batman2005 18:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked already. Sasquatch t|c 23:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, blocked after violating 3RR, which took place after I posted my complaint here. Batman2005 23:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced changes are not vandalism. Repeatedly reverting to remove or restore unsourced changes is edit warring. I blocked Batman2005 for violating 3RR himself in this matter. --CBD 10:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait, so...a person with an obvious vandalism/nonsense only account is able to just add unsourced statements to pages because he wants to, yet when a well meaning editor removes those after repeatedly asking for sources, the well meaning editor is blocked. And, adding unsourced information that's clearly false isn't vandalism? It's the very definition of vandalism, in the real world its called bullshit. Batman2005 01:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Being totally ignorant of the actual facts involved in the article, I don't see how you can assert either of those are "vandalism only accounts". They've only got one contribution (repeatedly, of course) between them, and it's a content dispute, not vandalism. What's "clearly false" about what's being added? Of course, it makes sense for me to defer to you -- I assume you are knowledgeable about football players, and I am not; but I can't see how asserting that a player refuses to sing the German national anthem is "clearly false". I don't want to argue it -- I'm just talking from the point of view of an observer. The edits violate 3RR, and seem to be against consensus judging by the talk page -- are they defamatory? Are they provably wrong? If either of those, sure, they could be vandalism. Anyway, most editors deal with situations like this by asking for help rather than risk violating 3RR themselves; article RFC's and AN/I can be useful to get the attention of unbiased third parties. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Due to the ongoing complaints and swearing I looked into it. Turns out the "clearly false" "vandalism" about a soccer player not singing the national anthem was actually correct. Mind you, I didn't know that when I blocked Batman2005, but I didn't need to... there was a clear edit war with 3RR violations on both sides, no discusion on the article talk page, and no obvious proof that the information was false (which, in fact, it wasn't). --CBD 11:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the information is false, if you'd watch the world cup games you'd see that the player NEVER sings the national anthem, whether playing against Poland, Ecuador, Argentina, etc. And I had asked for assistance and none was given, thus...the two users....who in all actuality were probably the same one (again, a violation that they were not punished for) continued...after being proven wrong by an entirely different editor, to insert the dubious information...thus....inserting nonsense and misinformation into the article....which is vandalism. Batman2005 15:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aylesbury Grammar School

Same old story, students from the school are adding nicknames of the headteacher, photographs of penises drawn in snow outside the school and other nonsense to the article, claiming they have a right seeing as they go to the school. It's in my watchlist so reverting vandalism isn't a problem however I have a personal interest in keeping the article clear of rubbish aside from the norm. Would a couple of others mind watchlisting it for future vandalism please? -- Francs2000 00:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added it to mine. Iolakana|^T 11:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeb berkeley

There's a vandal going around named Jeb berkeley, or some variation of that. Here are some of his sockpuppets:

Jeb berkeley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
That Jeb Berkeley guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
Jeb Berkeley on wheels! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

There's more in the IP Block list. If someone could do something, that would be appreciated, since he seems to be targeting me and my subpages. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 02:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: I believe they all stem from banned user Jeb Berkeley (talk · contribs). --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 02:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. See also:

Jeb Berkeley on the railway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Jeb Berkeleys next move (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

--james _{// bornhj (talk)} 02:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Others with similar tendencies (pages after, and mentions of Jeb Berkeley). DVD+ R/W 02:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Rocos Rorrhum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I've notice that Tetleys (talk · contribs) has placed tags on many suspected Jeb Berkeley socks. Tetleys contribs lists about 15 of them and might be a valuable reference in proceeding with this case further. DVD+ R/W 03:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the "North Carolina Vandal". Jeb Berkeley = Jake Remington, etc., ad nauseam. Antandrus (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You think this guy's the North Carolina Vandal? Jeb Berkeley's attack pattern doesn't seem to match the NCV's, as far as I know. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 15:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm as close to 100% sure as I can get without actually watching him at his computer. Look at the five edits attributed to Jeb berkeley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Single-line breathless POV statements on Beer, vandalism of articles on small towns in North Carolina, all-caps edit summaries that are invented words, an obsession with southernness and rednecks, -- I've been following this kid for more than a year now and he hasn't changed a bit. Antandrus (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow banned from article

As his mentor, I've just banned T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) from List of Justice League episodes for two weeks as part of his probation. He has been trying to railroad changes that have generated significant opposition from other editors, ignoring their concerns and being generally incivil. Further disruption will terminate his mentorship and will trigger the six-month ban clause of the Arbitration case between him and Dyslexic Agnostic. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A friend of mine was messing around on wikipedia from my computer after i showed him my two edits and that "anyone can do it". if you look at my ip address, you will notice precisely two edits done to wiki articles that were "serious" changes. i did not defame anyone.

[edit] Fidel Castro and Teemu Ruskeepä

User:Teemu Ruskeepää has ignored many, many requests that he cease promoting an extremely unpopular "talk page restructuring" on various Cuba related pages, notably Fidel Castro. Despite warnings from myself, other users and admins that his behaviour is potentially disruptive and may lead to a block, he has continued unabashed, adding confusing lengthy polls to each talkpage addition. He is materially obstructing much needed work on the page, which is a view held by all, and I believe the patience of the many has just worn out. May I suggest an editing embargo on Teemu, or even an exploding cigar?--Zleitzen 09:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving other users comments violates policy, but apperently there's one article where the rules don't apply. El_C 10:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on his talk page, and will ask him nicely to desist. Note that he is continuing to restructure the talk page into an extremely counterintuitive format, despite having 7 editors opposed to the restruturing, and not one (other than Teemu) in favour. He's being disruptive, knowingly now, and if he continues, the next step is a short block. I don't want to do that as he's plainly a good editor, and well-intentioned, but continually and unilaterally going against the wishes of his editors because 'I am right' is not acceptable. However, note that editing (not moving) other user's comments violates policy/guidelines. Refactoring of talk pages (when done with approval, either explicit or tacit) is not the same as editing someone's comments. But continuing to do it when he has been expressly asked to stop is disruptive. Proto///type 10:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I contacted Teemu previously about this situation after being informed, and now see that there is little change, and hs has instead been adding a poll to each discussion section. Proto apppears to have already left him a message, so we'll see how he responds to that.--MONGO 10:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the only real consensus that's ever been reached on the Castro page. --TJive 10:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've initiated a request for comment relating to Teemu's activities on the Fidel Castro talk page, here at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teemu Ruskeepää. Teemu has been given many opportunities to acknowledge that both his talk page restructuring and additional lengthy polls do not have consensus. Each request seems to expand the resistance. The talk page is now dominated by his activity - and related fluff - to the detriment of any progress. On my talk page a user has stated that she would rather not want further involvment with the page, referring to Teemu: "he targets me. He had done damage to me in the past. His remarks about me recently have been minor but still he singles me out. I'll admit that I am intimidated". [31].--Zleitzen 10:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

All that really needs to be seen to know what his intentions are is this. --TJive 11:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

On that entry Teemu states "Wikipedia should be transformed entirely according to my plan, because the debate doesn't work otherwise. Do you agree?". That these comments appear on the Fidel Castro talk page should be beyond irony.--Zleitzen 11:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate to sound extreme here - but if this user continues (since so many messages have been left there), a short block (24 hours) for disruption would probably not be misplaced. Ian¹³/t 17:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editingoprah (talk · contribs)

I am currently involved in a quasi-revert war with this user over several pages (they make POV edits, blank sourced work, etc. and I revert). Could someone please review their edits (eg. [32] [33]) and block the user for a time so that I may clean up this mess? Please just leave a quick note on my talk page when this is done so that I can get to the cleanup. Thanks. Harro5 09:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please someone address this revert war. Harro5 09:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've blocked the user for 15 minutes to stop the madness for a bit. Look at the Oprah Winfrey history. This is a user who has been here for two days, and hasn't done anything but tear up solid articles. Harro5 09:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am still investigating these things now. I am not convinced that the edits to Oprah Winfrey constitute simple vandalism, although the edits to gay icon look dubious at best. I have protected both articles (at the m:wrong version of course) until the dispute can be settled. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Editingoprah has been blocked for 24 hours by Francs2000 for the 3RR violation. If I am to levy criticism against Harro5, it would be that this rollback does not seem quite necessary. Also, I don't know if it was such a good idea to block someone who you were edit warring with. Even so, Editingoprah has been rather uncooperative, with edit summaries such as "you've contributed nothing to this article. Why are you even here?", so the situation is quite borderline. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I know the block was a bad move, but I'd been doing a mad run to get an admin to act and all the while the editor continued to revert changes to bad versions. As for the revert you cite, that's a more than legitimate edit, but maybe not rollback-worthy. Sjakkalle, with the user now blocked for 24 hours, do the articles still need to be protected? The revert war only existed between him and me, and I'm not going to make any changes other than to restore the correct version on Oprah and hope this dies away. Harro5 10:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. I had noticed the edits too. I don't know if the user was responsible for the huge pictures, as for the gay icon thing, even though heavily unsourced, I had just gone ahead and put it as "impact on gay culture" and redirected the section to the gay icon page.

