Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Deir Yassin 1.1 Guy Montag banned from Battle of Deir Yassin (1) 1.2 Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin massacre: move poll closure review requested 1.3 What to do if a move poll is determined by partisan reasons? 1.4 Guy Montag banned from Deir Yassin massacre (2) 2 Trolling by user:ARYAN818 and user:Elven6 2.1 user:ARYAN818 2.2 user:Elven6 2.3 Being referred to by name again 3 Essjay (talk · contribs) block of CovenantD (talk · contribs) 3.1 An AMA request for assistance has been made 4 User:EccentricRichard 5 SPUI (talk · contribs) 6 Kosovo 7 Pplumley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 8 multiple IPs at Talk:Highgate Vampire 9 Concerns with User: Qho [63] 10 Template:User WP Anime 11 User unwilling to accept criticism even though criticism is given in a civilized manner 12 Taylor Iosefo 13 Qho (talk · contribs) posting personal information 14 User:Pat8722 15 Help keeping an eye on an abusive user 16 Legal firm adding multiple links to their sites 17 Underage users 18 edits by 203.29.131.4 need attention 19 User:EasterGeorge 20 A multitude of hoaxes 21 R40A (New York City Subway car) 22 Football365 23 User:Ryan4 24 User:Mantanmoreland using a sockpuppet and violating policies 25 Last will and testament edits may be spam? 26 California Biblical University and Seminary 27 Removing talk page 28 Semi Protection Request 29 User:KittenKlub and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal 30 User RJ evading ban 30.1 Background Information 30.2 Evidence of Vision Thing and RJ being the same user 30.3 Evidence of violation of wiki policy by Vision Thing beyond circumventing ban 30.4 RJs explicit intentions now carried on in Vision Thing account 30.5 comment by Lingeron 31 User:Kelly Martin/? 31.1 User:Kelly Martin/B 31.2 User:Kelly Martin/R 31.3 Stop the madness 31.4 So, tell me if I'm right here... 32 Robertsteadman, a.k.a. Robsteadman 33 User: Brian G. Crawford's edits to Catamorphism's RfA 34 Anon IP posting of personal info 35 User:RealityBoy's images 36 Nonstop Vandal Reverts to House of Yahweh 37 AD removal vandalism 38 Admin User:InShaneee is removing content from my talk page 39 Removal of tags by SlimVirgin 40 Concern About Archiving Recent Talk Page Warning and Discussion about Multiple Identities on Wikipedia 41 List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris 42 EddieSegoura/Exicornt Vandal 43 User:Ps3fan2005

[edit] Deir Yassin

[edit] Guy Montag banned from Battle of Deir Yassin (1)

Per the terms of his probation, Guy Montag has been banned from editing Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin Massacre for disruptive editing, soliciting votes on a requested move, and incivility on the article's talk page. Any dissenting administrator may repeal this ban as necessary. Ral315 (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that he was doing anything innappropriate on that page, I think the block should be lifted.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Votestaking is inappropriate. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I really haven't seen any evidence that what Guy was doing was in fact votestacking at all. I personally voted in that article because it was on my watchlist, I think everybody kinda voted at once because they might have been waiting to see what other people's opinions were. I think that it is ridiculous that Guy is being banned for something that almost everybody does when there is a vote going on, after all I wonder how so many people that voted "support" found out that there was a survey going on at that particular moment especially when so many people had never edited the article in question before? That "votestacking" probably occured through E-mail.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, this is a controversy to which you are a party, and your "judgment" that votestaking has occurred, it must be said, is subjective. Did you review this decision with another, impartial admin? --Leifern 17:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have a look at the admin who made the first post of this section, you would have had your answer already, and as such, I consider this a act of bad faith. Furthermore, see, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag, you will see I reported him, but did not do the ban. As such, an uninvolved admin has reviewed it, and come to the same conclusion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, you were the one who imposed the ban, see [1], so I'm not sure why the question is in bad faith. --Leifern 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you say I did this: [2]. Excuse me, what I did was positing the tag on the page AFTER he was banned. That is all. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim also seems to have a history of using his administrative powers to gain an advantaqge in disputes that he is a primary party to as anyone who was involved with the "Israeli apartheid" mess knows. As someone once said- "Assuming good faith does not mean be stupid".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

She was the one who reported Montag as well. I suppose someone who is on probation is subject to the subjective judgment of any admin, but I think Kim needs to think long and hard about the difference between her role as an editor and as an admin. --Leifern 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was also concerned to see that Kim van der Linde, who is involved in this dispute, got Guy banned from the page, started a poll about the title, ignored the results of it, then misused her admin tools to move the page against the poll results, then felt obliged to post a tag declaring that Guy is banned from the page. It's up to the admin to do that; maybe he forgot, or maybe he intended not to. I'm worried about the extent to which Kim van der Linde seems to be taking every opportunity to cause a problem for pro-Israel editors, and is consistently confusing her admin/editor roles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The ban was undone by User:Briangotts [3]. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin massacre: move poll closure review requested

On June 29, Guy Montag moved ithout discussion Deir Yassin massacre to Battle of Deir Yassin [4], and substantially rewrote the article [5]. This move/rewrite was contensted, see Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Total_Rewrite and Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Battle???. I was asked to have a look at the move, and decided to start a poll so that everybody could have their say, and could see whether the move was carried by consensus (see: Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Requested_move). The poll started at July 8, and by July 12, there was a clear consensus that the name should be Deir Yassin massacre. At 12 and 13 July, Guy Montag allerted 5 editors, with known preferneces, on the poll, who all voted in the days after in favour of the by Guy Montag preferred name: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Based on this, I reported him here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag, which resulted in an independent admin to ban him from the page under his probation from a previous ArbCom case (see above). After that, I have closed the move poll, which was now corrupted by votestaking, and based my conclusion from before the votestaking (roughly 4 days into the poll), which was in favour of moving back. The final tally was no consensus (15-15 (12+3 to Deir Yassin incident), which indicates that the original contested unilateral move was not supported by the community. As suchm, I have moved the article back to the original name.

As I have been involved, I request that this move is reviewed by independent admins, and undone if they come to a different conclusion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The page has been moved back in the meanwhile by involved editors, however, I will move the page back if there is no objection of uninvolved admin's of the decision I described above. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is what you did on the Israel apartheid page(s): you moved pages using admin tools, even though you were directly involved in the dispute. Also, your accusations of vote-stacking could amount to no more than like-minded people arriving because they agreed with what was being done. Admins are not allowed to use their tools to gain an advantage in a dispute they're involved in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The incident SlimVirgin points at has been discussed here, seeWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive109#Admin_protecting.2C_then_editing_article. The votestaking was confirmed by an uninvolved admin, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag. For the rest, I have posted my action here for review by uninvolved admins as it could be disputed, and if an univolved admin concludes that the move is invalid, I will move it back without hestitation. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this, and I have concluded that the move was invalid, because you're involved in the dispute but used an admin tool to make the move. You acknowledged that you were involved in the dispute when you asked another admin to ban Guy Montag from the page. Therefore, please undo the move, and leave it for someone who has no connection with the article to decide how to proceed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not consider you uninvolved due to our disagreements at various other Israel-Palestine related articles, and the ongoing ArbCom case here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, you're well out of order. You don't make me involved just because you choose to say so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have moved it yourself, however it should be moved back. - FrancisTyers · 18:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved back to the original name Deir Yassin massacre or moved back from my move to the Battle of Deir Yassin? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved back to Deir Yassin massacre. But you shouldn't do it and you shouldn't have done it. - FrancisTyers · 19:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I will not do it myself, but leave it to another admin to do it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved back from your move. Please undo whatever it was you did. You posted for input, and you've been given input. Kindly don't ignore it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to undo at the moment, as the page has been reverted back to Battle of Deir Yassin. However, the move revert war that has ensued may require further consideration, maybe even by the ArbCom. Pecher ^Talk 19:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this dispute and I don't remember ever editing pages on the Middle-East - but I do have some experience carrying out moves requested on WP:RM. I think that Kim van der Linde should not have closed the debate herself, having taken part in it. In spite of that, having spent some time looking into this, I agree with her analysis. The vote solicitation by Guy Montag clearly tainted the vote. His original move was objected to almost immediately. The user is on probation for biased editing on articles of this kind. This all seems to speak fairly clearly to moving the article to the name it had at its creation and which it still had last month. I've seen no rebuttal to this - can anyone offer one? Sarah? Haukur 20:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Haukurth, I have no opinion about the title, and don't know anything about the arguments. My only concern is that we're calling an editor's attempt to get help from other editors "vote-stacking," when editors are in fact encouraged to involve other people in disputes and polls. Had he posted to 50 talk pages, I can see the grounds for concern, but five seems legitimate enough to me, and the fact that he was doing it openly on talk pages is another factor in his favor. There's probably a guideline about this somewhere, so maybe I should look around. I'm also concerned about Kim's comment that "Guy Montag allerted 5 editors, with known preferneces ..." How could she know what these editors' preferences were regarding what to call the Deir Yassin battle/massacre, if they hadn't already commented on it; and if they had already commented, then why is she concerned about their involvement? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Very often you can make a good guess what opinion people will have on a given dispute and selectively contact those you think will agree with you. I know, I used to do this sort of thing back in my move-warring days... In this case Guy was, it seems, 100% successful in contacting the right people. The best way to bring attention to a vote is through noticeboards which anyone can watch. Haukur 20:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I can think of several others who might have supported who he appears not to have contacted, so there doesn't seem to have been any kind of a concerted effort. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis and Haukur, I recognize that I should not have moved the article myself, but should have brought it to the attention of this noticeboard to start with. My judgement error on that part. My appologies for that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that you did exactly the same thing on various pages related to Israeli apartheid (four times, I believe), and seeing the amount of trouble it has caused, it's hard to see how you could make the same mistake again and not realize. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

See this log for the moves in question. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The page should be moved back, and the move poll be taken there. Anyone else want to do it? - FrancisTyers · 20:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I really haven't seen any evidence that what Guy was doing was in fact votestacking at all. I personally voted in that article because it was on my watchlist. I think that it is ridiculous that Guy is being banned for something that almost everybody does when there is a vote going on, after all I wonder how so many people that voted "support" found out that there was a survey going on at that particular moment especially when so many people had never edited the article in question before? That "votestacking" probably occured through E-mail.

On another note, Kimv really seems to have an issue with using his administrative powers to gain an advantage in a dipute that he is a primary party to, while it is a step forward that he just admitted that he shouldn't have done it, I really must question his veracity considering the fact that in another post above he basically said that he didn't act inappropriately because people weren't "assuming good faith" whatever that means.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I think this is the type of situation that Wikipedia:Naming conflict (originally developed by Ed Poor and myself) was written to resolve. The guideline states that "Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis." It sets out three key principles, the most important of which is "The most common use of a name takes precedence."

Note that the issue of POV naming is specifically excluded from consideration by the guideline - if a subject is particularly contentious, there will almost always be someone who disagrees with the article title. The guideline sets out the use of objective criteria, such as frequency of use, and discourages the use of subjective criteria, such as political acceptability.

The name "Battle of Deir Yassin" seems to be virtually unknown (only 81 Google hits) while "Deir Yassin massacre" seems to be much more widely used (21,100 Google hits - Wikipedia entries excluded in both cases). Using a novel term for a well-known historical incident seems to me to be a classic example of impermissible original research ("defining new terms"). Unfortunately it appears that the POV-pushers have taken over on this article; I think the page's move permissions will need to be locked and the case referred for arbitration. -- ChrisO 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of title that shouldn't be decided by a Google search, in my view, because of the number of highly POV sites that get included. What I do with contentious titles is try to find out what mainstream academics call it. Maybe that could be done here: try to find out what academic historians refer to it as? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's any help, I just did a Google Books search for the two terms. 56 books use "Deir Yassin massacre" and only one uses "Battle of Deir Yassin" (citing "a motion [which] was put before the Jerusalem city council to honor the five Zionist patriots who "had fallen during the battle of Deir Yassin"." - the motion failed after a public outcry.) 142 books use the terms "Deir Yassin" and "massacre" in close proximity. Google Scholar returns 51 articles using "Deir Yassin massacre" and none at all using "Battle of Deir Yassin". All of the encyclopedia entries that I've found relating to Deir Yassin refer to the "massacre" at "Deir Yassin" (cites: Brewer's Dictionary of Modern Phrase and Fable, A Dictionary of Contemporary History - 1945 to the present, A Dictionary of Political Biography, The Crystal Reference Encyclopedia). None refer to it as a "battle".

So it seems that the term "Battle of Deir Yassin" is not only little used but is associated with a specific, highly controversial POV - rather akin to calling the Srebrenica massacre the "Battle of Srebrenica", as some denialists are wont to do in that case. This seems a very clear-cut case of a non-mainstream term being adopted for presumably POV reasons. -- ChrisO 23:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have made a watertight case from a NPOV so unless anyone can find and equally strong verifiable rebuttal, this should be accepted, and the contention should cease. Naturally what people think it should be called is pure OR and irrelevant. We are looking for the commonly accepted term, the principle of least surprise. Tyrenius 01:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A "watertight case"? Are you serious? All he did was illustrate a pov, its not like someone can say that hey you can't disagree with him, can;t you see that my side has already made a watertight case? Anyways it is irrelevent what the majority of people call the incident, what matters is that we chose a title that does not favor any pov, I am not saying that "battle of Deir Yassin" is completly npov I am just saying that the "Deir Yassin Massacre" really isn't npov either.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

All right, I'll go ahead and move the page back, citing this discussion. Haukur 08:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, you might want to move protect the page after that to avoid a new move war. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 08:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer if someone else did that. Haukur 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe a move war is forthcoming Kim as long as you stay out of it. I reverted your initial move because of your completely unacceptable behaviour there. If Guy Montag's initial move was done without consensus, then it should have been reverted, and done so swiftly. You starting a poll on the matter, rejecting the legitimacy of the results when they failed to go your way, and then making an out of process move however, was farcical, especially given your current involvement in an ArbComm case on this very same matter. The move war was not the result the intractability of the issue, but rather a response to your complete lack of standing to make the aforementioned move. This entire move war could have been avoided if you had bothered to act in a way even vaguely resembling what is to be expected of admins. Protecting the page is thus likely unnecessary, as without your involvement in the move, I do not expect there to be serious objection to the page remaining there while debate continues on the talk page. Bibigon 11:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the important thing here is that KimvdLinde stays away from the situation completely. I would also suggest we try to find out what academic historians call it i.e. academics who are currently employed as historians by universities. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd also suggest this discussion not be split up. For some reason, it's been started on AN too. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_to_do_if_a_move_poll_is_determined_by_partisan_reasons.3F. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to let people know, I'm proposing to start a workshop along the lines of the ArbComm workshops to work through the specific policy issues involved (e.g WP:NC, WP:NCON, WP:NOR etc). The workshop will be at Talk:Deir Yassin massacre/Workshop later today. Hopefully it'll help to identify the specific points of disagreement, provide some advice on what the policies and guidelines require, and focus the discussion on policies rather than personal POVs. I suggest we continue this discussion there. -- ChrisO 13:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, you've protected the page against moves, and on the version you prefer. You're involved in the dispute and you're currently in front of the arbcom for using your admin powers in another content dispute. Please undo the protection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you feel it's inappropriate, please feel free to unprotect it. I've had no involvement in editing or moving the article, and my only involvement to date has been in providing pointers to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, providing some data on usage and trying to help the parties to find a resolution. If you (or any other administrator) feel that makes me too close to the issue to legitimately move-protect the page, then please unprotect it. -- ChrisO 13:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris, you're involved in the dispute, and we're not allowed to use admin powers where we're involved, especially not to gain any kind of advantage, and given you suggested the page be moved back to the version you prefer, and then protected it, that's what you've done. I'm not prepared to unprotect it and be accused of wheel warring, so I'm requesting that you do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case, OK. -- ChrisO 13:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. I hope everyone will leave it where it is now until a consensus is reached. Your workshop idea is a good one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make sure I notify people when I've got the workshop prepared. You're very welcome to offer advice and views (on my talk page if you don't wish to get directly involved). Given your experience in dealing with controversial issues, I'd certainly value your advice on the policy issues. -- ChrisO 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If Kim needs to "stay away from the situation completely", as Slim suggests, then so should Slim, myself and ChrisO. However, I don't see the point in delaying this - Guy Montag changed a long-established article name without consensus. His user page, User:Guy Montag identifies him as a supporter of the Irgun, the Revisionist Zionist armed militia identified as perpetrating the massacre so his interest in choosing an equivicating title for the article is clear. If a Stalinist tried to retitle "Katyn Forest Masscare" to "Battle of Katyn Forest" we would not permit it, even if he was able to rally the support of his friends in a poll. Homey 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not going to play that game with me. I have no involvement in this content dispute, and while I have no intention of becoming involved, I'm also not going to stay away from it because it would please you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a systemic POV when it comes to articles related to Israel so you are not neutral in this matter even if you haven't explicilty addressed content. I was not asking you to stay away from the article (you are projecting your habit onto me, it seems) - rather I'm saying you are in no position to dictate to Kim that she should stay away from it.Homey 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Could the three of you please stop ragging on each other? It's incivil, inappropriate and definitely not in the right place. It's certainly not going to resolve anything! -- ChrisO 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What to do if a move poll is determined by partisan reasons?

(Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_to_do_if_a_move_poll_is_determined_by_partisan_reasons.3F)

I'm rather troubled by the problems which KimvdLinde has reported over at WP:ANI#Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin massacre: move poll closure review requested. As I've posted there, the article's current title of "Battle of Deir Yassin" violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Wikipedia:Naming conflict and Wikipedia:No original research (it's a novel term with negligible use outside Wikipedia - only 81 hits versus over 21,000 for the alternative "Deir Yassin massacre"). It also probably violates Wikipedia:NPOV, as it seems to be a novel and minority-POV term for an historical incident which is generally known by a different name. (It's comparable, for instance, to renaming Srebrenica massacre to "Battle of Srebrenica" or American War of Independence to "War of American Aggression".)

In the light of these issues I would normally simply move the article myself. However, the page has already had a move war today and sparking another wouldn't be helpful. Ordinarily, a move poll would be a good alternative. However, there has already been a move poll in which the participants deadlocked, with many on both sides explicitly stating POV reasons for their votes (see Talk:Deir Yassin massacre#Clarification). There seems to have been relatively little consideration of what Wikipedia policy and guidelines require. Starting a new move poll would undoubtedly bring out the POV warriors again and, unfortunately, it's more than likely that they will again ignore policy and vote for their personal POVs. Are there any other alternatives short of taking the whole thing to the Arbitration Committee? -- ChrisO 23:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is why voting in the main namespace is a bad plan. :-/ Each time people have to find out the hard way. <sigh> Requested Moves should be strongly discouraged as a means for well, anything. Oh well.