[edit] TechsMechs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I blocked indef. as a sock of Amorrow. Please review. FloNight ^talk 09:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

a) Where's the message on his talk page (a la User:OlympiaDiego, User:Pinktulip, and his other socks)?

b) Where's the proof he's Amorrow? Proto///type 09:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This past week Amorrow has been evading his ban with IP accounts in 75.24, 75.23 range. [34]

Looks like Elizabeth Morgan article is being written by a group of Amorrow socks. [35] Can someone else sort this out. FloNight ^talk 10:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any proof that TechsMechs is a sock of Amorrow - you didn't answer either of my questions. Proto///type 10:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking for someone else to review the situation. Plently of admin are aware of his pattern.

Looks like he just confessed on WillBebacks's talk page. FloNight ^talk 10:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, not so much a confession. But yep, that's Amorrow (you should have provided that in the first place!) Block endorsed. Please leave the necessary messages on the sock's talk page. I think Elizabeth Morgan needs semiprotecting again. Proto///type 10:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that his ISP, AT&T, changed their operations on his circuit in Palo Alto. He is now active on IP addresses other than just

• 71.139.176.0 - 71.139.191.255 (16 Class C's)
• 71.139.192.0 - 71.139.207.255 (216 Class C's - I only got a subset)
• 71.141.0.0 - 71.141.31.255 (32 Class C's)

To even being to attack the problem, you would have to start with

http://www.scconsult.com/sbclist.shtml

but even this information is a year old and getting more and more out-of-date. The current round of admin actions against him have adversely effected other users in Silicon Valley, including the inventor of Nagle's algorithm, John Nagle. You could argue that this vital conribution to the TCP/IP protocol stack helped to create the Internet. See User talk:Nagle/Archive 2006-05-30#Excessive block by User:SlimVirgin . How is this obsession about this one person who comes in as anon user (so you cannot even argue that he is trying to build up some kind of personal credit for himself) helping the encyclopedia? -- 64.175.42.196 11:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Because he is disruptive, sneaky, amends articles subtly using a multitude of sock puppets to adhere to his POV, and then, when he doesn't get his own way, descends into tirades of hysterical abuse in language that would make a pimp blush. He has been particularly vile when 'communicating' with female editors. Amorrow is a poisonous troll. And keeping him at arm's length - which is all we can do until someone has a real word with AT&T to get him kicked from their service - benefits the encyclopaedia by making participation a lot less painful and frustrating for everyone else. Good enough reason? Proto///type 12:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• He's also been editing Bill of attainder and Terri Schiavo. I've semi-protected Elizabeth Morgan, which is Amorrow's main focus. —tregoweth (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's just look at that last little update that happened:

67.121.147.25 (talk · contribs)

Go to the talk page and click on the RWHOIS America link:

http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=67.121.147.25

Fairly small range:

• 64.175.40.0 - 64.175.43.255

BUT, it seems that my circuit is also being served undocumented subnets. The only info that ARIN has about some of my previous IP's are this very course information. Note: these ranges do have some documented subsets, especially at the beginning of these ranges, but those are not the IP's that I have been served These new numbers tend to cluster at about the sizes I had before with those 71.* addresses, but now the starting numbers are all over the place:.

• 67.112.0.0 - 67.127.255.255 (16 class B's)
• 67.182.0.0 - 67.182.63.255 (64 class C's)
• 75.0.0.0 - 75.47.255.255 (48 class B's)

So maybe you can complain to AT&T that they are not updating the ARIN database with every little subnetting that they are internally doing with these huge ranges they own. Those three ranges above are all huge and I am probably only being served small subsets of them, but only AT&T knows the details. Maybe you should complain that they are not updating the ARIN database to your satisfaction. That is not about me, that is about AT&T. If you just tell that the info is vital for your tracking needs, then they will probably do something about it. I am sure it does not really take a lot of work to update the ARIN database and, since the change was in the past month or so, maybe they have just not gotten around to doing so yet. Really, I did not change anything on my end. I am simply not being served that narrow range of 71.* addresses anymore. This is just FYI. It is about ANYBODY in the USA that uses AT&T whom you might need to track. -- 75.25.183.52 23:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and remember to specify PPPoX in the San Francisco area, SNFC21 and PLTN13. Those are the ranges you want finer-grain and up-to-date data on at ARIN. -- 75.25.183.52 23:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irpen

One user keep inserting a new section to his summary already endorsed by some other users. Other users are moving the new section to the talk page. I cannot act as I am involved in this RfC (he keeps inserting his comment on my summary). Please, somebody make a look. abakharev 11:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cozzlewood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I blocked the user as a page move vandal. Please revert his changes to Penis as this would be an inappropriate page to open at the office. I took care of everything else.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 14:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This one looks to be related to User:Havenstone and User:Sunwood, who are all sockpuppets of banned user Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs). --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 15:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Armando (blogger) - courtesy blanking

The AFD for Armando (blogger) was recently closed as redirect, in substantial part due to serious WP:BLP concerns. The entirety of the information that was possibly in violation of WP:BLP remains in two locations - the talk page of the article in question and at this user talk page. I have asked the user to request their user space page be deleted, and expect they will do so, and I attempted to blank the talk page in question as a courtesy to the individual whose privacy was allegedly repeatedly violated. The courtesy blanking has been repeteatedly undone without comment. I could, again, use more admistrative eyes on the situation. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evading block?

Please take a look at Dmolloy36. This account was activated today while Owwmykneecap was on a 24 hour block and is continuing the Dutch Gold edit dispute. The only other edit Dmolloy36 has made has been to the user page of Owwmykneecap! BlueValour 16:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leonard23, at it again

Leonard23 is continuing to be a problem user, labeling my edits vandalism, and admitting he is using a sockpuppet, along with making personal attacks and threatening me. He also made parts of a logo in Paint, that I cut off but he continues to revert back. Please take care of him. CFIF (talk to me) 17:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked both users for 24 hours for WP:3RR. Both users want "their" version of the TV station logo, both users revert the other's move as "vandalism" (it is not), and neither gives sufficient reason why "theirs" is the preferred version. I welcome review. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link spam and Solar22

Solar22 (talk · contribs) keeps adding links to a website that offers audio samples of people/tv shows: [36], [37], [38], [39] and [40]. I reverted these edits as I thought that they did not add to the article in any shape or form. I would like to see if other people here agree that these edits to the website could be seen as link spam. I have warned the user about it, but I am having an on-going discussion with the user at my talk page and his/hers. Iolakana|^T 18:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correct admin conduct?

A admin leaves a homosexual joke on a talk page [41] and then threatens the user that reverts it with these words:

you seem to have forgotten that I am a sysop. Going around removing sysops' comments on other people's pages, which you have no business "moderating", is a really dumb idea, and you will be blocked for it. [42]

In the interests of completeness, the entire comment was: Just to be clear, somewhere along the line you seem to have gotten the idea that it's okay to remove people's comments and call them "trolls". This isn't the case. In addition, you seem to have forgotten that I am a sysop. Going around removing sysops' comments on other people's pages, which you have no business "moderating", is a really dumb idea, and you will be blocked for it. Just zis Guy you know? 09:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

IS this how our admins should behave? Hort Graz 20:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have used Cyde's words myself, but if you're planning to set yourself up as the morality police on Wikipedia I suspect that you'll be in for a rough ride. I see nothing objectionable about Cyde's initial edit. Mackensen (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So you don't mind if I post the LOVE MEN picture on your page? Its not morality, its common decency I ask for. Being a admin doesn't make you a higher life form exempt from common civilty. Hort Graz 21:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd remove it, but that's because I like my user page the way it is. Nothing wrong with either edit. Now, making the same edit repeatedly after being reverted...Mackensen (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

...same edit repeatedly... OK, but you were the one who didnt care about the wheel warring of a few days ago. You confuse me sir. Hort Graz 21:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Not fond of his words, either, but half the context is missing from the second edit, and these diffs are comments to two separate editors, not the same one. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

He made the threat to the user who reverted him, who was not the user he made the joke to. Hort Graz 21:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a lot more context is missing: Cyde later changed his initial message to refer to GeorgeMoney. Not a particularly polite action on his part, in my opinion. Kirill Lokshin 01:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"add awards here"? is this myspace.com now, or is anyone still writing an encycolpedia? dab (ᛏ) 21:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Awards ensure people feel appreciated and continue working on Wikipedia. I know it works for me. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• I see no problem with his initial edit, but his second edit is just plain uncivil. He should've asked why he reverted or explain the joke. Threatening with your admin powers is just not acceptable. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

After a complete read-through, the whole thing looks like WP:BJAODN from several angles... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. El_C 00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad joke indeed. But waving the sysop bit around like that is contraindicated....really bad form. It is unacceptable to threaten people with your admin status like that, we seem to be having a problem with that lately. 24.94.192.247 00:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot state often enough my objection to administrators even thinking that they have "powers," much less threatening with them. We have duties, not "powers," and we serve, not are served. This was not handled well, even if the action is ok. I wouldn't say anything, except that Cyde has been a bit imperious in other contexts. Geogre 04:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the joke was in poor taste, and it is okay to remove comments perceived as personal attacks, even if they are made by admins (who should be held to a higher standard of civility). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-04 09:24Z

• Yeah. This is exactly the puerile sort of "joke" that vandal fighters have to waste their time with every day. If a non-admin had done it, they'd be admonished for vandalism (or, at least, breaching WP:CIVIL.) I don't see any reason Cyde should be able to act like a 12-year-old without at least being questioned. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• It sure seems like terrible judgement to me. Grandmasterka 01:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hah, an anonymous user just informed me of this, so here I am ... Yes, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have responded to GeorgeMoney like that, but then again, he could've acted better himself, an edit summary of "rv. troll" isn't appropriate. And as for the homosexual accusations ... lighten up. As a matter of fact, I simply found it absurd that awards were being solicited for a successful RFA, when the real award is actually the new shiny admin buttons, so I went off looking on User:Cyde/Weird pictures to find something surreal to turn into a "personal user award". Considering the other stuff on that page, what I ended up going with was very tame :-D Cyde↔Weys 03:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, this matter was already discussed (and resolved?) here. --Cyde↔Weys 03:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Another example of sailing too close to the wind. Remember, what is funny to you can be insulting, or just make you look immature, to others. You reap what you sow. David D. (Talk) 15:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of 'Blatant vandalism' please

Would you please remove the 'Blatant vandalism' template from my History. This was placed by Owwmykneecap as part of an edit dispute on Dutch Gold. Using this template in this manner is against WP:Vandalism and his constant, false, accusations of vandalism against WP:CIVIL. He is presently on a 3RR block as is his alter ego Dmolloy36. I should be grateful if you would ask him to stick to the issues and cease this unpleasantness. BlueValour 20:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Typically, history deletions are only done when personal information has been posted about a user. In this case, just remove it and forget about it. --InShaneee 20:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• They're still picked up by VandalProof even after reverting, because the program needs to know when a vandal removes such templates. I think I saw such a request from someone earlier. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds like rollback material... not sure if rollback policy allows for this type of thing though. Netscott 22:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• It was the VandalProof concern that I had. I hope something can be done else irresponsible users can permanently damage fellow editors. I also think Owwmykneecap should be warned otherwise this could be a recurring problem. BlueValour 22:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• yes I have the same problem (as mentioned above). --Charlesknight 22:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've warned Owwmykneecap and deleted the relevant version per Wikipedia:Use common sense. Bishonen | talk 19:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

So far as I'm aware, VandalProof does not have the ability to retrieve warnings that are not present in the current revision, and I'm not sure how one would go about developing such a "feature" without overwhelming the poor, abused servers and wasting a lot of user time. In other words, simply deleting the text of the warning should suffice, and so in the future there's really no need to request deletions of such revisions from history (in fact, I believe such deletions should be discouraged). AmiDaniel (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New template for dealing with spammers

Please see {{spamonly}} - this was created by me today.

Using the template, it produces:

This user is a spam-only account, and has been blocked indefinitely.. See block log. Please do not subst this template.

Use this if you see a spammer. Hope it helps. Based on the Willy on Wheels template. --Sunholm(talk) 21:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirection flood

Something's odd with these contributions, but I can't nail it. -- Omniplex 22:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, following a move from Quebec route 111 to Route 111 (Quebec) with a move from Route 111 (Quebec) to Quebec Route 111 (etc.)... Where have I seen that before? · rodii · 01:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Armking and socks. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking more of the controversy over California road naming conventions.· rodii · 21:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Juppiter blocked for 24 hours seven days

Juppiter (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been blocked for 24 hours for vandalising User:OrphanBot repeatedly recently and ignoring warnings not to do so, by Lar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). This user has been warned repeatedly about this, as far back as March of this year. The user also moved OrphanBot to BastardBot, not once but twice, for which he was also warned. Enough is enough, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 23:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

24 hours is pretty lenient, considering his history of being warned for doing this same sort of thing. Agree with block. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving a userpage? Particularly of a tool? IMO, 24 hours is very lenient especially given the history. Netscott 23:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is to be hoped that the user will realise that change in approach is needed and further that incivil edits such as (now deleted, so only admins can see it) this one won't recur. It's the first block after all. I certainly won't wheel war about it though. ++Lar 23:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering that he's now encouraging other users to vandalize, I'm not terribly optimistic. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If he picks up again after the block ends, he can always be re-blocked. I commend Lar for giving him chance, even if it's a bit too optimistic. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not as optimistic any more, I guess. Based on what Mindspillage pointed out and his response to her, Freakofnurture (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) has extended the block to 7 days. Which I support. ++Lar 18:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Let's see, Juppiter, we clean up after you, we make you go to your room and we dont get paid for it—yup, we're your mother... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Let him ponder policy for a while. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IP adress 65.221.146.3

has been making edits that are obviously vandalism, as you can see here [43] False Prophet 00:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This sort of thing should go to WP:AIV. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion and Protection of HRE RfA

I, Lar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) reverted, then protected Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/HolyRomanEmperor 4 in order to effect a closure, (the diffs between that protection and the subsequent tagging as an WP:OFFICE closure are here) based on discussion on IRC (#wikipedia-en-admins) that there was a revert war underway, and that Danny was asking for the RfA to be closed pending further investigation. I posted a notice to the talk page, and subsequent discussion can be seen here [44]. suffice it to say that it was not universally accepted that I did the right thing, it was alleged that I violated the protection policy, point 2 by first reverting and then protecting. (I would say I was implementing the desire to have it be closed that Danny expressed) See also this series of exchanges on my talk page. I also reverted the reinsertion of the RfA into the currently active list. stand by my actions but put myself up for review here. ++Lar: t/c 03:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that what happened, as I see it, was a miscommunication caused by parallel discussions on WT:RFA and IRC — those not on IRC, such as myself, were unaware that Danny was going to use his OFFICE prerrogative. Yes, this shouldn't happen, and this is why we should not be making Wikipedia-related decisions on IRC, but this situation was most unusual, and very grave. Danny, Lar and everybody else were only trying to find a smooth resolution to the problem, all the while showing HolyRomanEmperor, his family and, well, the whole situation itself, the due respect. It happens, and it pales in comparison to the possibility that a long-standing Wikipedian might have died. Redux 04:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to commend you for having the decisiveness and courage to clarify something that was becoming a drawn-out confusion, where nobody knew what was going on and nobody was willing to do anything about it. That is what admins are appointed for—to take such responsibility when necessary. These are extraordinary circumstances, and I have no doubt your actions were with the best interests of wiki in mind. I find that this alone justifies them. The fact that you were acting on instructions from OFFICE means there should be no further debate involving you. Tyrenius 04:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If this is true, and it does appear there is reason to believe so: May I be the first to suggest the typical "memorial effort" idea for this situation? That is, of granting him status as a administrator, blocking him, and subsequently having a developer acting to further prevent a login? While I don't know much at all about MediaWiki, I'd wager that there is a way via database manipulaton (such as ruining the password hash?) and that a developer would do it (or try to) if asked by Danny. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 05:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a memorial. Sorry but I thinks that's proabably not a good idea.pschemp | talk 05:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The not memorial policy applies to articles. That said, there should be other ways to honour one besides posthumous adminship, especially given that in life adminship is supposed to be "no big deal." CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well... How? Throw up a giant statue to him at Wikimania? There are limited avenues to be taken for any kind of memorial effort; Considering the repeated attempts to gain adminship, it seems like a option. If the option to use those administrative powers is removed, it becomes a title. A ceremonial title, and a title which quite likely will be the most fitting thing the Wikipedia community can do, whether it is for his memory, for our mourning... Whatever. --Avillia14:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