Perhaps something can still be salvaged? You can look at who is supporting and opposing, and start a discussion with each, one at a time. Perhaps a more neutral name is possible? Kim Bruning 00:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've found in instances like this (Republic of Macedonia comes to mind) that POV warriors usually won't agree to anything other than their own POV. Am I right to think that the Mediation Committee can't do binding mediations? Perhaps this is where we need some sort of intermediate stage between the Mediation Committee (non-binding) and Arbitration Committee (binding but not usually dealing with content disputes). We really need to have some way of dealing with these disputes that would involve taking them away from the POV warriors and giving them to neutral editors or administrators who know, understand and respect Wikipedia policies. -- ChrisO 00:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Although formal mediation isn't binding, I think most editors would respect the conclusions of it. I think the key in this case is to use the term most often used by academic historians i.e. academics who are actually employed as historians by universities. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The quick and dirty method is to attract as many uninvolved editors as quickly as possible, because POV warriors work by fighting in packs and outnumbering their opponents. But polls like that are almost always confrontational, so it would be better to try some form of mediation (formal or informal) as Kim suggested. Even if it fails then it's something to show to other users who can determine for themselves what caused it to fail, if it's because someone wasn't cooperating then that will be detrimental to them. A good first step would be to do a survey of the academic literature to see what name is more commonly used, Google is unlikely to settle this one. --bainer (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've done a quick check on the literature using Google Books/Google Scholar, Amazon's "search inside" feature and a number of encyclopedias on Xreferplus. It almost exclusively refers to the events at Deir Yassin as the "Deir Yassin massacre", the massacre at Deir Yassin and similar formulations. None use "Battle of Deir Yassin". So it seems plain enough that the article's current title is a novel term. The problem is, of course, that the POV warriors don't care about WP:NOR, WP:NC and all the rest. Mediation is certainly appropriate though I wonder if it's ever likely to work in a situation where the participants are riding roughshod over Wikipedia's fundamental policies. I suspect it'll probably end up in arbitration, one way or another. -- ChrisO 07:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I thionk is a main problem for wikipedia, as the focus is consensus and prevention of disruption, and not so much upholding basic policies (Such as NPOV of which Jimbo states: NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."). However, in practise, NPOV is negotiated, just as other unnegotiable policies such as WP:NOR. The bigger question is, can these policies be enforced, or are they negotiable? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim Bruning is right. Discussion is the solution. As an experienced mediator, Kim is likely picking up on the fact that you are in too big of a hurry to settle the dispute. Having an article in the The Wrong Version is going to happen for some of the parties in the dispute. Mediators (and experienced editors) need to reinforce the idea that Wikipedia is not going to be ruined by having an article in the The Wrong Version. IMO, mediation goes astray once you began reverting or making moves based on the idea that there is a wrong version. Patience and discussion are mediation's friend.  : - ) FloNight ^talk 10:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that unnegotiable policies are negotiable? And if mediation is not working because people insist on violating NPOV, ArbCom? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that you hold a particular POV, you got involved in the dispute, you got an editor banned from the page, and then you moved the page as an admin, so that has helped to entrench positions and increase hostility and suspicion. It would be a good idea if you would remove yourself from the debate entirely and allow the matter to be discussed by editors who were not involved in it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, your opinion about me is clear. Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't just my opinion. I don't see that you have any support for what has gone on here. You've caused trouble first at Israeli apartheid and now here by acting as an editor/mediator/admin as and when it suits you, mixing up the roles in pursuit of a particular POV. It's a textbook example of what admins shouldn't do, and yet at the same time you take process fetishism to new heights when you think it'll help you. It's not on, it really isn't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For those uninvolved, SlimVirgin and I are both involved in the same ArbCom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I am barely involved in that case, whereas you are at the center of it, and it's a case involving exactly the same problems as here: your confusion of roles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I urge the interested editors to have a look for themselves at the ArbCom case before the decide what is going on. I am not going to drag the extended discussions from there to here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim van der Linde at venus I mean that impartial experienced editors do no care if the articles is temporarily The Wrong Version. This dispute is one of many daily editing disputes that occur on Wikipedia. You are involved in it so it seems extra important to you. If I can make a suggestion. I think you need to take a break from this topic. Perhaps some distance from these articles will help. There are 1,261,193 articles in English. Many of them are in desperate need of editing by an experienced editors/admin. FloNight ^talk 12:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

FloNight, I share your opinion about "the wrong version". -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Kim, I am barely involved in that case, whereas you are at the center of it, and it's a case involving exactly the same problems as here: your confusion of roles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)"

This is a misrepresentation. Slim is one of the admins against whom sanctions are being proposed - Fred Bauder proposed a one month ban - there have been no action proposed against Kim, nor is she accused of having participated in the wheel war that has gotten Slim in trouble. Homey 17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey, quit it. You and Kim van der Linde have caused the entire dispute at Israeli apartheid, and you kept it going at maximum heat and intensity, because that's how you get your kicks at Wikipedia. I've never seen such disregard for the rules about using admin tools between the pair of you. The evidence hasn't yet closed, by the way, and I'm not going to argue it out with you here, because it would make your day. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim, you brought up the arbcomm case and misrepresented it by claiming that Kim was "central" to it while you are "barely involved" when in fact you are facing sanctions and she isn't. As for "disregard for the rules about using admin tools", you are the one who participated in a wheel war, not Kim (or myself) so stop deflecting (or projecting). Homey 17:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

When in fact you are facing sanctions and she isn't

Are you serious? I'm sure that not even you can actually believe that that makes sense, You proposed a bunch of wierd and inappropriate "solutions" that nobody supported and then you claim that that shows that Slim is more involved with the dispute than you or Kim. The fact that there isn't a bunch of stupid proposals involving you and kim really just shows that other people aren't as spiteful or inappropriate as the two of you. I guess the fact that there is nothing on that page that explicity calls for your adminship to be taken away and for you to be banned must show that you are a completely neutral and uninvolved party or at least that you did nothing inappropriate at all in that conflict, is that right?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this really is my last comment. No sanctions have been proposed against Kim because no evidence has been put up about her yet. Only half the evidence is in, Homey. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Homey, please lay off. Ragging on SlimVirgin only gets us deeper. Fred Bauder 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guy Montag banned from Deir Yassin massacre (2)

Nay one quarter of a moon has passed, and I've banned Guy Montag from Deir Yassin massacre under the terms of his probation. Inserting copyvio information from here and general tendentious editing on the talk page.

• Notified here.
• Copyvio diff[s] here.
• AE here.

I'm not particularly attached to this, but I thought it was the right thing to do. I have encouraged him to appeal if he feels he has been wronged. - FrancisTyers · 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You've lost all sense of proportion and ruined an article over a non issue.

Guy Montag 01:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ruined the article :/ And I don't think you should be describing copyright violation as a "non issue". As I have mentioned, perhaps I was hasty but I think under the circumstances it was the right thing to do. You initially claimed that it was "one sentence", but have since discovered it was several paragraphs. I think you were a bit hasty in your initial response :) - FrancisTyers · 01:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: given an initially incorrect reading of his probation, the ban was set to end at "22 July 2007", this as been amended to "9 October 2006". Apologies for this mistake. - FrancisTyers · 01:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it clearly inflames a situation that was almost over by re-banning Guy. It was already decided that the previous block was inappropriate, and that Guy's actions did not violate the terms of his probation. I am rather uncomfortable with the fact that you would ban Guy for such a similar infraction, I think your actions amount to a wheel-war and I would recomend that you undo the ban, and first discuss the situation here and with other administrators that were involved in the original dispute above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Guy has informed me that he will be requesting permission for the use of the copyrighted text. I have asked another couple of admins to check over my ban, and if they disagree then sobeit. I don't think it amounts to a wheel-war. I don't think you can compare the two reasons for banning as "similar infractions". - FrancisTyers · 01:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis, as you recently commented on some of the issues on that page on the talk page (as an editor, not as an admin), and as you took the opposite position to Guy, calling his position "farcical," it would probably be better if you unbanned him and allowed an uninvolved admin to take a look at the situation. I've also left a note on your talk page that shows one of the alleged copyright violations wasn't in fact copied at all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for the clarity, only a fraction of the copyright violations are reporetd at the talk page. The article is full of it, from at least 3 different websites. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It does seem that the article is/was a patchwork quilt of material copied from different places. Whatever we may think of the merits of Guy's version, it's risky for us to have an article appears to be effectively a copy-and-paste from multiple copyrighted sources. The fact that Guy is saying now that he's requesting permission for the use of the copyrighted text is obviously an acknowledgement that he knows he didn't have permission before. As breaches of probation go, I'd say this was at the high end of the scale; the ban seems reasonable in the circumstances. -- ChrisO 08:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the ban per SV's request. If a things worth doing, its worth doing right. I welcome less involved parties than me to review the ban and reapply it if thought appropriate. - FrancisTyers · 12:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If the article is that much of a convoluted collection of copyvio, the only solution is to delete it completely and rebuild from scratch, IMO. Violating copyright first, and asking for permission later, is NOT acceptable whatsoever. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have decided that after it was clear that the article is literally loaded with copyvio's, I only will show the evidence for the first three section, and that can be found here: http://www.kimvdlinde.com/wikipedia/Deir_Yassin_Copyright_violation.doc The remaining two sections are done in part, and could be good or bad with regard to the number of copyvio's. What is clear is that the copyvio's are from various websites, and in part from pre Guy Montag, although all new insertions that I found originate from him. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I ahave filed a ArbCom case for this, and the related bised editing here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deir Yassin. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling by user:ARYAN818 and user:Elven6

Hi - I request administrative action against user:ARYAN818 and user:Elven6 for acting like WP:TROLLs. I had lodged a previous report on ANI[11] that apart from the issuance of warnings and a debate on ARYAN818's username, did not restrain these users from trollish behavior on Talk:Sikhism, Talk:Hinduism and the Sikh Panth and on their own talkpages and the talkpage of user:Sukh. These users have spoken offensively to user:Sukh, User:Rajatjghai, user:Gsingh and myself.

Despite repeated and continuous warnings, both ARYAN818 and Elven6 have repeatedly engaged in revert wars, removing comments from their own talkpages, coming close to WP:3RR violations, repeatedly violated WP:NPA (includings religious, personal, political and racial abuse), WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV and WP:POINT, and have been acting like WP:VANDALs and WP:TROLLs.

[edit] user:ARYAN818

Relevant Diffs (most recent):[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29]

Relevant Diffs (continuous):[30], [31],[32],[33], [34],[35]

[edit] user:Elven6

Relevant Diffs (most recent): [36],[37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46]

Previous Report (continuous):[47], [48], [49],[50]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduization of Sikhism - Elven6 created an article that constituted WP:COPYVIO.

Thank you - I request administrators to take decisive action, as this has been going on for over one month, with a previous ANI report and numerous warnings. This Fire Burns Always 06:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to block both of them for 48hrs. Frankly some of the material discussed isn't for me to understand - well I couldn't see anything obvious from the article edits, but some of the talk page edits seem rather bizarre to say the least and some of the knockabout tone and inappropriate language is very disconcerting. Blnguyen | rant-line 06:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically Aryan argues from a hard Hindu POV, and Elven is oppposite that. The diffs provided illustrate a combination of revert warring, personal attacks, abusive messaging, vandalism and constant disruption of Wikipedia work. This Fire Burns Always 06:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This time I ask for really decisive and follow-up action, because several good editors have taken a lot of hell for over a month over several articles. A thousand warnings have not affected these gentlemen, who haven't even acted in a civil manner aside from the disputes. This Fire Burns Always 06:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Having seen both these users (ARYAN818, Elven6), I endorse these blocks. Both of these users spent most of their time in disrupting the articles and attacking other editors, without adding anything fruitful to the articles in question. ARYAN818 has already been blocked several times for his user name, though he claims 818 is just his area code and has no neo-nazi connotations (though his frequent edit-wars in Aryan provide an interesting insight). I suggest other admins keep an eye on the pages referred to above as frequent edit warring continues to foment there. --Ragib 07:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

ARYAN818 should be permanently blocked for his user name. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

His articles of interest (and manner of edit warring) lead me to believe that he is not a neo-Nazi. While this can also be easily faked, his name in the email address he used to write to the unblock mailing list also had "Aryan" as a first name. Maybe he should be blocked for edit warring, but I don't think he should be indef blocked unless he shows more serious behaviour. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Nazis use the code number "88" ("HH" = "Heil Hitler". This is a clearly inappropriate user name. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And Chinese people use "88" as a good luck number. I've seen plenty of people with "88" at the end of their user name (I mean email address and user names outside of Wikipedia, I don't know anyone here IRL), and they're about as Neo-Nazi as I am. I'd never heard of this 88=HH="Heil Hitler" stuff until here (and as a side rant, Buddhists can't show a certain religious symbol because of the damn swastika). And he's not 88, he's 818. Look, I'm not saying that it's not serious, but there is such a thing as too sensitive. This guy is an edit warrior, sure, but looking at his edits, he doesn't strike to me as a neo-Nazi (at least, not yet). That means that he's certainly a good recipient of a block if he's a persistent edit warrior, but it'll take more evidence to indef-block him for having a neo-Nazi username. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought this had been pointed out already, but in the same way that 88 means HH, 818 means HAH, or Heil Adolf Hitler. And there's the tiny matter of the fact that the code is preceded by the word Aryan. If his username was CuteFluffyKitten818 it might be different, but it's not. The claim that it's a common name sounds fishy to me - I've never heard of anyone called 'Aryan', and after going through two disambig links I only managed to find a single person called 'Arya'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that's the first time I've had that explained to be, and thanks for that. Man, there's a code for friggin' everything these days. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a tough username issue. I appreciate the argument of ARYAN818 (talk · contribs) regarding his user name (on User talk:ARYAN818). I saw the name on RC patrol a while ago, and was about to indef block for username, but after reviewing contribs, I'm pretty sure he's not making a neo-Nazi reference -- Samir धर्म 01:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I will study the matter and shall offer my comments within two to three days. Prima facie, I find that the two users concerned do not care for the guidance and comments of fellow-wikipedians. This is not a good sign. --Bhadani 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Being referred to by name again

"Ryulong! you are not Moot, stop changing other peoples edits." Does this count as a personal attack, too? Ryulong 23:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• All of these are vandalism, but please don't look for the NPA policy. It's not needed, in the first place, and we all take chances when we edit Wikipedia. The gibbering on the talk page and the random edit warring is sufficient for intervention without trying to assess whether or not a person has been insulted. Geogre 02:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay (talk · contribs) block of CovenantD (talk · contribs)

• Moved from WP:AN. Hiding Talk 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this issue, I wonder if a another admin could take a look. I think the admin here chose a block way before necessary, to what otherwise appears to be a good user. Summary: yes, I think the user was making negative comments, but I don't think such an immediate block was called for. Thanks for your time. --Kickstart70-T-C 19:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already asked Essjay on his talk page to clarify this[51], as I feel it is questionable. The comments by which led to the block of User:CovenantD are these: [52], [53], [54].

Essjay justified his block on the grounds of disruption. [55]., [56] I find this highly questionable. I'm concerned that blocking was taken before any other form of dispute resolution. Blocks should be preventantive, not punitive, and as I commented to Essjay, this smacks of punishment to me. Looking at the block log [57], Essjay describes the disruption as being: "incivility and borderline personal attacks at RFCU". Now borderline personal attacks are no basis to justify a block, and nor is incivility. WP:BLOCK is clear on what constitutes disruption:

Sysops may block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia, or pose any kind of threat to it. Such disruption may include (but is not limited to) changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, harassment, excessive personal attacks, and inserting material that may be defamatory. Users will normally be warned before they are blocked My emphasis.

I think this is a clear case of a badly issued block. Given the number of positions Essjay holds on Wikipedia, I would hope there are other issues behind this block. Otherwise, to me, it creates suitability issues for some of them. Hiding Talk 21:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it fair to ask Essjay to explain his block here before speculating further. We need to be clear, though, that the comments CovenantD made on the RFCU page were highly, highly insulting and completely inappropriate. I don't know where he got the idea that such behavior could ever be acceptable. Mackensen (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's fair to say that CovenantD lost his temper and said some inappropriate things in his frustration. It's also clear that CovenantD was being extremely impatient with RfCU, which has always been a slow process, but as he noted it was his first RfCU and he may not have realized how long they take. I think these are mitigating factors that should be considered. But I don't see what's "highly insulting" about the remarks, nor do I understand the "abuse" you cited in your initial decision to reject. I'm curious to know what you were referring to. Kasreyn 23:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you are reading different comments than I, or reading them in a different light, but while I agree they weren't helpful and were pretty negative, I don't see anything "highly, highly insulting" in any way. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of that at all, no. The first comment I link to above is an expression of frustration, after all, Wikipedia is not meant to be a bureaucracy and here is someone running into a bureaucratic log-jam. I don't think anyone is being insulted other than the process. The user showed good faith in asking how long it would take, and having received no reply over 24 hours later frusratingly quesried no response. The rest of his comments seem reasonable considering the replies given. I think your response there is just as inflammatory, to be perfectly honest. I can't see how you were personally abused. Nowhere on the page does it indicate length of delay in getting a response. The first comment is not a personal attack in any shape or form, I can accept a case being made that it is incivil, but it's not cut and dried. The other comments are attempts at fixing a perceived flaw in the system. I think there's demonstrable good faith in Covenant's prior edits, [58], [59], so I think respondents should have assumed good faith, and I don't think they have. I think this situation was escalated by the participants a lot further than necessary, and I think in disregard for user conduct policies. Let's be clear, no-one's conduct is acceptable after CovenantD expressed frustration, but nothing that needed blocks to be issued for. The phrase "storm in a tea cup" springs to mind. Hiding Talk 23:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