HRE is not the first Wikipedian to die (although I suspect he is now the best-known simply because of the curious circumstances), and there is no particularily good reason why we should turn his account into some sort of memorial when we've not done the same for others who have predeceased him. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't really know what happened to HolyRomanEmperor as far as I'm aware. Evidently the account has been compromised and should be watched. Nothing would be served by those of us who didn't know him well pretending that we did. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Act in haste, repent at leisure. I suggest not making any hasty decisions with long lasting consequencies, particularly as we have incomplete information. Stephen B Streater 16:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Nod. Which is why I think protecting and temporarily delisting the nomination under WP:OFFICE, pending understanding what is going on is actually a very prudent thing to do, it's the least disruptive and allows for change later. ++Lar: t/c 17:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry and AfD nominations

Please see Gay Nigger Association of America, Tom Biddigan and Matt Spokes. Some new editor by the name of User:Jaunio has no edits other than edits nominating these articles for deletion. Reversion of the articles, adding {{prod}} boilers, or comments on his Talk page have no effect. And now that he has reverted each article exactlly three times, one User:Osieer shows up, doing the exact same thing. Obvious sockpupperty, and blockable offenses in any event. Please, someone, take a look. -- Ec5618 09:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And we're done, thanks to expedient assistance from FireFox. -- Ec5618 10:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Vaquero100 again

see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Vaquero100 above.

I've just blocked Vaquero100 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for continued disruption, disregard of concensus and failure to use proper channels before making changes. After User:Andrew c warned him again yesterday (approximately the fifth person to do so in 2 days) Vaquero100 went and changed Catholic to his preferred version again today. It appears he thinks the Roman Catholic Church should be referred to as the Catholic Church for a variety of reasons, but ignoring the fact there's multiple varieties of Catholicism. Anyone who disagrees with him is accused of oppressing "The Catholic Church"[45] and attempting to remove it from Wikipedia. I welcome review, but what I really want to know is how to take it from here. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. 24 hours as an attention-getter is appropriate, because argument isn't making any progress, and I also gave a warning and "cease and desist." Geogre 13:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrator could use some backup

Bishonen has been politely and patiently trying to persuade a stridently disruptive editor to alter his ways. Unfortunately, that has only made her a target of the editor's venom. She probably could use some backup from other administrators. Askolnick 12:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure! I'll take a gander. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, thank you for your concern, Askolnick, but I'm cool, the target part doesn't bother me. I've just blocked Peterklutz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) for three days for disruption of the Talk:Transcendental Meditation page in the form of persistent incivility and personal attacks, and more eyeballs on the block would certainly be appreciated. Feel free to alter the length of it in either direction. Please note that it's difficult to get any overview of the editor's contributions, as he often edits from a variety of IPs without being logged in; see the Transcendental Meditation history for some of these IPs. I think it's essentially the case that any anon contributor in the history is Peterklutz. The subject of the article is controversial, and Peterklutz is apparently at Wikipedia for the sole purpose of inputting POV in TM-related articles. If he won't learn to work with others--and I can see no sign of it yet--I can foresee stepping up the sanctions to the point where he can no longer interfere with these articles. Bishonen | talk 14:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen, I thought it was the least I could do for giving you extra work to do -- having to delete my own inappropriate additions to the TM article. I added them in the smoke and fury of the edit war last night, minutes before you blocked him. Sorry for doing that. I let myself get carried away by my growing frustration.

I haven't the slightest doubt you could handle the problem. But I thought I'd ask for help here anyway, so you wouldn't need to. Peterklutz turned his attack on you, accusing you of being on the side of the "Christian Fundamentalist" anti-TM conspiracy he keeps shouting about. I thought it would be helpful for additional administrators to point out the error in his ways. Askolnick 18:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. Well I'll monitor it as best I can. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• I found some of Peter's IPs in this declined CheckUser request (I've no doubt they're his all right)
• 213.112.235.43 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 213.112.235.81 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 213.112.235.53 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 85.30.186.206 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

Bishonen | talk 21:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Trolling on Talk:Sikhism

Hi - I request administrative action against user:ARYAN818(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ARYAN818 see talk]) and user:Elven6 for continual violation of WP:NPA (includes personal, religious and racial abuse), WP:CIVIL[46] and for committing vandalism and WP:TROLL. Their behavior from July 2 till now has played a disruptive effect, and despite warnings from myself,user:Ragib and user:Dbachmann they have heaped a lot of abuse on user:Sukh.

Relevant diffs:[47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53]

Thanks, This Fire Burns 15:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am placing a warning on these users' talk pages. At the next personal attack, they will be blocked. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Drop me a line or send me an email if these persist. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

seeing the user's history, I would have considered this a clear case for a block. This user has been skimming a permaban as a troll from the beginning, and has been all bother ever since. I'll not override your warning, but I might issue a permaban in the (likely) case that the trolling continues. dab (ᛏ) 16:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I just posted a rather long drawl on User:ARYAN818's talk page... it seems to me like he didn't quite understand what he was doing wrong, but kept getting angrier/more frustrated as people warned him. I'd definitely endorse a 24hr-1 week block if he continues with the trolling past here (and I'd probably endorse a 24hr right now to get his attention). --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 16:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps {{TrollWarning}} should be added to said talk page. — Jul. 4, '06 [16:26] <freak|talk>

818 is code for H.A.H. -- "Heil Adolf Hitler". I'm indef-blocking the user name. Feel free to review. JDoorjam Talk 17:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to point this out. I endorse this block.--May the Force be with you! Shre<;/font>shth91^{(esperanza elections!)} 18:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spambot on Jack Abramoff.

What looks like a spambot has been making numerous posts to Jack Abramoff recently, replacing an entire section with links to prescription drugs. Every edit has been from a different IP, but they all share several key features; they try and place html <a href= links instead of Wikipedia links, and they generally put something about "great site!" or so forth in front of their additions. I assume that this is a bot intended to post to messageboards and guestbooks that has somehow followed a link to Wikipedia. Example edits include: [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] --Aquillion 17:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the spam blacklist. Naconkantari 17:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Another possible spam blacklist addition: seems bot like too. Netscott 17:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Point, 3RR?, Harassment

Could an admin take a look at User:24.211.192.250 contributions. This user seems to be engaged in harassing User:Karl Meier and violating a number of policies in the process. Thanks. Netscott 18:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anirudh777 (talk · contribs)

Despite repeated warnings, user continues to spam Hinduism-related articles with links to ambedkar.org, which has had its Alexa ranking increase by 300,000 as a result. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 19:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way--user's previous block was, in fact, a mistake and had nothing to do with spamming (or so it appears). --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 19:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous sockpuppetry and personal attacks

User: Imacomp is now running two sockpuppets; User: Azuredeltascribe and User: Deltascribe following some conflict with users on Freemasonry, leading to an RFC on his conduct.

He is now using the User: Deltascribe account to launch personal attacks using the sock tags on the various accounts.

on User: Azuredeltascribe 4 July 06

on Freemasonry 3 July 06

on User: Deltascribe 4 July 06

on User: Skull 'n' Femurs 4 July 06

Sockpuppetry assessed as likely at this case.

The latter point probably supports the assertion that Imacomp is a sock of USer: Skull 'n' Femurs who was blocked in February by User: David Gerard on the basis of a stated intent and actions to systematically remove information from Wikipedia.

Grateful if an admin could deal with the sockpuppetry as appropriate.ALR 20:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This matter should be taken to suspected sock puppets. Iolakana|^T 22:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convincedd that 7 days of talking about it really adds much value, but I can overuse process if required.  :) Thanks anyway.ALR 09:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, given that there appears to be no outcome from the discussion on that page I won't bother wasting my time.ALR 09:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's not seven days, some are resolved within minutes. It's just because there is only one admin who goes around the page, me! I have to close every single one of these debates. You just have to have a little patience. Iolakana|^T 11:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for clarifying, I was struck by the comments on the talk page, and the fact that the previous report on Imacomp hadn't been touched by anyone else since it was raised. Many thanks for dealing. ALR 13:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dyslexic agnostic and User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow banned from comics-related articles

User:Dyslexic agnostic and User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow are banned from comics-related articles for two weeks, the ban expiring at 05:35 17 July (UTC). This ban is in accordance with the terms of their probations at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic. The two have recently engaged in edit warring at various articles, including List of Batman: The Animated Series episodes, It's Never Too Late (Batman: The Animated Series) and On Leather Wings (Batman: The Animated Series). I have discussed this with User:Titoxd, a moderator to User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow and we feel that a ban from a few articles for two weeks will simply move the conflict to another article. Note that User:Dyslexic agnostic is currently blocked for a personal attack for 24 hours by myself after this edit, per his probation. Hiding Talk 21:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move of Israeli Apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid while Request for Move poll in progress

We have a problem with Israeli Apartheid again. As some may recall, activity on this article has generated considerable controversy. A few weeks ago, the page had to be locked for a time, and one user is banned from editing it.

One of the several controversial issues pending is whether the article should be moved to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. There's a formal request for move poll in progress on this at Wikipedia talk:Central discussions/Apartheid#Poll: Rename "Apartheid outside of South Africa" article to "Allegations of apartheid outside South Africa" with a start date of 26 June 2006. The poll hasn't yet been closed, and no consensus has emerged.

Today, we have this action: 20:11, 4 July 2006 Humus sapiens (talk · contribs) (moved Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid: NPOV title). This is a unilateral move while a vote on the move is in progress. That is arguably vandalism. Discussion of the matter can be found at Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid.

We're going to need some administrator intervention again. Would some uninvolved administrator be willing to take this on? It won't be fun, but somebody has to do it. Thanks. --John Nagle 21:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The article had this offensive title since May 28. The polls only served as a magnet for certain editors eager to besmirch Israel. No consensus was possible and no compromise was acceptable. Read the article and tell me allegations is incorrect title. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it back. I agree entirely that the move was out of process and improper. I also have to say that I have serious concerns about the way that a number of admins, including Humus sapiens, have been behaving concerning this article. I've already expressed my concerns to Humus on his talk page (see User talk:Humus sapiens#Bantustan again) regarding his conduct on an article linking to this one. As I said on Humus's talk page:

You clearly have a strong POV on the issue but you as an administrator, of all people, should know by now that WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox: "Wikipedia articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind." It's simply not our job to "refute a slanderous accusation" [as Humus claimed - CO] or for that matter to promote it. All we are here to do is to describe neutrally what others say about the issue. WP:NPOV#A simple formulation states it better than I could - "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves".

This is really basic stuff. Frankly I'm surprised and dismayed that I'm finding myself having to explain it to a fellow administrator, even a relatively new one. Wikipedia has more than enough partisan editors - as administrators, we should be pushing for objectivity, not pushing our own partisan POVs. If you hold a strong POV on an issue, that's all the more reason for consciously trying to avoid letting it colour your editing.

I think some people need to take a refresher course in what the NPOV policy requires. It's not surprising that some editors might not understand the policy, but if administrators don't understand it (or worse, don't want to follow it) I have to question whether they should be administrators in the first place. If admins don't or won't defend NPOV, who will? -- ChrisO 22:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I note that User:Jayjg is now claiming that "there's good enough consensus for this". I count 16 votes in favour and 12 against; that's clearly not a consensus, nor a supermajority (see Wikipedia:Consensus). What's the hurry or the harm in letting people discuss it and reach a consensus? -- ChrisO 22:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris, I question your neutrality as well. I replied on you talk page back then, remember? [61]. As for process, I do think it is important but in this case the polls and requests were ongoing for many weeks. Conveniently, the offensive title was kept meanwhile. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Do I also have to remind you that Wikipedia is supposed to work by consensus? As for my "neutrality", believe it or not, I am genuinely neutral in this matter - I don't think the move is particularly consistent with other articles on pejorative political terms but I don't much care what the outcome is. What I am concerned about is an apparent attempt to short-circuit an ongoing move poll. I'd be just as concerned if the proposed move was from Allegations of Israeli apartheid to Israeli apartheid. You have one POV and other people have another. So work out a compromise with them rather than just imposing your preferred solution before the poll has even been closed. -- ChrisO 22:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus to title it improperly in the first place. Conveniently, the polls were ongoing for weeks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This page moving must stop

1. 22:15, 4 July 2006 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) m (moved Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid: There's good enough consensus for this, and NPOV really demands it.)
2. (cur) (last) 22:13, 4 July 2006 ChrisO (Talk | contribs) m (moved Allegations of Israeli apartheid to Israeli apartheid: Out of process move - ongoing move poll is not yet concluded and no decision has been reached)
3. (cur) (last) 22:12, 4 July 2006 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) m (moved Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid)
4. (cur) (last) 21:55, 4 July 2006 ChrisO (Talk | contribs) m (moved Allegations of Israeli apartheid to Israeli apartheid: Out of process move - ongoing move poll is not yet concluded and no decision has been reached)

This is embarassing for Wikipedia. I never thought I'd need to put this here, but

As they say in the movies, "oh be-have". Seriously, though, we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so don't make joke edits. Some readers looking for a serious article might not find them amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do a bit seriously here. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write whatever you want (as long as it's not offensive). ~~~~

--John Nagle 22:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank Homey for starting it. BTW, I dislike "Allegations..." but agreed to it a as a compromise. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris, you're moving titles and then protecting, and you opposed the move on June 26, so you're an involved editor. This situation is a farce, and has been for weeks, since a series of "apartheid" related articles were created to make a political point against Israel. The allegations of apartheid are widely and hotly disputed, and it's therefore accurate to call the article "allegations of ..." We shouldn't need polls or long drawn-out discussions, because it's a question of common sense, and I have to question the good faith of anyone who argues otherwise. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a propaganda sheet, so please allow the article to be named in a way that allows the article to exist, but with a title those who oppose its existence can at least live with. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, as I explained in my vote, my opposition to the move was purely because I felt it was inconsistent with the way we treat other pejorative terms, not because I have a particular POV regarding the issue. I genuinely don't have a dog in this fight - I'm a Balkanist, not a Middle Easternist. Of course the issue is widely and hotly disputed, and that's all the more reason for going the extra mile to find a compromise. Consider this: if you short-circuit the ongoing move poll, which has not found a consensus (a 16-12 vote plainly isn't a consensus), you're only going to aggrieve the opposing side and you will end up with months of arguments about "unfairness" (not from me though, because I'm not getting involved). You'd feel exactly the same way if the opposing side did the same thing to you. If you want to get over this hurdle you have to come up with a solution that both sides can accept. Take it to RFM if you wish. Short-circuiting a move poll, especially on such a controversial issue, is just a bad idea. -- ChrisO 22:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Shortcircuiting whatever's going on is a very good idea when it's causing as much bad feeling as this. The article must have a title that accurately reflects the situation. There is as a matter of hard, cold fact no apartheid in Israel. There is a situation that some people want to say is similar to some aspects of South African apartheid. It is an allegation, and a highly controversial one. Stop to think: why is one "side" so opposed to calling it an allegation? It seems to me that some people are simply delighted at having caused so much ill-feeling. I'm asking everyone involved in this to step back and reach a compromise: namely that the article exists (and it's not at all clear that it ought to), but that it be given a title that is more accurate and less offensive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there's clearly a political agenda behind it - of course there is, it's a political slogan. The term "Israeli apartheid" is used by its proponents as shorthand for "systematic racial/religious discrimination in Israel". Now, there are two separate issues here - one is what the slogan means, who uses it, where it comes from and how it is used (in other words, the nature of the slogan). The other is whether the slogan is in fact justified by the facts (i.e. the substance of the slogan). The substance can be dealt with in an article called Allegations of discrimination in Israel or something like that. The nature of the slogan can be dealt with in the existing Israeli apartheid article - and is in fact already mostly tackled by that article - treated along the same lines as other political slogans (see Category:Political slogans for examples). Any discussion of whether the slogan is justified, other than perhaps the briefest summary of pro and con arguments, should not go in this article but should go to one on the issue of discrimination.