His remarks go far, far beyond normal frustration, and his insinuations were maddening. Checkusering is extremely stressful work, and Essjay's right about the repeated abuse we experience carrying out our task (the nasty emails, the death threats, the tirades, the incivility, the refusal to believe us when we identify sockpuppets, the conversations with Willy on Wheels). This is a question of customer service. He asked for something; fine. He gave no indication that the request was pressing–if it was an emergency one of us could have been directly notified. He then began making a series of personal attacks, each worse than the last. Finally, I have some time and I wander over the Checkuser page. This is what I find. It's always nice to know that the hours upon hours of sacrifice are appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, asking seriously, give us direct links to the 'personal attacks'. I, for one, am not seeing anything that qualifies under any reasonable definition. Further, he should not suffer for the actions of others. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll also note that Checkuser is restricted because of its sensitive nature and is a measure of last resort. The clerks explained politely and responded negatively. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I don't see that they do go beyond normal frustration at all. Given your answer it appears you had the wrong frame of mind when judging his comments. The user had already noted he was new to the process, and was suggesting reasonable ways to fix the process based on having no understanding of the process. He did give an indication that the request was pressing, [60]. I'd also note you have no idea whether CovenantD was undergoing stress caused by his mediation of the dispute at the page indicated. All of us are volunteers. You criticise CovenantD for his frustration, yet seem oblivious to your own frustration and posting based on that. Your actions are equatable to CovenantD's. DOes this mean I should block you for 24 hours? I still can see no personal insult to you personally. That you took comments personally is one thing; that they were meant personally is another. I don't think you have considered the possibility that any attack was meant personally, but rather at the system which appeared to the user to be broken. If no-one watches the page for 24 hours, is it not reasonable to ask if we can have more checkuser enabled editors? Especially if you are told there are only 2 active in the 14. That seems like a flawed process to me. We all make hours and hours of sacrifice. I'm afraid to me your contention that a series of personal attacks were made is not born out by the edits in question. I accept the clerks responses were perfectly polite. I can't see that CovenantD's response was impolite, and I can't see how you and Essjay justify your responses, nor Essjay his block. I'm also concerned by the flaws this dispute throws up. Should checkuser requests be judged on the merits of the case? If not, there is a worrying precedent set here. Hiding Talk 23:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd worry about that sort of abuse causing our (volunteer) checkusers to "take a break" and cause other checkuser requests to lag, just because one person was impatient. Blocked or not, if CovenantD was that worked up over something on Wikipedia, it's about time to go do something non-Wikipedia for a bit. I'd suggest the new Pirates movie. *nod* Very good. Depp's a hottie. Ayep. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't quite balance one volunteer's frustrations higher than another volunteer's. They all impact upon Wikipedia. If that's how the checkuser system operates, I'd question considering another model. But CovenantD tried that and was blocked. He did do something else for 30 hours. I don't know. I remember voting in Essjay's RFA. I just can't see where Essjay got the idea these were blockable comments from. I can't see that no-one can accept some fault here or extend some understanding and good faith. Hiding Talk 23:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't commented on the block at all, and I don't plan to. :) I'd like to see the block pass, then all sides forgive and forget. While overhauling the current system might be good, I do beleive that there are regular proposals on how to do so and none that I know of have passed. As far as volunteer status goes, imho the reason Essjay has all those nifty +flags is because he's trusted by the community to do the right thing: If a resource (such as active checkusers) is endangered, the community should either try to create more of the resource and/or protect the resource they currently have. Verbally assaulting the resources simply causes an already endangered resource in the persona of active checkusers to potentially vanish. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see how one sockpuppet voting in a straw poll can make all that much difference to an article. Even so, I made a very polite response to CovenantD's nagging and suggested an alternate means for resolving the article dispute he obviously feels strongly about. His response was to dump on the checkusers (as a whole, as I read it). To paraphrase Essjay, people forget that nearly everybody working on wikipedia is a volunteer. Perhaps some members of the Arbitration committee should work on the RFCU page instead of the 28 outstanding cases they have right now. Or Brion V could drop his development work on the wikimedia software to help CovenantD win some content dispute. Last week, Essjay identified and reported a long-time apparently "good" editor who had a long-term record of creating vandal sockpuppet accounts, and the community reaction was a big yawn and a week long block. This week Jayjg's integrity has been publicly questioned in at least two places by an administrator he caught using a sockpuppet to evade a block for 3RR, and Mackensen has been harranged on his talk page over at least three declined requests before CovenantD came along. You're lucky to have checkusers at all, and you may find yourselves looking back on the halcyon days when a checkuser request took only 2 days to be answered. Thatcher131 00:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, Thatcher131. Part of the problem with checkuser is the difficulty in the process that's assigned to it. Technically, I could do the actual checkuser lookup, but socially I wouldn't touch it with a fifty foot pole manipulated by a radio-controlled robotic arm. Look at the Socafan (or whatever his name was) incident where he griped about Essjay revealing the country in which he resided. Actually, look at every five or so RFCU requests since the page began: there's no shortage of gripes and abuses heaped upon those who we're supposed to be trusting with this sensitive information. Now, if he took all the usernames that edited Tiannamen Square and checkuser'd them and reported them to the PRC, I could see that being an issue. If I had someone request that I write an article on my talkpage, I'd consider it. If they demanded such and were nasty about it, I'd tell them to go bugger off in so many words. I think the exact same thing happened here, just with different privelege levels involved. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would not have complained about the revelation of a country had it not been for absolutely no reason - the request lacked any basis and should thus have been declined, the fact that it was not revealed a bias - and if Essjay had not written: one is from country x, the other from country y, my geography is bad but I guess they are close so it might be a sock. Try that with a Californian and a guy from NY. Socafan 22:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

On what Thatcher has said, it used to take a lot longer, and the page was considerably less nice than it is right now. Also, the diffs presented are not entirely perfect, as shortly after making a comment, ConvenantD changed the wording from "Time to get more people." to "Time to replace some people.". Basically a call to fire some checkusers and get new ones because they aren't responding instantly to a request. There's no timeframe listed there, insted a resort to attacking the a volunteer process to use a sensitive tool. Kevin_b_er 01:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I read it as "replacing the people who aren't actually doing any checkusering", but I guess I assume good faith from an otherwise good editor. I do note that the people claiming CovenantD was making personal insults have not responded to requests to specifically point out those personal attacks...and that was the reasoning behind him being blocked anyway, wasn't it? --Kickstart70-T-C 04:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I remember when we didn't have checkuser, so any threats about taking it away don't bother me too much. Maybe we should consider if it's a tool that isn't worth the hassle it causes. Hiding Talk 11:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm really moved to wonder about the motivations of those who have stirred this up so much; hundreds of similar blocks are made each day, and none ges so much as a word, much less this sort of treatment. I'm inclined to wonder if User_talk:CovenantD#I_would_suggest_you_formally_take_the_above_to_ArbCom doesn't have a lot to do with it. At any rate, the community shall have what they desire: I'm joining the other 13 who don't go near RfCU, and I've encouraged Mackensen to do likewise; the fact that nobody could be bothered to think "Hmm, this might leave us with nobody willing to do this" indicates to me that the community really doesn't care if RfCU has 1000 backlogged cases. I will, of course, continue to be available for requests from the Arbitration Committee and the Foundation Office, as are the other 13; to assume that not working on RfCU = not running any checks is a grand fallacy. Essjay (Talk) 05:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've looked over this situation and while on first glance I can see why some people don't see it as a justified block. However, I also know (as a fellow CheckUser) how grindingly difficult that job is. I used to be the only person working RFCU, and I couldn't keep it up for long because it's timeconsuming and totally thankless. People who put out with an attitude that they're entitled to whatever they want right away are going to find that that's not the way things work. CovenantD failed to show respect for the very difficult job that Essjay and Mackensen are doing. The rude attitude with which he expressed himself was out of line, especially for someone serving as a mediator. Frankly, he needed a quick smack in the ass to get him to realize he was out of line. I don't know if 24 hours was the appropriate time, but I suspect Essjay would have shortened the block if an apology had been forthcoming.

Long and the short of it, treat your checkusers nice; there aren't many of them and they work really hard for you. Be mean to them at your own peril. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did I just see a user (CovenantD) reduce the chances of every other user, including myself, getting help with a checkuser request? Because that kind of bites... I wish you would reconsider, Essjay. And even if you won't, why is it that only about 1% of admins are entrusted with this power, and only about 0.02% actually use it? If it's such a frustrating hassle that burns you out so badly, why isn't the power expanded, maybe to a whopping 50 admins? Surely there have to be, out of those 1000, at least 50 trustworthy admins! I would imagine there are far more than that. Kasreyn 06:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(Responding in the order questions were asked) Yes, that is the case. No, sorry I won't; this happens far too often, and as the link I gave above indicates, there is at least one user actively looking for opportunities to continue. Again, this is a fallacy; while only 2 of us are (were) active on RFCU, nearly everyone with the permission is active in using it. The majority of those who have it are on the Arbitration Committee, and they use it for that; there are also requests from the Foundation Office, and sua sponte checks on things like vandals who continue to create more accounts after they are blocked. If it were expanded, it would be 50 admins burned out, instead of 14; the problem isn't that the permission burns you out, it's the abusive treament from other users. Indeed, there could be, but you have to be very careful when you give out access to information that could get people stalked,imprisoned, or executed; if you give out someone's IP, they can easily end up being stalked, and if they live in a country with a hostile regime, can be imprisoned or executed for the things they do here. That's not something to be handed out lightly. Plus, more is not necessarily better; the more who have access, the harder it is to control, and being able to control who has access to very sensitive private information is imperative. Essjay (Talk) 09:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Question: is it really so sensitive information? Everybody who is on Internet should realize that their IP is practically public; people who are unhappy with this use proxies. Countries with oppressive governments have many other ways to find out what their citizens are doing rather than wait for wikipedia admins to reveal IP addresses (and I know about such countries first-hand). Personally I would not care much if my IP address was visible to everybody. For example, currently my IP is 68.178.232.99, let anybody who wants to stalk, imprisone or execute me do their worst :) --Vlad1 04:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one is likely to break down your door over your edits, or maybe put your family in a re-education camp to keep you quiet, unlike a democracy activist from Egypt or a Falun Gong member from China. More than that, Wikipedia has a long tradition of anonymity and a strong privacy policy. And there have been some very bad stalking incidents. Oppresive governments are hardly the only groups that might have an interest in harrassing an editor off the wiki. Thatcher131 05:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but the reaction to this incident is completely out of proportion to the questionable block. I appreciate that it's a hard job, but nobody forces anyone to do it, and I think WP:BITE, WP:AGF and WP:CIV cut both ways. I'm disappointed in a lot of people's reactions here. All I was looking for was an acknowledgement that there was an over-reaction. As to the discussion on CovenantD's talk page, I wopuld hope people would assume good faith in the fact that people were steering this to the appropriate venues. I would have been far happier sorting this out with Essjay, but a user brought it here, well within their rights and as I had already involved myself I felt obliged to comment. I stand by my assertion that this is a questionable block. I apologise for the grief it has caused people, but I still feel refusing to grant a checkuser request on anything other than the merits of the case is disappointing. I really think there was a failure in common sense on all sides here, and to be honest, if CovenantD deserves a slap, then can we tear up all the guidance on there being no cabal, and no elite, and make sure we tell people that if they ruffle the feathers of the important people or their friends, then they're in the shit. Because I'm sorry, but that's what happened here. [61]. Every time something like this blows up it's because people act before they think. I know I'm guilty of it, but don't we have a right to expect better from the chairman of the mediators? This is out of hand; whatever happened to a common sense approach and the extension of putting yourself in the shoes of the other? If someone has a beef, I thought they had the right to be heard respectfully. I'm sorry for the way this has turned out, it was never my intention. Hiding Talk 11:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If someone has a beef, I thought they had the right to be heard respectfully. Couldn't agree more; I wish Essjay and I were extended the same courtesey. He was heard respectfully (from Thatcher) and he chose to be rude. I can't help that. I'm not going to quit checkusering, but as it seems I'm the last man standing, y'all will have to work around my own work schedule from here on out. Mackensen (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You misunderstand me. I'm talking about Kickstart70's beef with the block. I'm disturbed by the questioning of people's motives in commenting on the block. I can't help that the block was given. I believed there was a right to question it. Hiding Talk 11:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You know what, I'd have no problems with Essjay and Mackensen going on a long (and possibly permanent) RFCU break. The one good thing that's come out of it is that it's advertised even more that RFCU is a gruelling and thankless job. If people choose to treat RFCUers like this, and the RFCUers feel like they're being hung out to dry, let them take a long break from doing that job so the rest of the community can realise how hard it really is. (please note, not a comment on specific people here, but a general comment on people being hung out to dry) --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I do have a problem. They are both reliable and trustworthy users, they have done a huge amount of work behind scenes to improve the encyclopedia, and, they handle most of the RFCU cases. "But the side effect is to show RFCU is thankless job" gain is not worthy the loss. -- Drini 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, having them perform and the support a block against policy and without the warnings that should have happened show pretty clearly that there is an issue with judgement that needs to be considered. I am very thankful for their work, however that does not leave them blameless for making a bad choice. The two are not mutually exclusive. --Kickstart70-T-C 19:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree it's a huge loss. Sometimes people like CovenantD just don't know (or don't care). I wonder what people like that would do if there's noone around to cater to their every whim? --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe, since this was his first request of this sort, he (like me) didn't even know that every admin didn't have this power? Seriously, why is CovenantD getting such a hard time for this? No one who supports the block has detailed what the 'personal insults' were, even after multiple requests. Numerous other admins and editors say that this was a badly-issued and too-hasty block, and the admins involved in the initial situation aren't being at all asked to say that they did something incorrectly. This just smacks of 'administrator privilege', which is wholly against the policies of Wikipedia, by all I've read. Perhaps there are unwritten rules that allow this behaviour? If so, would someone be kind enough to share those? --Kickstart70-T-C 21:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I can only assume that you either didn't read his comments or don't understand why insinuations of that sort are insulting. Either way, I'm not going to apologize for being offended. He's never apologized either, so I think the matter settled. Mackensen (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I can only assume that you don't understand the issue here with blocking against policy, or don't care. All I would like to see out of the admins involved is an admission that the block was done too hastily and not within policy. That, just by itself, is quite important. Admins cannot freely go around ignoring policy, and then expect their decisions to be respected. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I understand the issue quite well; the issue is not blocking against policy. Thanks for ignoring my comments; I suppose it's very easy to construe this issue in such a manner when you've never read the original exchange (or, possibly, have no idea why being called, effectively, lazy and incompetent is an insult). I think we've about exhausted the usefulness of this forum, to say nothing of my patience. If you feel there's a legitimate issue here I recommend an RfC or Arbcom. Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how CovenantD called any of the participating admins lazy or incompetent. I'm sorry if this bothers you, I simply do not. So yeah, you have/had a chance to explain to me where he said this, but no one wants to answer me directly on this point, or whether the block violated policy. I'd rather not take this to Arbcom or RfC, but I guess that's what you'd prefer...involving more people, wasting more admin time, rather than answering some pretty bloody easy questions. --Kickstart70-T-C 01:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Update Guess what? If CovenantD had asked Samuel Luo and Tomananda nicely why they appeared to have the same IP address, they would have told him. Thatcher131 19:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Samuel Luo's comment at RFCU; I'd say the block was a bit of an overreaction but CovenantD was definitely out of line and was operating based on misconceptions which I hope s/he understands by now. I also hope Essjay and Mackensen can de-stress for a while but (maybe after a break) continue to keep an eye on RFCU and handle the requests that warrant it. I think having RFCU available outside the machinery of full-blown arb cases takes nontrivial pressure off of every level of wiki ops that involves dealing with sockpuppets (including the arbcom). I'd oppose expanding checkuser for reasons described by Essjay. Phr (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An AMA request for assistance has been made

An AMA request for assistance has been made here --Kickstart70-T-C 02:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems the part of policy that justified this block is really what's in question. So lets go to the policy. Its for 'Disruption: incivility and borderline personal attacks', and its for a day("24 hours)". There's an attack on the wikipedia process, a personal attack on all the checkusers, and general incivility from the fact that wikipedia isn't always instantantaneously responding from CoventantD. The problem is that you are not being stonewalled, you are being disagreed with. Several people do not agree with you that the block was without policy. The brief block was for incivility and borderline personal attacks, and warning is recommend, but not required. There is the policy reasoning Essjay applied behind the block, which is the subject of your AMA request. Kevin_b_er 04:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying this because I don't know...is there a place within the AMA request, or outside of this very tainted process which this discussion should place? I don't feel that any sort of great solution to this is going to happen within what's already happened here. --Kickstart70-T-C 05:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:EccentricRichard

This user edited User:Mike Rosoft's userpage (diff), adding references to Josef Stalin and "Wikipedia is Communism". He also edited a user subpage (User:Mike Rosoft/Spambot) and changed all User:Mike Rosoft's spambot links to a an email address purporting to be Stalin's... I reverted his edits and the user (I assume it to be Richard) then edited (diff) my userpage from an IP, adding in the WiC and Stalin references. I think he should be blocked as the Communism Vandal or more likely an impostor of. — Gary Kirk | ^talk! 18:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Firefox got him. JoshuaZ 21:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SPUI (talk · contribs)

User:SPUI in continuing to ignore sanctions put in place by the Arbcom 3 weeks ago with regard to state highway articles. On Minnesota State Highway 33 SPUI has engaged in an revert/edit war with User:Jonathunder in direct violation of section 2.1 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways which explicitly prohibits himself and any other involved parties from engaging in disruptive editing of highway articles. Full text of the decision is as following "2.1) Should SPUI, JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and PHenry disrupt the editing of any article which concerns highways he or she may be banned by any administrator from that article or related articles. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Log of blocks and bans." He's violated this many times since the end of arbcom, this is just the latest time. --JohnnyBGood 21:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this belongs on Arbitration Enforcement actually? 207.145.133.34 21:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No one ever reads that board, hence I've put it here. --JohnnyBGood 21:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well. I sometimes read it. In any case I've had a word with SPUI and Jonathunder over Minnesota State Highway 33. SPUI has reacted well to such reminders in the recent past so I expect that will be the end of it in this instance. --Tony Sidaway 21:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How many warnings does he get. This is the second or third time in a week you've warned him. He's violating his probation, you obviously agree or you wouldn't be warning him. Are the warnings indefinite as long as he moves his disruption around? Cause if so I'd like to make some controversial edits that could be seen as disruptive but have so far restrained myself. --JohnnyBGood 21:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Also he's obviously not receptive to such warnings if he's continuing to edit war just at different articles. --JohnnyBGood 22:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm being patient and reasonable. If SPUI continues to get into these little squabbles despite multiple warnings, he may find himself sanctioned. In the past there has been a lack of community confidence in enforcement actions taken against SPUI, and I'm sure you agree that it wouldn't be sensible to impose a sanction only to have it overturned. --Tony Sidaway 22:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

True there has been SOME irregularity in sanctions against him in the past (most of the sanctions were justified in the past if just through the sheer number of them). But that was before there was a set ruling against him written in the perverbial cyber stone saying he can't do this anymore. Yet he continues to do so. Sanctions at this point have arbcom backing when it comes to disruption of highway articles and any admin wheelwarring a block against him now is violating the arbcom ruling. You understand my fustration here. If he's on probation he should be on probation, otherwise call it what it is and say the probation means jack shit and he, myself and any other editors subject to it don't have to follow it. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What about blocking and banning the idiot who came up with an article about Highway 33 in the first place? We don't need articles about Minnesota highways on here. Nor do we need articles about "historic places" in Minnesota, like the author's other contributions. If nobody had created the article on Highway 33 (with an admittedly wrong title, to boot), this fiasco would never have started. --Elkman 23:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How about we refrain from personal attacks on the person who created the article. And for the record there is plenty of evidence the creator had it in the right place to begin with. And we do need HW 33 on here as it is part of a series of State Highways. JohnnyBGood 23:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this comment doesn't really have any relevance to the discussion at hand. Isopropyl 00:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Elkman is the person who created that article, he writes a lot about Minnesota, and he was ironically expressing regret that he had given the participants in this latest spat a further opportunity to engage in warring. --Tony Sidaway 00:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Technically, Jonathunder first violated Remedy 6 of that ruling (I've no idea if he was aware of it, mind you), and then SPUI vio'd #2.1, and #6 too (which of course he certainly was). Then add in some tagging/tag-reversion silliness to boot. I'm with Tony on calling this one "fair warning fodder", given the digs on both sides, but would support (and implement) escalating enforcement if this continues. Alai 04:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I violated the probation by moving it from pink fuzzy bunnies? I think not. --SPUI (T - C) 21:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

The user and the administrators in this artile must be checked. The stile, substance, ect. of the articel are total serbian propagander. The articel has more mitology history then the history of Kosovo. Any way there is a article History of Kosovo. The editor in this articel are serbs or serbians supporters and they don know noting about Kosovos geography, cultur, ekonomy ect. This articel is "bloced" from many user names with irelevant poits (For they is more importen the history befor 1000 (Not it!! there are no documents only from Serbian side about this time, albanians documenst was burned since 1912) then the history in our time). Before one month it was big Edit War, not for the argumets but the serbians users block every inicitiativ witch has not to do with serbians. They are more users here or they are working for the Serbian goverment and they have maked a net here in Wikipedia with many users accounts (see all articels about Serbia, there are for each thing twise one for the "hero" and one for "inesans" serbian). My big problem is thate the administrators witch are impëemented in this articel are supporting serbian users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.158.254.169 (talk • contribs)

FYI, this appears to be User:Hipi Zhdripi editing without signing in for some reason. -- ChrisO 21:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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

FYI. I blocked this user indefintely for threatening to sue us because we deleted his trash blatant advertising. Administrators, please reference [62]] for evidence.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If anyone feels this is too harsh, feel free to act accordingly.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Strongly support the block. I wonder if they're going to sue us in a federal court in Trenton, New Jersey? User:Zoe|^(talk) 15:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The block seems entirely justified to me. Blatant spamvertising and a legal threat - nice! -- ChrisO 22:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] multiple IPs at Talk:Highgate Vampire

• 213.122.105.226 (talk · contribs)
• 213.122.82.45 (talk · contribs)
• 213.122.53.86 (talk · contribs)
• 172.215.88.163 (talk · contribs)
• 82.47.185.39 (talk · contribs)

Harassment and personal attacks have occurred under the sub-heading "Comments by members of The Highgate Vampire Society." The offenders have all received warnings which they have ignored and indeed treated with contempt. These unregistered users are attacking someone who is not me, is not the topic under discussion, and someone who is not contributing to the discussion as they falsely claim. Furthermore, they are introducing insults and defamatory comments which have no bearing or relationship to the topic under discussion. They have effectively hijacked this discussion page to pursue a vendetta against someone mentioned in the original article who is an author and exorcist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampire Research Society (talk • contribs)

From what I can tell the primary editors of this article are also the authors of the references for the article:

• David Farrant claims edits by 172.215.88.163
• Vampire Research Society self identifies as supporting the views of the organization headed by Sean Manchester
• Catherine Fearnley claims edits by 213.122.114.239
• Barbara Green claims edits by 82.47.185.39

are involved in this editing dispute. I propose this be deleted and protected from recreation for the following reasons:

• There seems to be no independent references
• The article is about an event involving living persons that are borderline notable
• The article can be easily recreated if still notable in 10-20 years.