Obviously the slogan will be seen as offensive by some people, but the undeniable fact is that the slogan exists, just like RINO (offensive to moderate Republicans), Axis of weasels (offensive to critics of the Iraq War) or Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet (offensive to, well, reptilian kitten-eaters from other planets, who might be good for all we know). Reading what you and Humus have said about this, I get the very strong feeling that your complaint is that the slogan is offensive. Of course it is, but that's irrelevant - WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored to spare readers from "things they may consider objectionable or offensive". We have to deal with the world as it is, not as we might wish it was, and we can't deal with offensive political slogans by pretending they don't exist. -- ChrisO 23:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Thank Homey for starting it." I've never moved the article from its original title. Homey 22:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

... which was offensive and unencyclopedic. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg and Humus should to be blocked immediately if they continue. - Xed 22:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL! But not ChrisO, who moved it three times? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

They have continued. - Xed 22:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Please get your facts straight. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"This situation is a farce, and has been for weeks, since a series of "apartheid" related articles were created to make a political point against Israel." Actually, the article gender apartheid is mostly concerned with Muslim states and the term is used by a number of US conservative sources as well as by feminists. Sexual apartheid doesn't deal with Israel nor doesGlobal apartheid which deals with with what used to be called "North/South issues" (or "Third world" underdevelopment).Please AGF. Homey 22:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey, you created the other apartheid articles in order to justify the creation of the Israeli one, and it has led to chaos, bad feeling, and irreparable editing relationships. Please reconsider your opposition to this. With a name change, the article exists, but the title at least isn't so galling. It's a fair compromise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make assumptions about why I created the articles. I did so when I noticed that there was no proper article named apartheid and thus no place for articles on modern uses of the term, a number of which I have come across being used with increasing frequency. If you don't like the name of an article, fine, win consensus to change it but don't violate NPA and AGF to justify your support of acting without consensus.Homey 22:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

So what do we do when an Arbcomm member participates in a wheel war?Homey 22:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wheel war? I moved it once. It's ChrisO who moved it three times and protected it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Open an RfC. I'm seriously considering it - I think Jayjg, Humus and SlimVirgin have gone considerably beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour in attempting to short-circuit the ongoing poll. As administrators, we should surely be held to the same standards as other editors. -- ChrisO 22:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering an RfC? Perhaps you should consider opening one on an involved admin who moves a page 3 times, and protects it as well. That would be you. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As regards protecting the article against moves (note - not against edits), I've had plenty of experience of POV-driven article moves in Balkans-related articles, especially relating to Kosovo, where even placenames are regarded as expressions of POV. My SOP in such situations is to revert to the status quo ante and tell the would-be movers to reach a consensus (as per WP:CON) through a talk page discussion or move poll. If they continue to move the page without consensus, I revert to the status quo ante and protect the page to force them to discuss the issue. I would do this with almost any article, excepting those which have such problematic titles that the great majority of people would consider them unacceptable (and I've not come across many of these). It's this approach which I've followed in this instance - actively defending WP:CON and WP:NPOV. I'm disappointed that some people apparently don't have the patience to seek a consensus and I'm frankly amazed that an ArbComm member would be so dismissive of Wikipedia's policy of consensus. -- ChrisO 23:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Still, not exactly the sort of behaviour one would expect from an ArbComm member.Homey 22:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving a page one time, which is not even an admin action, and when a majority of people in a poll think the move should be done? Horrifying! Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

1) a majority is not consensus 2) so does this mean if your action results in the majority tipping in the other action you'll support its reversal? Homey 22:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The defintion of wheel war is dissputed. In any case the answer to the question is not much.Geni 22:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In any event, page moving is not an admin action; anyone can do it. If you want to claim it's a revert war, go ahead, but it's certainly not a wheel war. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Jay, you're not exactly setting a great example as an ArbComm member, are you? I expect this means you aren't running for re-election this fall?Homey 22:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey, quit it, please. You started this trouble, and did it knowingly, so please help to resolve it rather than fanning the flames. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he won't last that long if he carries on with his current behaviour. - Xed 22:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to here, Homey, or why you think this board has devolved into a forum for discussing me. Please focus on the issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey could not decide any better than to use this occasion for soapboxing and ad hom other editors. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not ad hom to note that an ArbComm member is acting inappropriately. Indeed, one would think ANI is the place to raise such behaviour. Anyway, Jay's ruled himself out of re-election through his actions. He's bascially a lameduck ArbComm member now since anyone whose case he sits on can just point to his behaviour in these articles over the past few months and question his authority to adjudicate. Homey 23:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

most arcom members don't run for a second term anyway so the issue is irrelivant. Campaining for elections will probably start with canaditate staments in november so can it.Geni 23:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Homey, quit it, please."

I have not participated in this revert war over the article's name, have I?

"You started this trouble, and did it knowingly"

AGF and NPA

"so please help to resolve it rather than fanning the flames."

Perhaps people should wait until the voting has stopped to see if there's a consensus before moving the article? Or perhaps we need a mediator?Homey 23:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status?

Where are we now with this? What happens next? Right now, the out-of-process article move seems to have happened. Some of the players are now having a revert war over {{or}} tags.

Probably nothing short of arbitration, and a few more users banned from editing the article, will work at this point. --John Nagle 23:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me while I redirect Wikipedia:Pointless and Endless Streams Of DRAMA which belong in DR to ANI. Seriously. I can't put it in more civil a tone than that. WP:ANI is not where this crap should spill, it should spill in a RfC, or MedCab, or MedCom, or ArbCom. Bloody hell. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 23:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This matter has been referred to arbitration. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Move and revert warring at Israeli Apartheid --John Nagle 00:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's pointless. The arbcom is not going to rule against one of its members, whose notion of "consensus" seems, in this case and others, something akin to "my friends agree". Which it does. One can expect his friends on the arbcom also to agree that he can call the article whatever he likes. As I noted, curiously, the notion of "new antisemitism", pushed by a few people of a particular political persuasion but not particularly widely used, has an article titled "new antisemitism", yet this notion, pushed by a few people of a particular political persuasion but not particularly widely used, we are told should not be entitled with the name of the notion but with a more weaselly version. Ho hum. Grace Note 04:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] horrific edit war on Barbara Eden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[Removed many personal attacks between User:George Walaby and User:Joe Finnes —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-04 22:47Z]

Both of you, knock it off. This is not the place for childish arguments. Either come to a compromise or take it elsewhere. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked both User:Joe Finnes and User:George Walaby for 3 hours. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-04 22:43Z

Both? Looks like they are the same person to me.Geni 22:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Two new users, who make edits to Barbara Eden within seconds of each other? This seems more like some two-handed variation of an ANI-troll. - David Oberst 22:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a checkuser is in order. FCYTravis 22:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

(after triple edit conflict!) Hmm, I blocked both for 24 hours, if they are the same user probably should be indef, if they are not might as well keep the 3 hour one from Quarl. Petros471 22:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Why bother is anyone seriously suggesting they are not the same peson? Just extend the blocks to indefinate.Geni 22:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-04 22:53Z

I just had a thought: maybe this is a new variation of Joe job - sully the names of two people by creating trolls in their names? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-04 22:57Z

It certainly looks like either that, or the the ANI troll, so I think probably the suggested indef block is in order. Petros471 22:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As there's been no objections, I've extended the blocks to indef. Anyone feeling there is a chance that they can contribute usefully is welcome to unblock. Petros471 23:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the original content of this section belongs on BJAODN. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I second that, "horrific" in describing an "edit war" is nearly worth such a designation alone. :-) Netscott 23:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty damn lame attempt at this:

http://wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Sockpuppets

Ashibaka tock 06:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Look at this USer (or Admins?) behaviour

User:Golbez has made some unruly assumptions which are groundless and uncivil in nature as shown here; [[62]]. When engaged about such behaviour this users response was this; [[63]]. Accusing another user of trying to start a fight is firstly wrong unless it can be proved and obvious. Secondly how can one claim they are neutral when they make such statements as "GM don’t fall for his bait," on a talk page which defames another editors intentions, motivations, and character. I ask that any admin. Scrutinize my edits and work to even see if there is a spec of dubious behaviour or editing on my part. This user/admins. comments were totally uncalled for and the word shut up is definitely not civil in nature. 69.196.164.190

Actually, the discussion between both Grandmaster and you had little to do with the conflict about the content of the article, it was only generated noises, and relevant discussions were being lost from it, Golbez could have gone further by removing them. His implication and his reaction you are reporting, is the sort that is actually giving results. Insteed of having a politically correct administrator who will do nothing other than distributing warnings for few displaced words, he is jumping in the conflict and trying to put some orders. Chasse Golbez out from that article with imsignificances like this, and good morning the unmoderated street fighting. Fad (ix) 00:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Fadix and disagree with 69.196.164.190. Both he and Grandmaster were using inflammatory language, and Golbez' intervention was the only way to stop it getting out of hand. I found Golbez' comments just and moderate. Golbez has demonstrated before his tendency to be a through, proactive, and neutral moderator, so I find this accusation out of place.--TigranTheGreat 00:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I applaud Gomez's decisive action. These are two users that have been going at it for some time, and yes, something did need to be said/done about it. --InShaneee 01:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry you all feel that way. I was never uncivil nor have a breached any rules. I do not appreciate being threatened or told to shut up. As for user:Grandmaster, I have nothing against him, but he has made several attacks against me and accusations. So I can not say I appreciate the comments left by user:InShaneee. While I am here I must admit that the pause on the page has been lifted and results are beginning to show on the editing work and I am pleased about that and I personally thank all edits, even user:Golbez. However, I do not appreicate being told I do not like another editors or the term "budding fighting," meaning a fight that is going to develop. This is assumption and uncalled for. As for User:InShaneee I find it unusual that he has voiced his opinion on this as I have no involvement with him/her aside from rebutting some accusations GM has been making to him about me. Once again I have no problem against GM, but he does have some sort of a problem with me and has accused me of trolling, sockpuppeting, being another editor or actually four, being anti-Azari, and etc. I want to edit in peace and have never been inflammatory or uncivil to any user. Thanks all. 69.196.164.190

If you bring a problem here, uninvolved admins are going to comment on it. That's mostly the point of bringing something here. --InShaneee 17:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Golbez was just trying to ease an editing dispute where these two users had gotten more than a little uncivil (both parties, not just the anon - comments like "You talk about the things you have no idea about" (--User:Grandmaster) are also unacceptable). Golbez is 100% correct in his actions and I commend him for stepping in like this. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 02:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This was my reaction to GMs uncivil behaviour;

Please remain civil, we want civil discourse here. I am sorry that you are getting upset, but you do not need to address others in an aggressive tone. Your comments were not civil.Your statment: "You talk about the things you have no idea about," was not civil. Keep your comments directed to material or editing, not to individuals. I do not need to warn you as you already know the guide lines for orderly behaviour. I will overlook your uncivil comment and give you a warning. As for the issue; I am fully aware about the issue at hand, one can be excused for coming to the conclusion that maybe certain editors do not know what they are talking about in Wikipedia or maybe they do, but want edits in articles based on POV. In practice NKOA is not a part of the Republic of Azarbaijan (Arran). Once agains, if you want the introduction changed GM, you must demonstate that NKOA is not an independent state (in practice), please. Demonstrate it and the introduction will be changed. And please be civil about it. Thank you.

That is the full text of my reply. I may also draw attention to his other attacks on me and the numerous warnings he has received from me such as this; [[64]] Thank you. 69.196.164.190

While I don't have the time to pick out specific diffs, accusing users of being straight out POV editing is usually seen as uncivil. There is a difference between being incorrect and being POV-pushing. There seems to be a distinct lack of evidence on the article's talk page, so this might be the root of your problems. If you go back to the talk page and lay out your evidence (no, "everyone in the world says this" is not evidence, I mean external websites, books, etc.) without accusing other users of pushing a POV, you might get a better response. If you don't get a good response to that evidence (and you were civil in presenting it), then you're not at fault. This is (probably)) what Golbez is trying to get across. Have a great day! --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 03:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And while I don't think the anon's comments should have been removed by User:Email@domain.net from this page, I'm not willing to get into a revert war and won't readd the comments again. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 03:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally I do not appreciate User:Email@domain.net and his/her mysterious deletion of my validation and proof. Checking this users contributions makes them seem a little sinister. It might be a good idea to do a user check on this user.69.196.164.190

[edit] Large number of Toronto park stubs being created.

Two users, Stanfordandson (talk • contribs) and Daloonik (talk • contribs), appear to be creating stub articles for many parks listed in List of Toronto parks. The parks they choose seem to be non-notable as far as I can tell (having lived in Toronto all my life and visited a large number of its parks), and the stub articles contain remarkably little useful information. The creation spree seems to be a response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairbank Memorial Park. I'm at a loss as to how to respond to this, and so am noting it here.

Based on similar interests, suspicious timing in edit histories, and suspiciously rapid endorsement of User:Stanfordandson by User:Daloonik when the former was rebuked for inappropriate edits, I'm pretty sure User:Daloonik is a sock puppet used to further the aims of User:Stanfordandson. --Christopher Thomas 02:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There's also a Daloonik2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). I've speedily deleted a few of these point-making park substubs for doing nothing but restating the title (Foo park, Toronto is a park in Toronto). Proto///type 09:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that these should be speedied, since they seem like perfectly reasonable stubs to me. I ran across one on AFD before seeing this note, and expanded it into a full article with no problem. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• See also section below: /#User:Proto needs to stop speedily deleting rapid articles--A Y Arktos\^talk 00:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link-spamming from someone in the IP address block 64.228.225.xxx

I'd like some advice. I have noticed a pattern of link-spamming from one or more editors in the IP address block 64.228.225.xxx, including:

• User:64.228.225.176, Contributions, Talk
• User:64.228.225.156, Contributions, Talk
• User:64.228.225.146, Contributions, Talk
• User:64.228.225.20, Contributions, Talk
• User:64.228.225.111, Contributions, Talk
• User:64.228.225.117, Contributions, Talk
• User:64.228.225.118, Contributions, Talk
• User:64.228.225.29, Contributions, Talk
• User:64.228.225.40, Contributions, Talk
• User:64.228.225.67, Contributions, Talk
• User:64.228.225.96, Contributions, Talk
• User:64.228.225.98, Contributions, Talk

I've just spot-checked some of the IP addresses in this block -- there are probably more offenders. There are also a handful of legitimate edits from IP addresses in this block of IP addresses. The block is registered to Bell Canada's large Bell Sympatico operation. I get the feeling that this may be one editor with a dialup connection -- there will be a block of edits on one day from one IP address, then another day's worth of links will come from another IP address. This has been going on for over a year. Many of the links are to angelfire.com or ipfox.com URLs

Some pages linked to are semi-benign, others are pure commercial junk, but all are intertied and contain advertising in what appears to be a Spamdexing scheme. (Particularly annoying is that some of the linked pages are slow to load and have mulitple pop-up ads.)

I have tried to revert some edits, but there are a lot of them. Here are my questions/requests/suggestions:

1. Some way to quickly screen all 256 addresses in this block to see which have been sources of edits.
2. It would be nice to have some sort of bot that would just crawl these users' contributions and delete. There are about 75 left; if I have to, I will go through them manually.
3. Is there a way to monitor user contributions from addresses within this address block on an ongoing basis?

One other observation: There was one edit from User:64.228.225.54 -- this editor cast the lone vote for an article, David Kam, that was viewed by others as a vanity article submitted by User:Canadianartist. The user at 64.228.225.54 manually signed his post "[[Canadianartist]]" (forgetting the "User:"). Most of Canadianartist's edits were links to www.artsmovements.org. There may or may not be a connection between this user and the anonymous users in the 64.228.225.xxx block. These links created some heartburn at the time; see User talk:SimonP/Archive 2#Art Movements. Kam also later resurfaces in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Thinkism. User:64.228.225.96 made several edits on David Kam's behalf in 2004.

--A. B. 05:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a list of the affected articles: User:A. B./To do list#Articles spammed

--A. B. 05:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Door safety

The new, most pressing safety issue in the world, brought to you by Davidwikipedia (talk · contribs), who is surely not employed by Fingershield, whose spam has been removed once or twice from Safety. Two articles on door safety (door safety and door guard)? Spammed all over the project? Or am I just being paranoid?

Doors are a big safety hazard and deserve an article! I once crushed a friend's pinky finger with the hinge side of a door, I should have bought a fingershield. But alas, the current edition of the article does not have the links you spoke of and I can't buy them. Lapinmies 12:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to make a two points before people get confused: David was a former employee of Fingershield and also links were put on but they were disallowed as it was said to be a form of advertising which shocked me. However, Fingershield as a door safety product does stop finger trapping accidents in the door and i will agree with you on that point.