I would just list on AfD myself, I hesitate only because of my unfamiliarity with the subject thus I am requesting addditional views --Trödel 14:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've been following and trying to "moderate" the discussion there for a month now (most of the time without logging in), and I'm tempted to say "yes, delete it" (in fact I've proposed it on the talk page), so as to get it off my hands, but I'm not sure whether it would be quite fair to those who have worked on the article. Also, you aren't apparaising the situation quite accurately. The editor who initially created the page was a folklore researcher, Jacqueline Simpson, who had based her text mostly on two texts by another folklore researcher, Bill Ellis. Neither is exactly mainstream or notable (while being members of various folklore societies, they don't seem to have academical degrees in these subjects), but they were not involved in the vampire hunts either. Next, User:Vampire Research Society appeared, still unregistered and using multiple IPs, and started a very aggressive polemic against Ellis and Simpson on the talk page, while at the same time vandalizing the article in accordance with his POV (that vampires exist and Manchester kills them). Eventually the article was semi-protected and his IPs were blocked. Afterwards he got his present account and started pointing out various perceived or real factual inaccuracies (which I found rather insignificant). These have been corrected when acknowledged by the other two editors of the article - Simpson and/or me. Since he was accusing Farrant of various faults and crimes, Farrant et al. appeared and started making counter-accusations. That's about it. I'm not sure what the conclusions should be. I am sure that the article/talk page is in constant need of admin attention because of the fact that the main "characters" of the story are extremely active online. --Anonymous44 19:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the history - I'll help monitor the discussion - I hadn't read the article itself very thoroughly - was more focused on trying to identify the alleged personal attacks that were on the personal attack noticeboard. I think a good course of action would be to delete the accusations on the talk page - or archive them since Refactoring seems out of vogue, and see where things go from there. --Trödel 21:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Archiving them would probably be a relief, although they're going to produce another 100 kilobytes of accusations in no time. But how do we tell the difference between personal attacks and simple discussion of the contents of the article? The accusations are, at the same time, at least possibly relevant material for the article. For example, Vapire Research Society justified his endless diatribes against Farrant by using them to prove that Farrant shouldn't be used as a source for the article. And vice versa. --Anonymous44 22:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresentation continues even above. User:Anonymous44 has claimed that our view is that "vampires exist and Manchester kills them." This is misleading and untrue. The VRS certainly accepts the existence of predatory demons and Bishop Manchester certainly exorcises them, but exorcism is not "killing." Supernatural entities cannot be "killed." They can only be cast our or removed from where they occupy. Anyone doing their homework will be aware that David Farrant and his two female helpers, Catherine Fearnely and Barbara Green, stalk Bishop Manchester and the Vampire Research Society on the internet and once found start posting extreme abuse, fabriction and libel. This they have done on the talk page where Jacqueline Simpson, the original article's authoress, consequently stopped contributing (though she has recently addressed something to 194.145.161.227 that is not Farrant related). Likewise, the Vampire Research Society also announced that it will make no further contributions to the talk page whilst Farrant and company are posting defamation and malicious falsehood. The reason the VRS was obliged to refer to Farrant in the discussion was due to Simpson's emphasis on his alleged part in the Highgate Vampire case in her article. There were inaccuracies which needed addressing. Source references, published court reports etc, were provided by the Vampire Research Society and reminders of glaring errors in Bill Ellis' published account where Bishop Manchester and David Farrant are mentioned. These were not views or original research. They are factual inaccuracies for which supporting evidence was made available. Jacqueline Simpson and Bill Ellis have both been offered archive material which includes recorded interviews with Farrant from 1970 and thereabouts. They have shown no interest in taking up this offer which was first made in 1996 and has been repeated down the years. This material would oblige them to alter what they have published as "fact." Farrant is a compulsive liar. This is not just our view. He was declared so by magistrates, judges, juries and journalists throughout the 1970s, which is the relevant period. Notwithstanding the mistakes in Ellis' and Simpson's accounts, Farrant has many criminal convictions, some relating to desecration and vandalism in Highgate Cemetery, others relating to threatening witnesses with black magic in a sex case, and was sentenced to four years and eight months in 1974. Bishop Manchester and executive members of the VRS (of which I am one), on the other hand, have no criminal convictions; though you would not know it from the way we are treated on Wikipedia. The offensive and potentially libellous comments from Farrant, Fearnley and Green remain on the talk page and, moerover, have been added to after Simpson and the VRS disengaged.

Vampire Research Society 27 July 2006

[edit] Concerns with User: Qho [63]

I would respectfully request that an administrator help Qho understand that a number of his contributions to user discussion pages have been inappropriate. I attempted politely to warn him but was rebuffed, with behavior typifying his manner of postings. You may review his user contributions in the past several days to notice what he has been doing on several user pages [64]. Thanks. Ptmccain 18:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'll keep an eye on him. It looks like someone blocked him for a day. If he doesn't shape up in awhile, I'll step in. --Improv 19:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Ptmccain 19:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have decided to give him 24-hour block to cool off and given a notice. Since it's my first non-trivial block (i.e. not directly vandalism-related), I'd be happy with a review of my action. Misza13 ^{T C} 19:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have past experience with her and think that this is simply a learning curve deal, but I don't think a 24-hour block was out of line given the amount of communication Ptmccain had with her previously, especially given that I narrowly dragged her away from a civility block earlier.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User WP Anime

Userbox {{User WP Anime}} needs to be restored as it was arbitrarily deleted and salted without a TfD notice or a notice to WikiProject Anime and manga. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• As I noted when I gave notice that I deleted it, I'll give you the contents so you can move it to userspace if you like. --Improv 20:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That isn't a valid deletion criteria. I would appreciate it if you stopped encouraging a setup that results in the decentralisation of copyvios.Geni 20:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any official policy to userfy all userboxes. I've seen a proposal for it, but certainly not any confirmation. It was your duty to ensure the deletion did not have any adverse effect or go against consensus, which you clearly did not even attempt. WikiProject userboxes have been, asfar as I know, sanctionned by the userbox-related guidelines. Circeus 20:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Err, the German solution calls for the box to be userfied before deletion (for fairly obvious reasons), and WikiProject userboxes are among the few types that most people would consider as actually being beneficial to the encyclopedia. Why exactly did you delete this again? Kirill Lokshin 20:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're right in that this is a project userbox -- I was too hasty in this deletion, and have undone it. --Improv 20:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

Out of curiosity, I recall that the German solution at one point included a provision to move WikiProject boxes to project-space (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Userbox). Has this been taken out? Kirill Lokshin 20:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only did the deletion of the project userbox play havoc WP:Anime's membership list Category:WikiProject Anime and manga participants, but you had also removed the alternative instructions on the project page about how Wikipedias can list themselves as part of the project using the argument that "Userboxen are passé". [65] --TheFarix (Talk) 20:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Damn it, this is the sixth time I've attempt to post this!! TheFarix (Talk)

Interestingly enough I was gonna add this probably right after it got deleted in a weird coincidence without even knowing about this debate here but it spurred me to an interesting solution which I have adopted on all my non purely wiki-action based userboxes (languages and such excluded), I have converted all of them to pure cats which I think is the better solution and would suggest people do if they'd rather not deal with userfying hundreds of lines of userbox code. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This didn't belong at ANI, by the way. --Cyde↔Weys 21:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree Cyde, it should have been taken to DRV but you have to admit that taking this to AN/I instead of DRV got more input and got the job done faster than DRV ever would have, maybe AN would have been better though. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, and I could get a lot more immediate attention if a brought a category renaming here instead of WP:CFD, but this is simply the wrong venue. --Cyde↔Weys 22:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User unwilling to accept criticism even though criticism is given in a civilized manner

As much as I can attempt to do so, I tried to give my criticism to 219.91.203.71 in a civilized manner, yet he just not accept my criticism and repeat what I say. While I appreciate his edits in certain areas of the website overall, perhaps I tried to work a couple of "things" to make sure he's not repetitive and/or more condensed in his weight, and he's not appreciative in the criticism that I've given him in a civilized manner. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 22:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to contact me (details in box on top) if you need someone to give him a friendly nudge. I'm on IRC right now. --mboverload@ 22:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had a quick read and I think he's just trying to have a giggle with you, there's lots of "lol"s etc. He may not be appreciative of your criticism but although it's constructive, some people don't appreciate any type of criticism. I think the best thing you can do is ignore him and keep an eye of him to see if he starts getting offensive with other editors. Englishrose 23:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taylor Iosefo

Could somebody with the proper authority remove the history of this attack page? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

And the same thing at Peter MCcoy, please? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Taylor Iosefo & Peter MCcoy 's deleted histories appear to contain no information suitable for oversight application. The pages are already deleted and not available to non-admins. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So you don't mind that they contain claims that the subjects have committed illegallities, without a single source? User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, I'm afraid that what I mind and don't mind have nothing to do with the fact that the articles in question do not, to the general public, exist. Oversight, in fact, still doesn't remove the revisions, it only hides them, the same way as they're currently hidden since the articles are deleted. The only difference is that you, being an admin, can review the content regardless of the fact that they're deleted.

Oversight is approved for use in exactly three cases, and I would refer you to WP:OVER to review those cases, or if you don't trust a page I wrote, see the original version of m:Hiding revisions on Meta. If a request is sent in to the Wikimedia foundation by those offended (WP:BEANS applies), then an oversight request can be sent in to us, but at the moment it does not appear to warrant such attention.

While I dislike attack pages of all sorts, there's nothing differentiating this one from the thousands of others which have been deleted already, so it does not require oversight attention. If you still disagree, feel free to contact one of the users listed on the oversight page and ask them. I'm sorry. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Kylu is correct here; apparent libel is not enough to oversight a page's history. However, if the subject (or a legal representative) requests its removal or it becomes an WP:OFFICE issue, then oversight may be used.Voice-of-All 04:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qho (talk · contribs) posting personal information

A strange request was left on the Medcab talk page concerning User:Qho and User:89.32.1.82. It appears Qho posted the personal information of IP on his/her userpage (diff). I'm utterly baffled by what's going on here, but the IP address was blocked by User:Yamla for editing other peoples' comments, meanwhile Qho has left some threatening messages on the IP's talk page. If anything, the userpage edit should probably be removed from the history, but Qho needs to cool down at the moment. I brought the issue here to see what should be done. Cowman109^Talk 22:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: The "personal information" that was left appears to be an extract from a WHOIS lookup, [66] though these may be the contact details for a small ISP or business rather than the individual editor. Road Wizard 23:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the IP address is clearly being harassed, and that should probably be looked at. It seems the IP was removing such edits that were harassing him and is being punished for that, which is also why I brought this here as things seem a bit iffy. Cowman109^Talk 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to have a removal of this personal info from the edit history, in order to protect this person from further harassment. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There is definitely something unusual and inappropriate going on there. The all caps typing and unusual messages makes me think he needs a time-out or someone needs to have a chat with him. The posting of personal information (whether or not it actually was, its the attempt that counts) bothers me though and certainly needs to be looked at. He admits here [67] to his behaviour and I note no ban, yet the IP was banned for 48 hours. Even with the IP being uncivil, this user still went ahead and tried to put personal information on the page.--Crossmr 06:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I was the admin who blocked the anonymous user. This should absolutely not be taken to imply that I condoned Qho's behaviour. My dealings were with the anonymous user who engaged in a number of disruptive edits. I am glad that someone else looked into Qho's edits. While I am not convinced that posting a country of origin (essentially, whois information) constitutes a personal attack, many of this user's other edits may have constituted such an attack (and apparently did as he was blocked). Thank you. --Yamla 03:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pat8722

I just indefinitely blocked Pat8722 (talk · contribs). I feel that his continual confrontation, insults, and misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy is quite disruptive. I briefly blocked this editor before. If you feel this block is in error, please let me know. Background information is available at User talk:Pat8722 and especially at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pat8722. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am unconvinced that Pat's behavior rises to the level meriting an indefinite block. Could you explain in more detail why you think it does? JoshuaZ 21:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A couple of observations: first, if you've been involved in disputes with this user before you shouldn't really be the one issuing the block, and second, it might be more appropriate to start a request for arbitration if this user has already been through an RfC. I do agree with JoshuaZ's comment that an indefinite block seems overly harsh for what you describe - it's a big escalation from a "brief" block earlier. -- ChrisO 22:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

All right; I've taken your comments into account and released the block on him for now. Yes, of course, Chris; Pat and I have not been involved in editing the same articles and aside from the matter for which I blocked him, I do not believe we have encountered each other. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help keeping an eye on an abusive user

I recently ran across a number of personal attacks, via talk pages, hidden comments in articles, and edit summaries, by Machchunk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (take a quick look at his recent contributions for an idea of the latter) and gave him a two day block for violating WP:NPA. Within two hours of the end of his block, he was back at it, albeit at a slower pace. I don't like to be the only admin passing out warnings (and when necessary, blocks) to a user, so if a couple others wouldn't mind keeping an eye on his contributions for the next few days to see if he shapes up, that'd be helpful. Thanks. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I just went & looked at his user page: childish and intentionally offensive, "If you for some reason are reading this, then I probably hate you. [...] Go home, little boy.". A brief perusal of his contributions, esp to Daft Punk, show no benefit to the encyclopedia of keeping this editor around. Pete.Hurd 22:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

His user page alone says it all. Once a user gets a block and continues with the same shit all AGF is gone. --mboverload@ 22:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

He claims to be a "webmesiter" on ebaumsworldsucks. I don't know the forum, so how confrontational are they? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

At a glance, fairly confrontational. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, given another abusive edit summary and rude response to a different admin, I'm reblocking him for a week. If another admin thinks it was excessive or premature and wants to shorten the time, I won't wheel war with you — I just don't see any evidence that this user intends to act in a rational manner here. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 04:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal firm adding multiple links to their sites

New User:Marler Clark been adding links on multiple pages on food poisoning causing bacteria to their "www.about-" pages (eg http://www.about-salmonella.com) - which are produced by the law firm Marler Clark. This is clearly spamming, adding links to ones own web sites, and possibly a group vs individual user account (depending whether "Marler Clark" is an individual head of the legal firm in question, two individuals of "Marler" and "Clark" or a group within the firm). Could an admin do the undo all-last edits tool-thing you have, and decide about the validity of the user (eg its a bit like having a User:Pepsi) ? David Ruben ^Talk 01:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

All edits reverted by User:Tom harrison. User:Marler Clark seems to have stopped after being warned. Thank you! ~Kylu (u|t) 06:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Underage users

I was asked by a user I believe is underage what my sexuality is. I do not feel this is a personal attack or anything but it makes me profoundly uncomfortable to be asked this by a user who is underage. Now, I have no intention of discussing my sexuality, religion, or political views here on Wikipedia with anyone, it is not the right forum. But I am concerned when the discussion turns this way when the person engaging me in conversation is under age. Does anyone know of an article on Wikipedia or a reliable article on the Internet generally where I could direct such users which would warn them of the dangers without sounding like I'm going totally off the deep end (as I probably am in this paragraph)? --Yamla 04:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally proclaim it on my userpage because otherwise I'm answering questions all the time; there's nothing, in my opinion, wrong with them *knowing* that you're straight, gay, bisexual, or whatever else, it's when it crosses into actual discussion ("What does..." "Have you..." "How do you...") that it becomes problematic. There are probably documents online with the Center for Missing and Exploited Children that discuss safe internet practices, you might check there. Essjay (Talk) 04:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This article from education-world might help. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edits by 203.29.131.4 need attention

I just reverted what seemed like random insertions of <nowiki> in Mountain by user 203.29.131.4. I looked at his contributions [[68]] and there seems to be a lot of dubious changes. I have not got time to check them out as I am at work! -- Chris Q 11:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a shared IP, and I only see two strange edits recently, both of which have been reverted. Proto::type 11:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:EasterGeorge

EasterGeorge has been spamming an exteral link to a white supremacist article on a number of pages, as well as mentioning said white supremacist's book in the "References" or "Further Reading" of various articles (this is the first time I've encountered "refspam"). I left spam template tags on his Talk page, and his response was to harass me by e-mail. When told that he should leave remarks on Talk page, not contact editors by e-mail, he continued to e-mail me. CRCulver 13:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can't prove whether emails were or were not sent, but the contribution list is good enough for me. Spam-only account, indefinitely blocked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A multitude of hoaxes

Several users, apparently school kids from the Baltimore area, have been salting Wikipedia with hoaxes for a long time now. They started with many, many articles on a supposedly famous American familiy called the Eyre/Heller/Peters "dynasty", all of which have been deleted now. Today Aría has been listed for AfD, and because of that, by checking the contributions of the article's authors, I encounted yet again another Eyre family hoax, Knowlton Estate. I have pared down Grange Estate to a one-sentence stub, since there was nothing verifiable in it since it included more Eyre/Heller nonsense. I have also speedy deleted Category:Eyre family, as it was being slapped on more articles which just begged for more hoaxing. I have warned three of the contributors of the articles that if they write any more hoaxes, I will personally block them permanently. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Review also User:History21, User:70.104.231.84, Judy Feder, Eyre legend, Eyrecourt Castle, Westminster High School (Westminster, Maryland), And Having Writ Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And Having Writ does appear to be a real SF book, though how much of what they wrote about it in the article is true, who can say? Again, Judy Feder is a real Congressional candidate, though her article needs a lot of attention. They also seem to be involved in an edit war at Maryland. I'm wondering about sockpuppets. "They" also seem to have a lot of interest in First Family of the United States. Also watch User:70.35.97.241. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] R40A (New York City Subway car)

A set of IPs have been changing information on various pages about the NY subway. Multiple editors have asked these IPs for a source/reference with no sign of a reply. The edit summaries are very similar.

• 71.247.125.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 162.84.213.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 70.107.106.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

What should be done in this sort of situation? Gimmetrow 17:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Go to WP:RFPP and ask for Semi-Protection. Editor88 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. However, another editor did ask and was denied. In this case, latest IP violated 3RR so there should be a short break. My general question is about "devoted" editors who repeatedly edit the same thing into an article, despite multiple other editors asking for a reference. If the editor won't respond on talk or user-talk, it's not exactly a content dispute. In a different case I'm following, an editor has made the same edit about 24 times in 20 days, not violating 3RR but also not explaining the edit. What to do? Gimmetrow 19:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Users end up being disruptive by refusing to discuss what is obviously a contested edit, and can be temporarily blocked for it. Clearly if they're making the same edit 24 times in 20 days without discussing the edit, they're not interested in consensus and should be temporarily removed from the process. JDoorjam Talk 19:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Football365

Please keep a close eye on IP address 86.133.156.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). They have contributed malicious and highly irrelevant content to the page mentioned in my title over a very small period of time (~15 minutes). Thank you. --Raj Fra 18:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ryan4

Could someone else please take a look at Ryan4 (talk · contribs)? It seems to me he's spamming -- basically inserting advertising for an online book this time -- but I'd like another opinion or three. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Spam. The Crux of World History by Francisco Gil-White may be a great book, but if its not being cited as a source, adding it to multiple articles (how many? I got tired before I could count all the articles) in External links is spamming. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm really starting to get tired of JPGordon's personal vendetta against me. It's not spamming because: 1. The link is NOT COMMERCIAL, i.e. it provides no services for any fees, therefore it also 2. cannot be advertising. I added links to The Crux on pages such as The Greco-Persian conflict, Ezra, Nehemaiah, and Artaxerxes because there are specific chapters in the Book that present a very interesting Historical analysis of those particular topics, with specific reference to the history of the class conflict between the Jewish people and the Greeks and Romans around the time of the 1st Century. What on earth is spam about that? The only true guidelines about adding external links are that they cannot be the person's own website, they cannot be commercial links, and the amount of one particular viepoint should not dominate if that viewpoint is out of the mainstream. I have broken none of those rules. Ryan4^Talk 18:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Personal vendetta"? What would I possibly want vengeance for? You've done nothing to offend me one way or another. However, anytime anyone inserts identical links into over a dozen articles in twenty minutes, those links are going to undergo very strong scrutiny. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The unpublished book appears to offer an highly opinionated view of history (Chapter 1: The Roman ‘Final Solution’ in the first and second centuries; why it happened, and why you never heard about it. Chapter 2: Enter the villain: Alexander.) Further the author, Francisco Gil-White, does not seem to be significantly more notable than most professors. -Will Beback 19:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As an unpublished work, the link cannot be intended to serve as a reliable source. The link is being added to all these articles to promote Gil-White. It's spam, even if it's not commercial. Pete.Hurd 21:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have some familiarity with Francisco Gil-White's writings in relation to the former Yugoslavia, one of my particular areas of interest. He's got a long history of pushing extremely tendentious conspiracy theories and denialist POVs (some sample article titles: "Was Slobodan Milosevic murdered?", "The Serbs Were Not Oppressing the Kosovo Albanians... Quite the opposite", "The Freezer Truck Hoax - How NATO framed the Serbs", etc - see [69] for more). His work on political issues raises a number of red flags, particularly this one, which is present in spades: "Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them." (WP:RS#Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence) I can't think of any reputable academic sources which cite FGW's views on Yugoslavia. I'm not familiar with his writings on Middle Eastern issues but based on his performance on Yugoslav history, I'd be very wary of them indeed.

As for The Crux of World History, FGW's not a professional historian so I would certainly not consider him a bona fide expert on ancient history. The book in question is a self-published source and so is emphatically disqualified from consideration as a reliable source per WP:RS#Self-published sources. FGW is an anthropologist and psychologist; he's plainly not a "well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise". Nor is the book quoted in the articles. The whole thing seems very, very spammy to me and I strongly support removing the links. Further, I'm not at all convinced that the article on FGW meets the standard of notability set out in Wikipedia:Notability (academics), so I will be proposing it for deletion. -- ChrisO 20:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mantanmoreland using a sockpuppet and violating policies

User:Mantanmoreland has been editing Gary Weiss along with his sockpuppet User:Lastexit. See Fred Bauder's comments at [70]. Both accounts have harrassed User:WordBomb who attempted to edit the article but was blocked indefinitely. Both Mantonmoreland and Lastexit have voted on at least one AFD[71]. 130.15.164.51 19:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Lastexit hasn't edited the article since April 29. Do you have any evidence that sockpuppet abuse is continuing now? (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The AFD in which they both voted ended May 18. They continue to edit the same articles, for instance Naked short selling which LastExit last edited on July 20[72] and Mantanmoreland last edited on July 22. WordBomb is still blocked indefinitely for having edited Gary Weiss and having accused Mantanmoreland of using a sockpuppet. This means there has also been possible Admin abuse that should be looked at. 130.15.164.51 19:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, 130.15.164.51 is User:HOTR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

User:WordBomb's edit history shows nothing that justifies a block[73], certainly not an indefinite one which should only be handed down by Jimbo or by the ArbComm, not by an admin acting on her own. 130.15.164.51 19:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

WordBomb is blocked indefinitely for having posted what he believes are an editor's personal details. When asked for an assurance that it wouldn't happen again, he reposted them on his talk page. Since then, he has been harassing various people by e-mail, and has evaded the block several times with sockpuppets. He has made no useful contributions and should definitely stay blocked. As for the sockpuppet allegations, FloNight and Fred Bauder are dealing with the situation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't WordBomb do this the second time after you asked for proof of the sockpuppet allegation?130.15.164.51 20:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you don't seem to be catching this... the block was given FOR saying that users were 'Gary Weiss', which you keep doing. Whether you are correct or not, this is an attempt to 'out' the real identity of a user and not permitted. While Wikipedia does discourage people editing articles about themselves that does not constitute a reason to violate privacy restrictions. The {{autobiography}} template should only be used when it is known for a fact that the person has edited the article, and even then the particular user should not be identified unless they have publically revealed/acknowledged their identity. --CBD 13:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Gary Weiss has been accused of editing his biographical article under a pseudonym. Shouldn't Wikipedia:Autobiography apply here?130.15.164.81 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last will and testament edits may be spam?

On my watch list, I spotted this edit. A little hesitant, I checked out the site. I found it to be legimate enough and think such an article would be a good addition. Then, I noticed the editor who placed them; Livingtrust (talk · contribs). This name can be directly linked to the webpage added, Living Trust Network. I am now a bit worried about whether this should be considered spam or not. As you can see by the user contributions, they have added all instances of wills from the Living Network page to their appropriate Wikipedia articles. Also, at the Famous Wills section, they have a line that says "For more information, please see Wikipedia's biography of XXX." Can someone more knowledgable make comment on my concerns. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 19:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see any issues with their links to wikipedia -- tons of sites do for more information. I don't think that wills are generally appropriate to link to on Wikipedia though, especially outside of the external links section. My intuition is that it should be removed. --Improv 19:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• As the CEO of the Living Trust Network, I would like to respond to the above comments. First, we do not want to engage in any activities that might be considered unethical or wrong in any way. So, if we have added links to our website that should not have been added, then we will certainly take them down. We were in the process of adding links to Wikipedia's biographies of famous people whose wills are featured on our site when I discovered a link to a Last Will and Testament on another external site. That gave us the idea. Then we added a few links to wills on our site and discovered that we shouldn't be adding links except in the external links section. We then removed the links and put them into the external links area. If that, too, is not appropriate, then we will certainly remove them. However, it seems to me that having access to a person's will is a good thing and in keeping with the focus of the biography of famous people.

If you view the page on our site in which the Last Will and Testament is located, you will see that there is no advertising or other offensive material. In fact, you won't find anything on our site that is offensive or in bad taste. We tend to error on the side of being good neighbors - and we will always remain that way.

So, please, someone advise us as to how we should proceed regarding the links to the Last Wills and Testaments of famous people on our site.

Regards, Michael Pancheri, CEO, Living Trust Network, LLC

• I wasn't meaning to indicate that you should feel bad or that it was impropriety to add the links, merely that in my opinion, I don't think they make the articles better because they don't fit with the nature of encyclopedia articles. However, despite feeling as I do, I recommend you want until there's been adequate discussion on this page to reach some sort of consensus on the topic. If you would hold off on adding more links until then, and occasionally check back here in case more discussion happens, that would be great. Don't feel at all bad about adding the link at this point -- we're still working on coming to a set of intuitions on this topic (there have been a few other somewhat similar cases, one involving a scientific journal and another involving Cliffsnote, this month). --Improv 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I once had it explained to me that if the spam is usefull to the article and dosn't violate the other parts of WP:EL, leave it. I think that makes alot of sence... and why should we feel bad about haveing wikipedia link to a usefull website? ---J.S (t|c) 21:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me like a valid link, adding something useful in addition to article material. Tyrenius 22:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I consider it valuable information, and find the link appropriate. -newkai | talk | contribs 22:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Since User:Livingtrust is "CEO, Living Trust Network, LLC" it would probably violate #3 of WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. I guess the appropriate action would be to "mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 23:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's interesting and appropriate information to add; I'm just unclear at this point why that website had the right to post it in the first place. Even if there is no privacy issue because a) the testator is dead and/or b) the documents were publicly filed in probate court, those documents (except for Franklin's and Washington's) would still be copyrighted. Wills are the type of thing that surviving relatives might take unkindly to having distributed like this (no one wants the world to know that daddy cut them out of the will), and Wikipedia could be secondarily liable for maintaining the links if the Living Trust site can be primarily liable in some way. I've posted a question on the user's talk page on this to see what their legal rationale is; it's quite possible they've received sound advice from counsel that there's no issue here, but it's worth a look. Postdlf 23:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The possible legal concerns certainly need to be addressed, but assuming that there's not a legal issue, then moe.RON has probably suggested the best course. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If I understand that correctly, that means to have the link promoter mention its availability on the target article's talk page instead of adding it themselves, so that others not involved in the external link's site can decide whether to add it? So we would remove the links from the articles pending such a determination? Postdlf 14:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a copyright issue, as the purpose of a will is to be acted upon. It certainly doesn't violate WP:LIVING, except in the case of someone declared dead who shows up again.... It still could be considered spam, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] California Biblical University and Seminary

The California Biblical University and Seminary are keeps getting criticms removed by IPs. CaliEd 00:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Whenever someone repeatedly removes criticism from an article on an unaccredited religious university, it sets off my Gastrich alarm. He might be innocent here, but keep it in mind if it persists. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Especially given that the founder is a Louisiana Baptist University grad. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 04:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotected against further Gastroturfing. Just zis Guy you know? 21:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing talk page

Does removing other peoples talk page contribution in a higly contetious current event war merit a block? Or is it acceptable? --Striver 14:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It just appears to be a refactoring of comments, not removal. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring or personal attacks or unsourced critical material about living people from articles and talk pages is possible. But that is all. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The material he removed was neither PA or OR, Was it? --Striver 15:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like PA or OR to me, from that edit diff. Though I am intentionally not following those articles or discussions relative to them, other than the edit context right there. Georgewilliamherbert 00:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi Protection Request

Requesting a Semi Protection for Article United_Pentecostal_Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) due to regular Vandalism and unwanted anonymous editing. Pastor Linu 21:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Err, eyeing the above requests, this isn't the place for this. You should go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection instead (WP:RFP for short). Cowman109^Talk 21:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:KittenKlub and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal

KittenKlub is engaged in an edit war between Cabalists in regards to his changing a comment behind Rob Church's name on the former cabalist list.

KittenKlub alleges that the comment is a personal attack, while the diffs behind the original incident provide a view that KittenKlub was acting in an incivil manner. He is now in violation of 3RR on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal and WP:CIVIL at the very least.

Please act expediently in this manner, should you require further information, I am available on talk pages or on IRC under the same. CQJ 00:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I guess the situation was resolved per this. CQJ 01:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User RJ evading ban

Warning: Due to the complexity of this case the following entry is not concise. My apologies.

[edit] Background Information

This notice concerns RJII, a user who has been banned indefinately for a series of wiki violations and his own eventual admission of intent to abuse. Vision Thing is a user whose first edit occured on March 19, 2006. Because his first edit was to immediately initiate a discussion on a topic which had recently been the focus of user RJII, he was soon accused by user AaronS of being a sockpuppet. User Infinity0 also suspected Vision Thing of being a sockpuppet, and requested a checkuser. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the RJ "project", as user Logical2u said on the checkuser page, "all accounts by the RJII "team" will likely be undectable and un-check-user-verifiable, due to "home" computers, etc."

Due to lack of evidence from usercheck, the case appears to have been dropped. However, I believe that subsequent edits by user Vision Thing have more than demonstrated, via circumstantial evidence, his intimate connection to RJII. Unfortunately this is the only kind of evidence that could be applied to this case. I have compiled an extensive list of identical edits made by user RJII and Vision Thing. Please note that in my time searching dozens of articles edited by these two accounts I never found a single instance in which either editor reverted or even openly disagreed with one another, despite a tendency by both accounts to engage in edit wars and reverts. When I eventually became certain of Vision Thing being a sockpuppet I attempted to inform twice. Despite making several other edits on his talk page in the meantime, both my attempts remain ignored.

[edit] Evidence of Vision Thing and RJ being the same user

As evidence I would first like to note RJII's repeated insistance on indicating that the writers of the anarchist FAQ are "social anarchists". This is the very topic that Vision Thing first used as a subject of his first edit. The similarity of their edits can be seen from these examples by RJ,

• 27 March RJ, 30 March, 3 April, 8 April, 26 April

which can be compared with this edit by Vision Thing after RJ was banned: 9 July

Such instances are not isolated. For example, RJ and Vision Thing inserted the same edits concerning David Friedman on medieval Iceland:

• 24 April RJ
• 25 April Vision Thing
• 26 April RJ

Vision Thing has made many of the same edits that RJ was formally known for inserting since RJ's ban. Benjamin Tucker's "capitalism is at least tolerable" is a quote originally introduced into several articles by RJ:

• 20 May, 20 May

After RJ's ban it has been inserted into articles by Vision Thing in his place: 15 July

Individualist anarchism "reborn", is another quote originally inserted by RJ into the anarchism article:

• 23 June

has since been championed by Vision thing after RJs ban:

• 15 July, 3 July

Way back in January of 2005 RJ started posting many edits about the "U.S. Postal Service monopoly"

• 11 January

not surpirsingly, after RJ was banned nearly identical edits started coming from Vision Thing

• 3 July

And yet another instance, before his ban RJ inserted the following edit into Anti-capitalism: 15 June After RJs ban Vision Thing once again inserted an identical edit: 25 June

These articles and edits are only a small sample, constrained due to my limits on time. Here is a partial list of more articles that each has contributed to, often making the same or very similar edits. Please feel free to look through them to get an idea of the similarity in tone, style, and point of view: An Anarchist FAQ, Economics of fascism, Anarcho-capitalism, Bryan Caplan, Laissez-faire, Capitalism, Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, Anarchism in the United States, Template:Socialism, Criticisms of socialism, Talk:Wage labour, Collectivism, Anti-capitalism, Corporatism, Friedrich Hayek, United States Postal Service, Mixed economy, Free market, Property, Altruism, Natural rights, Negative and positive rights, List of anarchists.

In fact, the total number of edits to pages they hold in common is far greater than those to pages they do not. Yet, despite the fact that these two seem to have identical interests, edits, and political viewpoints, they have never engaged in so much as a "hello", with their only contact being to support one another on arbitration issues or deny that they were the same person.

[edit] Evidence of violation of wiki policy by Vision Thing beyond circumventing ban

To my knowledge use of a sockpuppet to circumvent a ban is a violation of wiki policy in itself, however I believe there is plenty of evidence that this sockpuppet is also a violation of the rules on:

• voting (as mentioned above)
• and Creating the illusion of broader support [74], [75]

[edit] RJs explicit intentions now carried on in Vision Thing account

It is important to note that when faced with a ban RJ eventually admitted what had previously been obvious to many, that his intent was to use "...advanced techniques of psychological warfare... most importantly, most of our edits were not done through the RJII account but through multiple "sockpuppets" (from a seperate IP(s) for increased security against detection). Hence, the RJII account served largely to wear particular individuals down, pyschologically, who were judged to be enemies."

In admits again to having multiple sockpuppets already prepared and engaged in wikipedia, "In the meantime, the "sockpuppets," who evinced a somewhat amiable personality did not engage in personal attacks and other such disagreeable behavior that may have risked blocks by adminstrators, went about editing the encyclopedia... It is safe now for us to divulge that some of the sockpuppets will continue editing Wikipedia until at least the end of the year."

The edits of RJ and Vision Thing are so nearly identical, and so obviously from the same narrow POV, that it can't helped but be felt that RJIIs intent to be "successful in driving several individuals off of Wikipedia, or away from particular articles, who through their hands up in disgust (probably literally)" is being carried on via the account of Vision Thing. Circumstantial evidence is never certain, but I believe this is as much evidence as one could provide given the difficulty in tracking down all the sock puppets employed by RJIIs account. In the unlikely case that the circumstantial evidence I have compiled does not remove doubt that Vision Thing is a sock puppet of RJ he is at least a Meat Puppet (perhaps in the form of banned user Hogeye who worked closely with RJ in the past). Regardless, Vision Thing is clearly carrying out RJs explicitly stated goals of disrupting wikipedia and gaming the system. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 05:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting analysis. I would tend to concur with you. However as you said, this cannot be proven. I suspect the only thing that can be done in this case is to go through the dispute resolution process and get a similar result to that which was meted out to RJII. You could use the previous two ArbCom judgements against RJII as precedent. - FrancisTyers · 15:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that in any case, RJII also appears to be using a series of throwaway accounts to avoid detection. Accounts like User:Antitrust and User:C-Liberal which were registered since he vanished, made a couple of edits (only two in Antitrust's case) to keep his preferred versions in place, and then promptly disappeared seem like classic socks to me. --Aquillion 17:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the assumption, but nothing can be proven. If his words are any indication, RJII would thrive on this kind of speculation. I'd rather not give him that satisfaction. He can play with this until he's 80 years old, for all I care. I might suggest some professional help, though. --AaronS 01:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would add to the above: CapitalistAnarchist (talk · contribs), who, somewhat comically, was blindly reverted by Lingeron (talk · contribs) in this edit, where Lingeron reverted three days of edits by ten different people to revert to a version by Vision Thing. Even if we don't assume that Antitrust (talk · contribs), C-Liberal (talk · contribs), and CapitalistAnarchist (talk · contribs) are RJII, it can probably be taken as a given based on usernames and contributions that those three are all one user... and I cannot think of any compelling reason why a user would run through three accounts in such a short time unless they were trying to avoid detection. --Aquillion 17:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Also TheIndividualist (talk · contribs). The Ungovernable Force 22:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comment by Lingeron

Just as an addition to this witch hunt for RJll sockpuppets, that is an obvious attempt at getting rid of Vision Thing, these editors, User:Blahblahblahblahblahblah and User:The Ungovernable Force, along with others, are currently working at destroying the featured article anarcho-capitalism. Their clear attempts at destabalizing this article are viscous and I wonder how much of it is being done out of petty jealousy. I find all this sickening, both the witch hunt for a good conscientious editor and what they are doing to this article, which they have brought up for featured status review, Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Anarcho-capitalism, after having inserted blatant POV into it, and often made multiple edits to it all in the same day. The need to endlessly dominate articles and insert their own slant can be seen in the several anarchist related articles they tend to edit. Particularly here anarchism. Francis Tyers, also, is hardly in a position to complain as he, on 7/23/06 made 9 edits to this same article. I would suggest that those that seek to run Vision Thing off of Wikipedia take a look at their own actions instead. Shannon^{duck talk} 21:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone tempted to take Lingeron/Shannon's comments seriously, please take a moment to review the claims being made, and the behavior of the individual making them. In particular, the claims of attempts to "destroy" the anarcho-capitalism article by bringing it up for review. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 08:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kelly Martin/?