[edit] Need help on how to call deletion review for What Really Happened

An article on the website What Really Happened was deleted after an extensive debate in which no consensus was reached. I am seeking assistance in reviewing the deletion debate and potentially restoring the page should administrators agree that the deletion is unwarranted. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Really Happened (2nd nomination). Tiamut 10:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please take your request to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Although I don't think you will have any luck - my first impression is that the deletion was entirely in process, and correctly ignored the basket of sockpuppets that decended on the discussion. Proto///type 10:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long IP block, please review

After a 3-month block by Hall Monitor, 195.92.163.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) returned on June30 and resumed with the childish graffiti. Never a good edit. An unwatched machine in a school, perhaps? (My whois skills won't get it to resolve; it could be all the schools in the Home Counties, I suppose.) Why keep this poop conduit connected to the wiki? On the assumption that HM knew what he was doing, I've blocked for another 3 months. Could somebody please review, check up on who's affected, and unblock if indicated? I'd really appreciate it. Bishonen | talk 11:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC).

• If no one was affected by the initial block, I doubt a new one will cause problems. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Fine by me. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• WHOIS gets that it is a company called Energis, a telecom company. Abuse can go to abuse[at]energis[.]com. Three months seems fine. Iolakana|^T 12:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Great, thank you all very much. Bishonen | talk 20:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Linkspam

User:143.167.143.177 has been spamming links to his own personal website. It's about Stanley Kubrick's cinematography, but he's been putting it even on articles of actors in Kubrick films. I warned him and removed the links, but he put them back. CRCulver 12:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Warned the user, using {{spam4}}. Not much action can be taken, and there is the odd good faith edit. I'll keep a look out. Iolakana|^T 12:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Luka Jačov repeatedly removing a {{PUIdisputed}} tag on an image page

The image in question is Image:Kuzma.jpg. I'm not sure if that qualifies as vandalism, so I'm referring to this page. User:Luka Jačov removes the {{PUIdisputed}} which says the image is listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images for some reason. It is in fact listed there, but he claims to have received a permission (he has not shown it despite my constant requests).

I was even blocked for 12h by User:Jaranda in connection to this activity of Jačov. Jaranda may have been very likely mislead by Luka Jačov. I first reported Jačov's 3RR (four reverts), then he reported me claiming I had made six reverts, when in fact they were three (this can clearly be seen), the other three he listed being other edits to the page. What's more, I wouldn't have ever made a fourth edit, because this would mean breaking the rule, and I'm perfectly aware of it.

In addition to this, he keeps inserting several images (Image:Pasadur.jpg and the already mentioned Image:Kuzma.jpg) with undetermined copyright status to the FA Lastovo. Due to copyvio issues, the article's appearance on the Main Page was postponed until they're solved, but this has proven to be very hard. Jačov claims to have received permissions (and has indeed received one for a text) and keeps inserting the photos without being able to prove them being free (presumably for now, until the licenses are shown). His attitude to copyrights can be made clear by this statement: 'i come from country where we dont care about copyrights'. Todor→Bozhinov 16:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Abdelkweli

This is going to vague but (and I'm clearly I'm not assuming Good faith) I need the advice of some old lags. I first encountered this user when I noticed that his userpage was full of fake awards and the like (Claim of 2,500 edits, claim of Vandalproof usage). Besides some interaction on a couple of list articles - his whole presence seems to be about promoting a barnstar award he's come up with and he's now started adding it to various category lists (which I have removed because if we allowed people to advertise their barnstar awards all over the place we would soon be in a real mess). My previous interactions with him have been frosty (it does not help that I have been systematically removing content from the French-american article he created because it seems to be mostly OR), so frankly I'm loathe to get into with him on his talkpage. What's the best way to proceed?

--Charlesknight 16:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help Needed

I new here and Yom keeps leaving VERY offensive messages on my talk page! HELP!!! Atlas151 17:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's clear User:Atlas151 unsuccessfully tries to impersonate those two users. His contributions and his talk's edit history show that he leaves the messages himself and only adds the guys' signatures. Todor→Bozhinov 17:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I'm blocking him for trolling (if he hasn't been already). Sasquatch t|c 17:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

He's lucky - you got in with a 24 hour block just before I put a week's block on him. So the 24 hour one will stand. --ajn (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, well, I'm in a nice mood right now. But I think we'll all be watching his return. Sasquatch t|c 17:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hay, I'm in a good mood too, so I'll stay unblocked! Atlas 152 18:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I think not. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As a result of that last edit, I've unblocked Atlas 151 and reblocked indefinitely. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

SO WHAT! I DONT CARE! Atlas153 20:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rafaelvasquez should be blocked

User:Rafaelvasquez has been creating and reverting bogus articles on Joshua Barbera and other animation people and characters. Appropriate warnings have been left on the user's talk page. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've undone the nonsense, and I'll be keeping an eye on things. --ajn (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] angry nationalist in need of admonition

[65] -- the Nazi Krauts parading around Wikipedia John-Cleese-style are (but for the beam in "Netaji"'s eye) Paul Barlow (talk · contribs) and myself; thanks, dab (ᛏ) 22:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] please review by emergency admin action, please

Could an admin please review the following. Feline1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) had breached 3RR. A complaint had been registered. I was one of those involved in an edit war with him. No admin seemed to be available to deal with the situation. He reached 5 reverts with no intervention, while taunting other users that he could still keep reverting while they, obeying the rules, would not go beyond 3. To stop the situation spiralling out of control, as no other admin was available I intervened to impose a 24 hour block. I would not normally do so as I had been party to the edit war. However I believed that someone had to intervene quickly and no-one was available to. I am putting this message here to ask another admin to review my block and enable them if they wish revert it and then impose their own. As I said I would not normally do so but in this case in the absence of anyone else I felt I had to act. I would offer not to edit the page any more tonight until someone else reviews my actions, but it any case I have done 3 reverts. FearÉIREANN^(caint) 23:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Commented on the 3RR page. Block looks appropriate to me. I especially appreciated the correctly done 3RR report. Wikibofh_(talk) 00:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Proto needs to stop speedily deleting rapid articles

I am in the process of re-creating several articles about Toronto Parks which were speedily deleted by the administrator User:Proto. The article deletion logs are here: [66]

[67]

[68]

Please direct his attention to the debate, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fairbank_Memorial_Park, on deleting articles of this type. I should add that he speedily deleted these articles when they did not fufill any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Cellpreference 23:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So put more content into the articles than "Glen Cedar Park is an urban park in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It is located in the Forest Hill neighbourhood." and the speedying could be contested. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Proto has indef-blocked Cellpreference, so any further discussion of this should probably go to CP's talk page, in order to let him respond. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toe wars

Could an admin armed with a clue stick have a glance at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtic toe and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyllis Jackson? Arguments getting out of hand, along with AFD disruption. Tearlach 23:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I only have a cluebat. -- Drini 01:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Closed, both deleted, and their creator's story is a few sections below. Kimchi.sg 07:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nyarpy

Nyarpy is behaving a lot like a bot, but doesn't have a description. And only corrects the spelling "(s0ley->solely)". And CobaltBlueTony says it has edited an archive. And its not in the 'bot category. And "Sysops should block bots, without hesitation, if they are unapproved, doing something the operator did not say they would do, messing up articles or editing too rapidly.". Eh, thats all. --CAD6DEE2E8DAD95A (hello!) 04:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nyarpy (talk · contribs) isn't editing excessively rapidly. I doubt it's a bot...probably someone with AWB. Isopropyl 05:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timber treatment

I have added several pages worth of information about application processes, history, incising ect. ect… to the article Timber treatment. Eaven thought in the German Wikipedia I have had an account for a considerable time it is necassary to create a new account in the English Wikipedia to edit anything and sign it. Sadly as a English newbie account I'm blocked and I can not (e.g.) move the article “Timber treatment” to “Wood Preservation” as that would be a more suitable name. Would a Admin, unblock me so I can get back to editing Articles that have anything to do with wood. --Lumber Jack 06:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You're not blocked, as evidenced by the fact that you are editing Timber treatment and posting here. In a few days you can move articles. Ashibaka tock 06:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And before implementing the move (as this is an established article already), have a discussion on the talk-page of the article. Cheers. Lectonar 06:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow that went fast,

@Lectonar: I have postet the move request in the article's discussion page, and asked the last 10 authors what's their opinion to such a move. --Lumber Jack 06:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As it goes, it has already been moved. Fast indeed. Lectonar 06:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)