[edit] User:Kelly Martin/B

This list User:Kelly Martin/B is of a concern to me. It appears to be a list of a group of users who have little in common other than that, as far as I can tell, all of us found ourselves in opposition to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sean Black 2 for one reason or another. That the administrator largely responsible for the creation of this page stated that its purpose was "It is used by myself and certain others to benefit our decision-making processes" [76], so I can only conclude that its sole purpose is to harass and/or intimidate those with whom this administrator disagreed about the RFA in question. BigDT 21:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I have now listed this page at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Please feel free to help build a consensus there as appropriate. BigDT 21:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, nice guess, but it actually has nothing to do with Sean Black's RFA. That's an interesting correlation you pointed out, though ... Cyde↔Weys 22:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL nevermind, it got a lot bigger since the last time I looked at it :-P Check the page's history though, it's been around since before Sean Black's RFA. --Cyde↔Weys 22:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And it just got a lot smaller since I last looked, Cyde just deleted it. Meh. the wub "?!" 22:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict: I was also going to post that the page has now been deleted by Cyde. I would still like to know what the intentions were. Refusing to say what it is for and deleting it as soon as anyone outside of your clique finds out about it hampers my ability to assume good faith. -BigDT 22:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the fact that people are poking around in my userspace. The purpose of that page is to benefit my ability to make decisions in the best interest of Wikipedia. Just a way of keeping track of people that's more reliable than my memory -- there's a lot of Wikipedians these days and I find that I can no longer manage everything in my head. All it takes to get on there is doing anything that makes you stand out to me -- good or bad, it doesn't matter; being included there doesn't mean I think you're a bad person or anything; it's just a list. I deliberately created it in my user space and at an out of the way location so that it wouldn't be disruptive, but of course someone had to go and make trouble about it. Nice show, people. I suppose I'll move it to my own wiki (which is closed, and I don't give out passwords to many people) where I don't have to worry about people messing with it. Even better, I can put it in a special locked namespace where none of you can see it, either. You should have stopped while you were ahead..... Kelly Martin (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Kelly why not just recreate it? There was no basis for the deletion of it and it can be easily restored through proper channels. I'm confused as to why it was deleted in the first place. Having a list of users isn't against any rule. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Recreating it will just disrupt Wikipedia further. If I maintain this list off-wiki, I won't have to deal with the howling -- or at least can ignore it more readily. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not the explanation you gave for it on IRC. I don't think this after the fact misrepresentation of what the list was for is really helpful. --W.marsh 22:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. I can't believe we're even having this conversation. You created a list of names that apparantly was based on people you and others had disagreed with. You refused to say what it was for - simply giving a reasonable explanation would have sufficed. When you get caught, somehow it's our fault for "poking around in your user space", whatever that means. Still, rather than provide an explanation, Cyde removes the list. Calling it a list of people that stand out good, bad, or indifferent sounds dubious considering that (1) there were multiple substantial contributors to the list and (2) you added a large block of names from Sean's RFA. Now, you play the "drama queen" card of taking your football and going to your own secret wiki. Honestly, this behavior disturbs me. If everything you were doing was above board, then you would not at all be upset at discussing your actions. BigDT 22:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No cookies for you this year at Christmas. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's just as well ... I need to cut down anyway ... BigDT 23:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we're all entitled to know what this is all about. I see other admins adding names to this secret list in user space, then deleting the list (including User:Cyde with the summary "Kill everything"?), and then see my name on it. What is going on? -- Samir धर्म 08:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so secret that she put it in her userspace. Henry^Flower 08:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

1. 23:11, 21 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) (+1)
2. 18:09, 21 July 2006 . . Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) (Kill MFD)
3. 18:09, 21 July 2006 . . Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) (rm. another self-add)
4. 18:08, 21 July 2006 . . Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) (Nope, you need to earn it.)
5. 18:06, 21 July 2006 . . W.marsh (Talk | contribs | block) (I want in!)
6. 17:51, 21 July 2006 . . BigDT (Talk | contribs | block) (+mfd1)
7. 17:45, 21 July 2006 . . The wub (Talk | contribs | block) (seems like a nice bunch, I want in)
8. 13:54, 21 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (add many)
9. 15:04, 20 July 2006 . . SPUI (Talk | contribs | block) (apparently I can help by expanding it?)
10. 14:20, 20 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (+2)
11. 12:11, 20 July 2006 . . Gurch (Talk | contribs | block) (oh, that. So what? I'm entitled to my opinion, no?)
12. 10:17, 20 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (why)
13. 08:16, 20 July 2006 . . Gurch (Talk | contribs | block) (ehh... what did I do?)
14. 18:39, 17 July 2006 . . Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) (Add one)
15. 12:45, 14 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (+)
16. 22:57, 12 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) (1)
17. 13:25, 12 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) (-rfaf, +humor)
18. 11:49, 12 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (+)
19. 09:58, 6 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (+)
20. 09:57, 6 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (add)
21. 10:38, 5 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) (+1)
22. 12:41, 3 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (add)
23. 11:30, 3 July 2006 . . Sean Black (Talk | contribs | block) (yeah...)
24. 11:17, 3 July 2006 . . Phil Boswell (Talk | contribs | block) (Example User (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)…or should we use Example User (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)?)
25. 11:12, 3 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block)
26. 02:03, 3 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block)

That's very intimidating intimate, and yet ever so participatory! I'm honoured to grace the list. I think! *Kisses* El_C 09:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am told I was listed on here, don't I have a right to know what it is? Computerjoe's talk 12:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Damn, that's creepy. I appeared on 6 of July, apparently after my vote on User:Mboverload's RfA. User:Gurch who voted "per me" was added shortly thereafter. I definitely don't like the smell of it.  Grue  13:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Friendly Assume Good Faith reminder! Contributors to this mysterious subpage should not assume objectors are "making trouble" and that hiding it in some other place somehow hampers the objectors. They should also realize that people like to see who is linking to their user pages, that such curiosity is perfectly normal, and that an unannotated and apparently random list would obviously stand out as a curiosity. Objectors should accept the contributors' explanations at face value unless evidence to the contrary is presented. The idea that this list is just a list of "people of interest" is at least plausible. =) Powers 13:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that no explanation has been given. If Kelly, Cyde, and others would give an explanation, I would be willing to accept it. BigDT 15:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to WP:AGF when one administrator suggests using a {{vandal}} template for the people on the list AND another uses the words "kill everything" in the summary to delete the list. -- Samir धर्म 04:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If this list really is no big deal, why can't it just be explained? Clearly, we're all itching to know. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 08:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Probably a "Christmas gift" that we can expect after this RfA. ;) - Mailer Diablo 16:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Man, not even 3000 edits and I'm blacklisted. Argh. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin, I see you are proposing to move this list to your own server. If this is based in the UK, it may be subject to the Data Protection Act; and if in the EU, various directives limiting the use of personal information. Personally, I will assume good faith. If the reason I am on the list is because someone disapproves (or approves for that matter) of something I said, they are welcome to comment on my talk page. Everyone is open to reason, if you catch the right moment. Stephen B Streater 09:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sakes. Really. This is way past the threshold of ridiculous and is now firmly in the territory of the absurd. You're quoting British laws at her?! Ahahahahahaha. --Cyde↔Weys 15:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems you have misconstrued the purpose of my comment. Stephen B Streater 22:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, I see enough people I respect on the list to take my inclusion as a compliment. I do wonder why I'm a Q1 on this list though. What could it all mean? -- Avenue 13:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No idea. I see that W.marsh is listed under BBQ. I strongly suspect that we've crossed the line into parody. Regarding your inclusion, clearly it's a bad pun (Avenue Q). Mackensen (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • BBQ? I want in on the LB (Light Brunch) list wherever that is. --Alf ^melmac 18:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• OK, fess up, how many of you have a /B page? I have one. NoSeptember 14:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Me too, but at least I was smart enough to make it inaccessible to everyone else. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Funny, I can view what's there ;) NoSeptember 15:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, having such a list of users is very poor taste. I can't think of any "decision-making processes" using current mechanisms which would necessitate lists of users by certain criteria. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Since this all blew up and blew away over the weekend, and I opposed Sean Black's RfA and am curious, could someone tell me if I was/am/will be on this list? -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, thanks, someone filled me in that I was/am. I'm disappointed in Kelly's choice to take this "off-wiki" and refusal to answer simple questions about the intent of such a list. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the list before it was deleted. I am on it, as are several other admins who opposed SB's RfA. I am appalled. Jonathunder 16:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Micoolio101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• M. Burmy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• SirGrant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• ClemMcGann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Jtdirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Juppiter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Splash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Xoloz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• DragonWR12LB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• mboverload (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Grue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Gurch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) • [77]
• Splash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Rossami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Dragon695 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Xaosflux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Haukurth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• SatyrTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Sockenpuppe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• A. B. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• AaronS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Abcdefghijklm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Aguerriero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Avenue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Bhadani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• BigDT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Blnguyen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Bucketsofg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Computerjoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• David D. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Deon555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Dlyons493 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• El C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Eluchil404 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Erik the Rude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Goldom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Grace Note (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Grandmasterka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Grue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Guinnog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Idont Havaname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• JJay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• JJJJust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Jonathunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Kimchi.sg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Kinneyboy90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Knowledge Seeker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Mailer diablo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Matt Yeager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Nae'blis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• OwenX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Paolo Liberatore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Petros471 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• RandyWang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• RFerreira (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Samir (The Scope) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Samsara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Shizane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Silensor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Simetrical (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Stephen B Streater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Terence Ong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Themindset (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Thumbelina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Tintin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• WillMak050389 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Zaxem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

<list snipped, it makes ANI much longer and is totally unnecessary, it's already reproduced elsewhere in userspace> --Cyde↔Weys 17:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I put the list back (above). It belongs here as it is the entire point of discussion. Also, if it is reproduced somewhere else already, please provide a link. Just cutting it from here, not showing where it is reproduced, and fully knowing that nonadmins can't see deleted text appears to me as something to hide, or either way, not a good idea. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I disagree. I'm on the list and the only way I found out about this was be my periodic check of "what links here". I would not have found out about the AN/I otherwise. --A. B. 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the history of this list, I see that most names, including mine, were added after we Sean Black's RFA. Is this an "enemies list" of people to settle scores with? Jonathunder 17:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm on the list and no one seems to have settled a score with me yet (then again maybe I'm already in trouble and just clueless -- it wouldn't be the first time!). BTW, I never heard of Kelly Martin before this ANI or Sean Black before his RfA. --A. B. 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly care what this list was for, but I think it was shockingly clueless of the people involved in making it to put such an unexplained list of editors on-Wiki, delete it when it attracts attention, and then refuse to really talk about its purpose, unless their goal is to create drama. If that was the intent, well-done, otherwise, that was dumb as hell, guys. If this was an "in-joke", or whatever, it was bungled and turned into a disruption by serious cluelessness on the part of those "in" on the joke. Sometimes, Kelly impresses me with her good judgement. This isn't one of those. On the other hand, her reaction of clamming up when the drama starts, instead of defusing it with candid openness, reminds me of Kelly in early January, so I guess that's not surprising. Why not try a different approach to controversy, Kelly? You like drama? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, now there's a new version at User:Kelly Martin/Q and if this keeps up, I will seriously reconsider whether I want to stay involved around here. Jonathunder 18:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That's your prerogative, but I can't help but think that everything is being seriously overblown. I wish we had an article on Social panic, but we do not, so I'll have to reference Moral panic. When some things have the appearance of secrecy people tend to be inclined to think the absolute worst, no matter how far off the truth that may be. --Cyde↔Weys 18:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is why it's pretty much a lot smarter to maintain an impression of openness instead. At some point, you can't control the fact that people tend to react in certain ways, but you can refrain from provoking them. I don't blame people for being people, but I'm disappointed in you Cyde, and Kelly, for not knowing what people are like. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Cyde, that attempted secrecy causes suspicion. Wouldn't it be best if someone just gave a clear explanation of the purpose of this list? The thing has cabal written all over it, it's no wonder that the listed users are concerned. Canderson7 ^(talk) 18:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That page is now merely a mild insult to the reader, and has no edit history. Was it always this way, or has Oversight been used to hide something here? --Philosophus ^T 06:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe I should think for a moment, and ask whether it was deleted and then recreated. --Philosophus ^T 06:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Oleg above. This showed poor judgment from all the people involved in keeping that list. The day wikipedians are voting according to what will make them look good among a click of wikipedia-veterans is a sad day for the community. Just the very notion that someone are keeping lists of "good" and "bad" wikipedians based on how they act and vote on RFA is very destructive to this community, a community based on everyone acting in good faith and according to what they believe will make this encyclopedia better. If I wanted to oppose an rfa because I didn't see the candidate fit as an admin, I should be able to make that oppose vote without any fear of ending up on some list that would haunt me later. Kelly seemed surprised that the existence of this userpage list became known. I think it would be more surprising if it didn't get known, and I bet many people knew about it long before it got blown up here. I just hope nobody made it influence their voting on Sean Black's rfa. But I'm afraid it might have. And that it might influence people in the future. That is not good, and Kelly should realize this. Shanes 18:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.Voice-of-All 18:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What is interesting to observe is the tortuous lengths Cyde and Kelly will go to to insist that this was a good, helpful, right, healthy thing to do, and that any upset is definitely not anything whatsoever at all to do with their angelic, prayerful selves, and that it is all everyone else's fault. That this was a stupendous error of judgement (of all those who compiled the original list), whatever its original intent, is plainly obvious; being unable to see that, especially when it is laid out for you in such painful detail, is an elegant corroboration of the judgement error already made. It also has the overtones of those days from primary school when you'd be passing a secret note around under the desks, and the teacher would say "What have you got there, Splash?" and you'd say "Nothing, Sir." as you screwed it into a ball and hid it under your chair. Then, at breaktime, you'd all huddle around the table in the back at the corner, and giggle, guiltily looking over your shoulders to see if any teachers were walking by and, when they caught you, you'd act all righteously indignant in hope you might bluster them into giving up. -Splash - tk 19:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what's really interesting, to me, is the response. A list like this (and, please note, that I've never approved of it) has as much value as people place in it. Anyone who would let a list like that guide their judgement has already made up their mind. Or, more appropriately, has decided to let that list do their thinking for them. That's abominable. At the same time, anyone on a list who thinks that said list has any relevance to their actions clearly has no idea how a wiki functions. I'm saddened that anyone has placed any stock in this ridiculous affair. That goes for both the people who made the list and the people who ended up on it. The best response from the people on the list would have been to call it idiotic (which it was) and carry on with their lives (which I hope they do). This has been a tawdry affair, both silly and unnecesary, and to exacerbate it further would do very little good and probably a great deal of harm. I suppose if anyone hasn't finished expressing their moral outrage at list compilation they should do it now. Mackensen (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about my name being on the list, but you must see that this situation is now self-exacerbating. Even if people stop commenting on it (which they won't), there are several things going on that make them feel worse than they already do for being placed on the list. First their oppose votes are roundly dismissed as ridiculous, then the RFA is closed somewhat unconventionally (again devaluing their concerns), and now we have RFA votes like this from Kelly Martin, which barring any other explanation look like a "because you're on my list" vote. This whole thing was built up wrong from the beginning, and it has been beset by unknowns. That clearly has brought out a lot of suspicion and unease in serious editors, amd I don't think it is going to go away readily. Now we just have a list of people have not had their concerns validated, but who ARE having their suspicions validated. --Aguerriero (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA is broken.

1. An increasing number of people are voting based on popularity and not based on weather or not candidate will be able to use admin tools responsibly. If there are people who dislike you (for various reasons such as not sharing the same pov etc).
2. Incivility on rfas is begining to be a norm even by established users who should known better. An increasing number of RfAs contain evidence of trolling.
3. Rfas are failing to serve their purpose. Often oppose votes have nothing to do with the local wikis policies etc which the candidate is expected to enforce.

--Cat out 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This whole discussion is utter nonsense. I can't believe it's going on and attracting so much attention. What Kelly is doing is not strange at all. Wikipedia is a work environment growing larger, more complex, and cumbersome by the day. For veteran Wikipedia editors, it is an increasingly daunting challenge each day to keep track of our peers. If a longtime, active editor such as Kelly Martin finds the need to create some sort of list of users-- a list which makes sense to no one else but helps him/her keep things straight in his/her own head-- no harm is done whatsoever. Similarly, I've found a need to keep a list of editors-- mainly users who edit my subjects of interest-- on my own userpage. It makes no difference if Kelly keeps her list in her user namespace, or in private on a database or document off Wikipedia. I suggest that everyone move past this contentious discussion, and let Kelly get back to working on her sole objective on Wikipedia, which is making the site a more reliable encyclopedia-- paranoid conspiracy theories aside. 172 | Talk 05:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That I can easily agree to. This debate and my argument above has nothing to do with the list. The list can stay no problem.

Voting on afds based on a "hatelist" however is disruptive. Adminship does not require people to love you. Its just a mop, a tool just like the ability to edit. It must not be made a big deal.

--Cat out 16:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Aw, I didn't make the list. Damn. ;P —Nightstallion (?) 10:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

---

[edit] User:Kelly Martin/R

I have blocked Kelly Martin for 24 hours for recreating of the above list, which I speedy deleted, as per my clear warning on her talk page. El_C 02:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am extremely concerned that El C chose to block while he was involved in a conflict with Kelly Martin over this issue. In addition to taking a threatening and confrontational tone, I note that he was one of the individuals listed on Kelly's page. Regardless of whether or not it was appropriate for Kelly to keep such a list, it was definitely not El C's place to threaten and block here. I'm tempted to block El C for wheel warring (deleting and blocking while the issue was being discussed further up this page) and immediately unblock Kelly Martin, but I'm aware of the irony that would lace such a course of action.

I would encourage a rapid sampling of opinion here and if there is a general agreement Kelly should be unblocked so that she can at least participate in this discussion—and continue to work on Wikipedia, where she has been bloody useful for the last two years. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that El C has reconsidered this block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I reject that involvement and charges of wheel warring, and I only reverted myself because of you threats to block me. Now I will let you deal with her disruptive conduct and lists. You are contributing to KM's continued abuse of Wikipedia with these list games. El_C 02:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

On wheel warring—what do you call it when two admins delete and undelete (or delete and recreate) pages, then start blocking? I didn't threaten to block you – nor did I reverse your action – precisely because I didn't feel like getting dragged into a wheel war and firestorm. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I took it as a threat. I deleted the lists in multiple pages; there was no wheel warring over a specific page, and if there was, it was in error. As mentioned, I acted to prevent conflict because no one seemed prepared to stand up to these orchestraded games, but I should not be expected to waste my time on the intricate detail of these. End of story. El_C 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Kelly would, in her profound wisdom and infinite munificence, be willing to grant a boon to the lowly peons and offer some few words of explanation as to the purpose of the lists?

(I'll point out that "he was one of the individuals listed on Kelly's page" does not necessarily disqualify El_C from enacting blocks; this goes back to that whole hypothetical "If a user picks a fight with every admin, does that mean nobody can block him?" thing.) Kirill Lokshin 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

They're pretty much just being created to annoy people at this point. Somehow this is seen as perfectly acceptable behavior... yeah it's pretty silly. I guess it's effective trolling, but it's sad how many people are okay with it. Meh. --W.marsh 02:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The /R list was a list of random users with random colors assigned to them. There was absolutely no meaning to the list that El C deleted. I created it for one express purpose: to see if El C would jerk his knee and attempt to punish me for creating it. Considering that he previously deleted a harmless redirect and a blank page from my user space, I wasn't too surprised that he did. To an extent, this is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, but if the extremely minor disruption that this causes exposes a wildly irresponsible admin for who he is, I consider it worthwhile. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Fascinating. I admitt I did not expend a great bit of focused concentration for the precise detail of each component of these games. Naturally, they get the bottom end of my time. Now that should have been predicted by her social experiment! El_C 07:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that you've accomplished that, can we have an end to the lists? Kirill Lokshin 03:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you made El C look bad. He (presumably) sought to punish you for disrupting Wikipedia with the creations of these lists. Isn't this, by your own admission, exactly what you did, particularly with this last list? You know people find these lists very annoying and yet you continue to make them. Regardless of the rationale behind these lists, you ought to know better. Maybe you (and others) find them funny, but there are many people who want you to just cut it out and act like the mature admin you should be. I, for one, am one of those people. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) What the heck? You create a disruption to goad an administrator into blocking you and then you are shocked when they take you up on the offer? That's kinda like the boy who repeatedly pokes the dog with a stick and is surprised when he gets bit. If any of us poor little users who don't have your clout were to make such a list and refuse to say what it is for, and continually recreate it when asked not to, I seriously doubt anyone would bend over backwards to defend us. BigDT 02:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So, basically, Kelly recreated the list in order to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Mangojuice^talk 03:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't recreate anything. Please check your facts. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, Perry Mason, you created the list in order to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Which, of course, makes precisely zero point zero percent difference. --Calton | Talk 11:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting lists. I wonder if they're one of those classic "secret list" social experiments. Kim Bruning 02:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC) (And once again, I'm not on them. Argh, no respect these days)

Seriously! What does a guy have to do to get on a secret list these days, anyway? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Be careful for what you ask. Sometimes obscurity is a very enviable state. ;-) -- llywrch 03:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin is seeking conflict with these lists, and when admins such as myself issue and enforce warnings on these, admins such as TenofallTrades threaten to wheel war and block me, whilst choosing inaction on the KM front. It looks bad. El_C 02:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I would have stood my ground (I maintain this was a legitimate WP:NOT/POINT block/deletion - no wheel warrning whatsoever) had it not been for TenofallTrades warning. Unlike some, I have work to do on the namespace. There's war in the old country. El_C 03:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Kelly more and more reminds me of Ann Coulter. :) Seriously, her behaviour is clearly silly, but I guess we all need to drop this. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Putting a smiley after a personal attack doesn't make it any less of one. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I guess accusing someone of being like Ann Coulter is a personal attack though, huh? --Cyde↔Weys 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

More like libel, as far as I'm concerned. Nonetheless, Kelly Martin's self-admitted WP:POINT violation and chaff-throwing distraction notwithstanding, she has still not offered a hint of a breath of a whisp of an iota of an explanation for the original list. Would she care to do so, or does she have any other bits of distraction gameplaying up her sleeve for our entertainment? --Calton | Talk 04:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've answered this question at least three times that I can think of, including at least once on this page (page up a bit to see it). Stop asking it; asking it makes it look like you're posting without being informed of the full circumstances. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong! you didn't answer the question three times, you gave non-answers three times that gave no actually hint of what they were really for. Saying that they exist only to help you improve wikipedia makes no sense. I do not understand why it is necessary to be so mysterious.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So in other words, you're alleging that my answers were prevarications (or just lies). Do you believe that I am lying? Kelly Martin (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said that they were outright lies, I just said you answered the question without really saying anything. It was a very dodgy sort of answer. How does saying "I'm using the list to help improve wikipedia" explain anything about the actual puropose?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've answered this question at least three times that I can think of, including at least once on this page... Since no such answer appears on this page -- using the definition of "answer" as used by native English speakers -- you'll have to point to the two other locations where you claim to have answered this very simple question. Hint: "Because" is not an actual answer. Oh, and if you don't like being accused of lying -- and you're the one who brought in the possibility, I should point out -- try telling the simple truth instead of working your way through the Big Book of Rhetorical Dodges. --Calton | Talk 11:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a few reminders:

• Nothing in Wikipedia policy permits the use of blocking, or any other administrative tool, for "punishment". Tools such as blocking are only permitted to be used for narrow specific purposes to prevent harm to the project. They may not permissibly be used to "teach someone a lesson" or the like. Nor is blocking a form of dispute resolution; it is only a tool to stop damage to the project.
• WP:POINT does not permit blocking except for "egregious disruption". Nothing of the sort occurred here. Also, note that the policy deals with disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and uses examples such as systematic vandalism. Wikipedia was not disrupted here. Not everything you don't like is a disruption of the project.
• What seems to have occurred here, though, includes a violation of the well-known provision that administrators must not use blocking to gain the upper hand in a dispute. It is generally considered highly suspicious -- or at least in need of detailed and calm explanation -- when an administrator blocks someone they've been in a dispute of any sort with. --FOo 06:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, the blocking function is simply not a toy. This block was wholly inappropriate for a number of reasons outlined above, and also because it appears that hitting the block button is becoming the first action of an admin, and not the last. Hiding Talk 11:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Take the name Kelly Martin out of it. Pretend Kelly Smith takes exactly the same actions (my apologies if there really is someone named Kelly Smith). Kelly Smith, along with some of her friends, creates a list that is apparantly composed mostly of people with whom she disagreed on an RFA. When asked why, she says it is to be used for "decision-making processes". When people express concern at being on the list, she refuses to give a more detailed explanation. After an administrator deletes the list, she recreates it multiple times. After another administrator informs her that she can be blocked for disruption, she creates the list again and then states that her sole purpose in doing so was to goad the administrator into blocking her. Does anyone honestly believe that Kelly Smith would not be blocked for some substantial period of time? This debate is silly - just being an admin doesn't give you the right to troll. BigDT 12:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • Your statments asbout the pages recreation have factual errors. --Gmaxwell 13:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • One can not ignore the fact that it is Kelly Martin, since the fact that it is Kelly Martin is central to the debate. Many other admins and users have such lists, I see none of them being treated in a similar manner. The bottom line is that this is a page in a user's user space. It's not an attack page, so it's none of my damn business. There's certainly no call to put Kelly on notice as to what she can and cannot do in her user space. Arb-com can do that, maybe an RFC with a near unanimous consensus could do that. Kelly can't be disrupting unless the deleting admins are too. So should I put all of those on notice? Does anyone not believe this is all a waste of people's time. Frankly, I'm gutted I didn't get on the list. As to being a troll, I aim only to do that when reading my children bedtime stories, but please accept an apology for any offence my opinion caused you. Hiding Talk 13:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Can you point out any of these other userlists OTHER than the ones that were created in the last couple of days as a satire of this one? As for being an attack page, nobody ever said it was. What it is is at best votestacking, at worst, an attempt to intimidate. BigDT 13:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Robert the Bruce kept a list like this. So did Cool Cat at one point. Neither was ever blocked on account of the practice. El C's actions in purporting to "instruct" Kelly struck me as particularly inappropriate. I'm pleased that he relented from his block when significant opposition materialised. --Tony Sidaway 13:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sure, Robert the Bruce kept a list ... but so did Nixon. And while we may not have blocked Nixon for it (yet; wait 'til ArbCom are finished, please), we certainly laughed at him a lot, and he's generally considered a very silly sausage indeed. I'd rather our admins didn't carry on like very silly sausages indeed, whether they have a cute little dog or not. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Tony has provided examples, I hope they will surfice. I'm baffled as to how an accusation of votestacking can be levelled, and as to intimidation, how can it be intimidation? I'll let you into a secret. There's a list out there on which I get top billing, and I am not bothered one bit. Frankly, I figured I was snooping through someone's user space and contributions and I deserved what I found. I have never worked out what the list is for, but since it has never done me any harm and has been around a year or so, I'm long past thinking about it. I hadn't given it a thought until this debate came up. Hiding Talk 13:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• The fact that they weren't blocked doesn't make it right. These lists are unacceptable, and users should be punished for their creation and especially for recreation.  Grue  13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Last I checked, we weren't in the business of punishing people. Take your Commie revenge talk elsewhere, pinko! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps you need to check again? These times punitive blocks are commonplace.  Grue  14:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm! Can I punitively block retrospectively? I sense I've a lot of catching up to do here. Coo-ee, boys! Remember back in 1987 when you made that smart remark about my hair? Well, now you're for it! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm at a loss to find any criteria these pages fit at WP:CSD, nor any blocking criteria their creation meets. If it ain't an attack page, it ain't actionable, and it's best left alone. How on earth does blocking people make anything any better? Why are these lists unacceptable? Because they exist? I'm still at a loss to understand what the problem here is. Hiding Talk 13:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, about 10 good reasons are that Kelly Martin herself has described them as wilfully disruptive, and basically described them as deliberate attempts to goad. That makes it trolling under any common definition. They count as easy-to-see problems in my book. I recall various verbs being put forward for what one might to do the troll(s), and none of them included giving them a hug and castigating any user who had the temerity to try to dispose of the problem. -Splash - tk 14:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• I still don't see how they were disruptive. I can't see anywhere that Kelly says they were, and I'm not advocating giving her a hug. If they are attempts to goad, then well done, they worked. Ah, stuff it. You can see why Wikipedia:Common sense never got made a policy or guideline. No-one recognises it. Cheers. Hiding Talk 15:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• [78] (a few posts up from here) is where Kelly self-describes her actions as disruptive and as deliberate attempts to goad people. Rare are the occasions when someone actually confesses to trolling and finds people moaning at those who try to deal with it. And just because it's not an attack page gives it a free pass?? -Splash - tk 15:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Tony comments that "Robert the Bruce kept a list like this. So did Cool Cat at one point. ". So what was the nature of their lists. A list of people who opposed their friend. Or a list of people whom have been disruptive while editing certain articles? I think we can all see a valid reason keeping the latter list. We are still waiting for a valid reason for the Kelly's list. As BigDT mentioned above, the only reasoning given to date is for "decision-making processes&amp;quot;. Since I'm on this list I'd like to know a little bit more. As far as I can tell the parody of the lists and WP:POINT is all a distraction to avoid the important question. Smoke and mirrors anyone? David D. (Talk) 16:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  Both were what I would characterize as "enemies lists". Robert the Bruce kept a list of anti-circumcision activists. Cool Cat kept a list of various people, color coded in such a manner that one could easily gauge the quality of his relationship with each member. Why are "we" waiting for a valid reason for Kelly's list, by the way? The reason for Kelly's list is her own business. It does seem to have some of the character of an "enemies" list, however. --Tony Sidaway 16:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  I will point out that I just noticed an answered to my question below. See this edit. One wonders why she didn't just come out and say it right from the begining. It seems like a perfectly reasonable answer and would not have resulted in this whole argument. I disagree it is her own buisness when it is in her user space. Clearly it could, and was, viewed as antagonistic without some sort of explanation. David D. (Talk) 17:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  I created it there partially to work on it and partially to see who would react badly to it.. In other words, it was put there explicitly' to disrupt Wikipedia. Clearly a blockable offense. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Put this on MfD. Computerjoe's talk 19:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note: I closed the MFD on this as Speedy Keep, (moved closing notes to a vote), but was reverted. The closing was out of process but an attempt to restore WP:MFD to a serious discussion place, and not a userpage battleground. My SpeedyKeep was vertered by Zoe, and I will not fight it, apparently process is important in this???? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, /R should be deleted as a recreation of /B. It's a recreation of deleted content, that simple. /B should have been taken to DRV. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 04:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop the madness

Okay people, listen up. Two things need to happen: people need to stop making lists, and admins need to stop blocking Kelly Martin. This has passed beyond ridiculous and borders on discrediting everybody with the sysop bit. If there's a real problem we have a dispute resolution process somewheres that we like to parrot. If, however, this is actually the Weekend Edition of Gorilla Theatre, then the joke isn't funny anymore and it's last call. Yours, Mackensen (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of amazing that the people who disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, troll, and wheel war are being judged as no more guilty than the people who try to stop them from disrupting the place. --W.marsh 02:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Surreal. El_C 02:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not rendering a judgement one way or the other. I think the whole business is ridiculous and need to stop. People need to start talking to each other and listening. This can't happen if we're running round deleting things and blocking people. Me, I spent the day dealing with the checkuser backlog and fiddling with the Disraeli article. I come back from dinner and find this mess. Mackensen (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe these blocks were done for the reason of trying to "stop disrupting the place"? One good way to inflame a conflict is to turn a stupid dispute over a page's contents (in this case miscellaneous lists) into a much larger conflict by abusing administrator tools. I don't know why El_C and Jonathunder tried these blocks, but they clearly weren't meant to resolve the situation. Maybe they just wanted their names on Kelly Martin's block log, who knows. --Cyde↔Weys 02:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, are you condoning what Kelly Martin is doing? I'm not saying a block was necessary, but you make it sound like Kelly Martin was just reading a romance novel peacefully in Central Park and all of a sudden El C and Jonathunder came around with these blocks. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm re-reading my comment and I don't see a condonation anywhere. All I commented on was that I found these two blocks unwarranted and disruptive. --Cyde↔Weys 03:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of the other block. KM needed to cool down as she was engaging in WP:POINT for naught, upsetting editors. El_C 03:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The lists were created to troll for that reaction, this has been admitted. It's sad that people think trolling is healthy, and trying to stop someone from trolling isn't. But... yeah, using admin tools when you're involved in a dispute isn't so great (which is why I haven't done anything admin-ish with this whole mess). Though you yourself said you'd unblock her (presumably using admin tools) if she was blocked again, which seems kind of contradictory there as you're involved too.... --W.marsh 03:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I thought anyone who accuses someone else of violating good faith patently does not understand the good faith policy, as accusing someone else of violating an assumption of good faith is itself a violation of assumption of good faith [79]. The thing you have to understand is that just as you have strong opinions, those who disagree with you believe that their view is the correct one just as much as you believe your's is. --BigDT 03:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand my comment. That quote refers only to accusing someone of violating WP:AGF (which I find quite stupid). I don't see me accusing anyone of violating WP:AGF anywhere. --Cyde↔Weys 03:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's try this:

• No more blocks.
• No more lists.
• No more out-of-control, page- and namespace-hopping fight, hopefully? Kirill Lokshin 03:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Namespacehopping? I've kept MY share of this nonsense entirely confined to my user space, except for replying here and on my talk page. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it certainly is namespace-hopping now. Whether or not any particular person is to blame for that is an interesting side point, but not really relevant in a discussion of how best to stop the conflict, I think. Kirill Lokshin 03:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How is namespace-hopping even relevant to this? It's not like this is spilling out into the encyclopedic namespaces or anything. Lots of things move between userspace and wikipediaspace ... big deal. --Cyde↔Weys 03:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; forget the namespace bit then. The page-hopping is problematic in of itself. Kirill Lokshin 03:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that, either. So far the "disruption" has been limited to two sections of this page, my talk page, and perhaps a couple of other people's talk pages. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And MFD and several places on RFA... ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's not MY doing. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm not trying to assign blame here. Could you perhaps not make any more unexplained lists of users? It would really make things a lot calmer all around, I think. Kirill Lokshin 03:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

<Snicker> I seem to recall a sociological experiment which deliberately created a similar situation. People went utterly nuts! If someone with more time than I do would care to look it up, that'd be great. Perhaps someday this story will be added to the textbooks as another example! :-) Kim Bruning 09:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As a bystander who just happens to be on the list, with no real knowledge of how the upper-clique of admins work, I'd like to point out that when Kelly Martin says "not MY fault" doesn't seem to fit with her statement that this is exactly what she expected to happen. [80] Themindset 21:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to eon8. --cesarb 16:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW I think Mackensen has an excellent suggestion there. Kelly: yes, it's been in your userspace. Regardless, some people have a problem with that. I assume you wouldn't be here defending yourself if people weren't perpetuating the issue, but it's like a battle, there needs to be a cease fire. The way to do that is to move on to other things and don't exacerbate the situation by creating more of these lists. Okay? El C & others: yes, I think you may have a point, Kelly Martin was being contentious, possibly disruptive, blah blah blah. It's not World War III. Why don't we just move on, forget about it for a day, and if it still bothers you, go through the full dispute resolution thing. Then we can get back to building a great encyclopedia. Mangojuice^talk 03:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we building a great encyclopedia here? I don't think there are enough good Wikipedians around to actually build a good -- let alone great -- encyclopedia. See the report on my behavior above, for example. Out of the entire Wikipedia population, I think there are only five or ten good users who don't use long signatures, who write great articles (that reach featured article status and can be cited by others), who are friendly, who always get along with others, and who have never made a mistake. (I say "never" because I mean it. If anyone makes a mistake on Wikipedia, then their contributions are instantly and permanently devalued.) Don't give me that "we're only human" crap either. --Elkman 04:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think myself that people are too hard on Kelly because of the userbox mess from months ago. Everything she does is scrutinized and over scrutinized. Her lists are not desirable but I'm still not sure what rules she is violating here. AGF is too vague for me, especially for a block. And are we building a great encyclopedia? What the heck does that have to do with anything? --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well I supported KM on that front (some misgivings now, though my hate for userboxes continues to know no bounds), but here she was simply wasting everyone's time and energy, I felt. I know some users were intimidated by her cryptic lists, which remain unexplained. El_C 04:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: all the "great encyclopedia" bravado, I created ~80 articles in the last month and performed numerous administrative tasks. If you want my (and others') time and expertise, don't treat us with contempt. El_C 04:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Then don't act in a manner deserving of contempt. Rebecca 05:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

These one-sided, tired one-liners are unimpressive. El_C 05:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I dare say, we have a pro-KM clique-like mentality with responses that could be predicted with some regularity. El_C 05:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree (w.r.t the one-liners; don't know anything about KM or cliques). WP:CIVIL does not have an escape clause for "if they reely, reely deserve it", Rebecca. Please see further up this page where an editor's unthinking frustration led to a checkuser admin quitting the task, which is going to result in actual, real harm to the project because there are so few. Why did this happen? Because an otherwise positive user forgot that everyone here is a volunteer, and you don't dump on volunteers or they walk away. Please respect that. Kasreyn 07:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(Unindent→)

(←Unindent) I agree quite strongly with that principle. Even so, Rebecca and El_C are both established editors who both have too much time and effort invested to just walk away. They're just blowing off harmless steam at each other. :-) So I'm not too worried about that part, at least not today. ;-)

I do agree they could set a better example though, of course. <crosseyed look> Kim Bruning 09:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Kelly Martin/T. Oh, so witty! --Conti|✉ 14:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that "witty", it looks like that page has a valid purpose ... she's doing an analysis on RFAs that were malformatted or withdrawn early. Maybe she's looking at ways to overhaul the RFA process. But I don't think this reflexive "OMG she's out to do something evil" response is very constructive. I just wish she would put an explanation or something. --Cyde↔Weys 14:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

An explanation would actually stop this whole mess completly. And I wasn't saying that it's an evil page, but that it's incredibly silly to continue to create new pages like these without any explanation. --Conti|✉ 14:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Those of you who pay attention to Wikimania may have noticed that I am doing a presentation on consensus. I am actually (with Gmaxwell's invaluable help) doing some research into things like voting patterns on RfA and AfD, and other such things, with the hopes of using the findings as part of that presentation or perhaps for later purposes. (I imagine very few of you know that I was a political science minor in college.) I don't think that such examination of Wikipedia's processes should be considered "disruptive", but I'm sure that someone will be quite ready to accuse me of it nonetheless, as it seems that there are certain elements of the community that are simply completely incapable of extending even the slightest bit of good faith to me. That particular page is data that Gmaxwell generously provided me; I created it there partially to work on it and partially to see who would react badly to it. Looks like Conti wins today's ABF prize. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hooray! Well, actually I'm quite content with that answer, as I mentioned above. I wasn't saying that the list was bad or another attempt of yours to take over the world, and I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my words that way. Writing a tiny little bit about why your subpages exist before anyone has to ask isn't going to hurt, really. (Especially after all this.) --Conti|✉ 15:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So, should I expect an interrogation here every time I create a subpage in my user space? Am I now required to post announcements regarding my every action? We treat convicted criminals better than this. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You're not required to do anything. A small message on those subpages, writing what the point of them is would be quite cool, tho. This would actually reduce people going on your nerves by asking questions quite alot, I think. --Conti|✉ 15:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I wanted on the LB list darnit sheesh. --Alf ^melmac 22:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Why has this gotten so blown out of proportion? So Kelly created a list, so what? There is no policy against having a list of users. There was no stated malicious intent by having a list. And unless malicious actions by Kelly were taken based on that list any assumptions of malicious intent a blatantly against WP:AGF. That list was just a list until Kelly's actions say otherwise or she states outright that it's a list being used for a malicous purpose. Neither of these conditions have been met. The only against policy actions have been taken by the two admins who blocked Kelly against policy and by anyone assuming the list has some bad intention behind it in direct violation of WP:AGF. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

To avoid undue repetition, I urge everyone to save the just an innocent list arguments and AGF invocations for the forthcoming RfAr. El_C 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as your own conduct will bear equally close scrutiny. Thatcher131 18:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect with near-absolute certainty that it would, but that's not for me to decide. El_C 18:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Now now, no need to threaten him. However I would suggest holding off on an Arbcom on this as there really isn't any grounds for it. And frankly the people who have been giving Kelly a hard time are more likely to come out of the Arbcom with some form of sanction against them since Kelly did absolutely nothing wrong. However the same can't be said for several reactionary people accusing her of being "evil". JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It was in no way a threat, and I'm sorry if anyone took it that way (as if I could issue threats on behalf of anyone, much less Arbcom). It's just that Arbcom has a way of looking at both sides of a dispute. Thatcher131 20:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no real dispute here which is why this is so funny. There is Kelly who created a list for her own reasons (which per WP:AGF policy have to be assumed to be good unless there is evidence to prove otherwise, which none has been presented). And then there are those that take exception to a list existing, basing those objections on no solid policy or guideline except their own violation of WP:AGF. Doesn't seem like a dispute to me. The attacking parties think they are owed some explaination by Kelly, but she is under no obligation to do so and it should have been dropped there. Instead several users have taken to blocking Kelly, against policy again. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; in any case, I am undaunted. But I also feel this discussion is outliving its usefluness. El_C 20:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if you're going to open an arbcom please let users know. I for one will have 150+ words I'd like to get in edgewise. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, edge or otherwise. El_C 20:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

An RFAR over this? I'd laugh at you. Phr (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, computer generated lists. Always look odd and scary to people not used to them, so I can understand the problem.

Even so, I'm flying across the Atlantic to be able to attend wikimania, and I'll probably want to go to Kelly Martins' talk as well. That's costing me quite a bit of time and money, as you might imagine (even *with* sponsoring). I do expect to actually be somewhat enlightened for my trouble of course.

Therefore, you can probably imagine I shall be somewhat unhappy if people interfere with Kelly Martins presentation in any way.

Kim Bruning 12:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So, tell me if I'm right here...

• Kelly Martin made a random list of people in her userspace under /B.
• Cyde deleted it, and Kelly said she would place it off-wiki.
• /R and /Q were created as apparent "trolling", as admitted by Kelly above. WP:POINT and also possibly a violation of WP:CSD-G4.
• El_C blocked Kelly Martin for 24 hours after the creation of /R. It was quickly reversed.
• /T was created on July 24 with a apparent list of Malformed RfAs; Considering the timing, it's possible that this also qualifies as a WP:POINT violation.

So, random notes and opinions from that random idiot:

• Why the hell am I not on this list with a giant red slash through my name?
• Process is important. Furthermore, considering the community backlash, it's impossible to say that the snowball clause should have applied to any procedure. This drama should have just been taken to WP:DRV... They're used to it there.
• This whole userspace thing seems a bit ironic considering previous affairs on the parts of many people commenting here and their relations, myself included.
• Assuming that there is a WP:RfAr, will I be able to bring the tea and crumpets?

--Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 14:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• /B is certainly not random, otherwise there would have been no issue at all. Please read the original statement at WP:ANI#User:Kelly Martin/B to have a better understanding on the circumstances in which users have been added to the list. - Mailer Diablo 15:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean random in the literal sense. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 16:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• I see. :) - Mailer Diablo 17:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robertsteadman, a.k.a. Robsteadman

Some of you will remember the case of Robsteadman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) who engaged in lots of edit warring and abuse, and who used sockpuppets Robeaston99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Vhjh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) for votestacking, whose behaviour was generally rather hysterical, and who used to write things about "shallow and twisted" admins, "the 'christian' cabal" (lower case c and quotation marks to make the point that Christians don't exist, just as he uses lower case j and quotation marks for "jesus"), who constantly called other editors vandals and called for them to be banned, who accused an atheist admin of being part of the "christian" cabal when he protected a page, who used the sockpuppet Yummy mummy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) to get an extra oppose vote at Deskana's RfA, who was finally blocked indefinitely for trolling and abuse, and who then made legal threats by e-mail because of the sockpuppeting accusations.

He returned a few weeks later as Robertsteadman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), was originally blocked again after refusing to say if he was the same person, and was then unblocked to give him another chance, and was put on probation.

A new user, Neuropean, who is very likely a reincarnation of Count Of The Saxon Shore (talk · contribs), with whom Rob(ert) was often in dispute, nominated Rob's article Anne Frank's cats for deletion. The article survived the nomination, but it was certainly not an inappropriate nomination, since several people voted to deleted as unencyclopaedic. However, it always looks bad for a new user to start with an AfD nomination. (Since Count Of the Saxon Shore was not a banned user, he had every right to start with a new identity if he so chose.) Robert then started on a clear vendetta against this user, filing two RFCUs (one on Neuropean himself, and one on an IP), both of which were rejected by Mackensen with a {{Fishing}} template. He then made numerous posts to WP:RFI about this user, calling him a vandal, a sockpuppet, and a stalker. He became heavily involved in wiki-stalking Neuropean, showing up at articles the latter had created or recently edited. By the way, it's obvious that he has been making a habit of editing articles that I have just edited as well, and Deskana and Frelke have noticed that he was doing it with them also.

This caused some distress to Neuropean, and he asked Rob on several occasions to stop. Rob continued wiki-stalking, and continued to accuse him of being a vandal, a sockpuppet, and a stalker.

I feel I should have acted sooner. By no means do I wish to imply that Neuropean was blameless, but after the stormy beginning, he showed that he wanted to move on, and made a few compromise offers to Robert. I do not think he will be back. He said he was suffering from depression. Nevertheless, I would like to ensure that this cannot happen again. We were too slow in putting a stop to it. I'm bringing this here for review, because I would like some support in making it clear that wiki-stalking and hurling round of unsubstantiated accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry are not going to be tolerated, particularly from an indefinitely-blocked user who has been unblocked on probation.

I don't want to clog up the admin noticeboard, so I've created a subpage with more information here. I know it can be a bit of a bore to start looking through a case that you don't have any experience of, but I'd very much appreciate some reaction. And by the way, although I and Gator1 deleted Rob's user and talk pages at his request when he left, I have undeleted the earlier versions, so as to be able to provide evidence of his behaviour. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 16:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So allowed back under a kind of probation, he has harassed another editor to the point of driving him off. I move for a community ban. If this doesn't happen for any reason we can try arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 16:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ann has missed some vital information out about Neuropean being an internet stalker from another site who had followed me here, has used several different accounts to harrass me. Count of the Saxon Shore (Crusading Composer) etc. may not have been a banned user but should have been. The stalking, as Ann well knows, went beynd WP and the TES forum into real life - she was informed of all this. I do not deel I wiki-stalked him - I edited some articles he had edited once I looked into his actions. If I did something wrong I apologise. user: Syrthiss is well aware of all this and, from emails I have received, agrees that Neuropean was a trouble maker and agrees that evidence I have supplied him with shows a definite link to an internet troll and stalker from another web site. I think it is a great shame that Ann, knowing all of this, and being someone with whom I have had major disagreements with is now using this as a trump card to win an old battle over the Jesus article. Her entry here is truly the ultimate in bad faith edits. Robertsteadman 17:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to say, despite qwhat Ann says, and what WP turned up, I have not used any sockpuppets - that is false. At elast one has now told me who they are and it was a student of mine. Robertsteadman 17:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that six checkuser admins said that there was absolutely no doubt of sockpuppetry, and given that they knew you work in a school, there must have been much more to it than that, even though they never give details of what they find as they don't want to teach editors to get better at sockpuppeting. AnnH ♫ 18:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This makes VERY interesting reading - perticularly the "sudden" reappearance of Count of the Saxon Shore.... how very odd. Robertsteadman 17:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already agreed that Neuropean is probably Count Of The Saxon Shore, so I don't think there's anything odd about him reappearing after I had said that I had undeleted your talk page. He knows that there's some nasty stuff that he wrote on that talk page, and so he logged on as COTSS to protest against the undeletion. That's not a violation of policy, he wasn't taking extra reverts or votes, and I doubt if he'll be back. AnnH ♫ 18:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked, indefinatly blocked users weren't allowed to use sockpuppets to come back. RfCU, anyone? --InShaneee 18:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There was an RfCU, which showed that Robsteadman and Robertsteadman were the same. See here. It lists his other sockpuppets too, with the exception of Yummy mummy, but the checkuser for that is reported here. His return was discussed here, and he was unblocked on probation according to conditions set here. I agreed to allow him back, but I think it's a bit much that an indefinitely-blocked user who returns without permission and is then kindly permitted to resume activity keeps hurling the word "sockpuppet" at another editor who (if it really was Count Of The Saxon Shore) was not indefinitely blocked, and was therefore perfectly permitted to return, and was also free to start afresh with a new identity, and was not using the newly-registered account to get extra votes or reverts. AnnH ♫ 19:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking and indefinite block is in order for some time now... --Lord Deskana (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do. I'm astonished that Neuropean's self-control and lack of hostility still made him susceptible to such bullying behaviour. If this discussion stays around for a couple of weeks and is then forgotten about and RobertSteadman continues to edit as normal it sets a very bad precedent. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I'd like to voice support for an indefinite block. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and indefinatly blocked him as a sockpuppet of an indefinatly blocked user. --InShaneee 21:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was quite right to make the official reason sockpuppet of banned user, since he had been unblocked and allowed back on parole. However, I do support the block on the grounds that his indefinite block was lifted on condition that he behave himself, and that he resumed his abusive behaviour. It's not even a question of blocking him for his recent behaviour, bad though it was: it's simply that he was already indefinitely blocked and when he was given another chance, he started upsetting other editors, bullying and wiki-stalking. I honestly don't think he's able to change. AnnH ♫ 21:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain exactly what happens with an indefinite block. Can it it be lifted by a different editor without notice. Its not quite permanent is it ? Frelke 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's technically possible for any admin to unblock an editor blocked by another admin. It should not be done without thoroughly discussing it in advance, either with the blockin admin, or, if he's not available, here at AN/I. Unfortunately, some admins do unblock without discussion, and sometimes original blockers reblock, leading to a wheel war. Let's hope that any further action will be discussed in full here before any overturning of the block is considered. AnnH ♫ 21:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I support an indefinite block. I have seen his behaviour on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thunder Bay Northern Hawks (2nd nomination), then his wiki-stalking members of WikiProject Ice Hockey that disagreed have with him. -- JamesTeterenko

Regarding the above discussion... I'm reasonably sure that Neuropean was the person who stalked Robert off-wiki a while ago (commented by Robert above), who came here with the knowledge that Robert would be unable to handle his presence. I will take some of the blame upon myself in that I started a wikibreak just as the Neuropean conflict began, though I advised Robert to talk to another admin (Tony Sidaway was one of the names I gave him) to help sort the situation while I was away. All that said, I'm disappointed Robert couldn't just step back from the situation when Neuropean started making overtures (and FWIW Robert told me he felt he stepped over the line as was sorry for it). I've never been stalked IRL or webwise so I don't know how that effects people's future behavior. I wish there was some other way, but per wiki policy and the terms of his parole I have to agree with the block. Syrthiss 12:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that I said that I wouldn't edit here again but I feel quite strongly that an indefinite ban isn't appropriate here.

• Robert isn't a vandal out to disrupt, he is just very opinionated and stubborn. Yes, he can be quite rude at times, but my experiences on Wiki lead me to believe that abruptness is not an uncommon feature. His problem has been that he is looking for cabals and conspiracies and, to a very small extent, he has been justified in this.
• Has he said sorry? Yes he has. Is he likely to do this again soon? No, I don't think so. I know for a fact that he can change for the better.
• He has only really overstepped the mark with me and I suppose I am a red rag to abull to him (although he sees me everywhere, even when it is not me. I have promised never to post on any forum where he is a member, so future suspicion shouldn't be a problem. I feel that if I hadn't AfD'd his article, he would have continued in his 'ways' but not gone OTT, so I would rather not see him blocked.
• I object in the strongest terms to any suggestion that I have stalked him in real life, I don't know exactly what evidence he has presented in his private emails, but whatever it is has got to be wrong. But I suppose that he has found my behaviour annoying - the AFD may have been a WP:Point, but wasn't meant as a 'personal' attack. It went downhill from there.
• It has never been my attention to upset anyone - including Robert and I do not want to see him lose his hobby because of me. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I'm sure Robert will agree with me.
• I ask all concerned admins to give him one more chance. Blocking him will mean one less contributor and (although I still say that Moortje was an article crying out for a AfD,) he has made many positive contributions.
• His probation wasn't very specific. Instead of blocking him, I ask that he be given more specfic terms and he be held to those in his future actions. Any admin action should be based upon 'future' productivity and not past indiscretions. I think that's the whole point of Wiki.

That's all.Neuropean 23:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I read m:MPOV today. It seems an apt description of Robertsteadman, actually. --Lord Deskana (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I agree. After the way he terrorized the Ice Hockey Wikiproject for half a month and wikistalked our talk pages and edit lists, I think m:MPOV fits like a glove. DMighton 15:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Robert Steadman. Wow. DMighton 03:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

He has threatened me legally again.

I intend to pursue this much, much further. It may werll go to court - because Ann has libelled me many, many time (including today, anmd Deskana has too./

That's an exact quote from an email he sent me. That makes it twice that he's threatened me legally now. And people wonder why I want him indefblocked!? As far as I'm concerned, he should have a nice permenant ban from editing Wikipedia. --Lord Deskana (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as far as I know, has a zero-tolerance policy for legal threats, WP:NLT. He was warned about it by another admin a week or two ago [81]. DMighton 13:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be back as 86.140.197.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log).--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that is good old Rob. DMighton 22:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Blanking the warnings on the talk page now. Do we need a seperate RFCU? I would have thought the anon's behaviour on its own might warrant a block. Frelke 06:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User: Brian G. Crawford's edits to Catamorphism's RfA

I don't usually pay attention to internal drama and I don't know what happened with Erik the Rude being blocked, but Brian G. Crawford made this edit to Catamorphism's RfA purporting to withdraw Erik's nomination, and this one moving Erik's support vote to oppose. The "reasoning" in the "withdrawal" is full of personal attacks and general nonsense relating to Kelly Martin's list, which has nothing to do with anything as far as I can tell. Did someone just come unglued? Opabinia regalis 06:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Note Brian G. Crawford also just vandalized JJay's user and talk pages. At this point I wonder if an indefinite block would be appropriate. I'm giving him 24 hours. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I would support an indefinite community ban. That level of disruption isn't something you can mediate. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed something longer is likely in order here.--Crossmr 07:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Part of the RfA addition could be taken as a physical threat. This user has been trolling long enough. --Firsfron of Ronchester 07:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth would we block him indefinitely? He has a long history of productive edits. We know he currently has issues, but I see no reason why an indef-block without process would be justified. Just zis Guy you know? 08:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him indefinitely, feel free to shorten his block abakharev 08:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

After the second thought, I shorten my block to 2 months, lets give him a chance abakharev 09:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I'd go back with your first thought. Anyone who writes something like that about another editor clearly should not be part of Wikipedia, in my opinion. Anyone who wishes to indefinitely block Mr. Crawford has my backing. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If I may, Alex, I really don't think it was an overreaction. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, and knowing what Brian is currently going through, I suspect that he should remain blocked until his condition improves to the point where he is ready to return. He can stick {{unblock}} on his Talk page when he feels he's ready, and then maybe he could opt for a period of mentorship. His behaviour is currently outrageous, but I hope we can be understanding of someone formerly in good standing. Just zis Guy you know? 14:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I like a lot of what Bryan has done in the past, but this is beyond the pale. Having 'issues' (emotional, psychological, physical, whatever) is no excuse. We're supposed to treat everyone the same, right? A two month block, at least, is entirely appropriate, to prevent any further hysterical tirades of abuse while Bryan sorts out his problems. Proto::type 09:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I see Guy's side of it in that this editor looks like he's made some good contributions in the past. However, they are interspersed with diffs of highly questionable judgment. I'm in support of a 2 month block in view of the recent events -- Samir धर्म 10:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've extended the block to indefinite. I've been looking at the IP edit history and Brian and Erik overlap and in one place and time share the same IP. Brian and Erik are either the same person, or possibly share a computer. In any case, Brian is likely responsible for the death threat left on my talk page, as well as several completely outrageous edits. We should be submitting this guy to the authorities for criminal prosecution, not discussing how long we'll make him sit in the penalty box. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how great are this guy's edits when he is "productive" that would justify allowing him to return ever after that blast at KM? Wikipedia is not therapy. I support a permanent ban. The thing is, he can always return to productive editing under a new ame, and if he gets his whatever under control, no one will ever know that it's him. But with this last screed on top of all the previous episodes, he has lost the right to return to the Brian G. Crawford account and whatever good karma he has accumulated. Thatcher131 12:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm always in favor of kicking someone off of wikipedia for death threats. I don't care if they were "l0l i wuz just k1dding" or not. Support indefblock. Syrthiss 12:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, a quick look through Brian's history and I'm surprised he's still here, whether or not he and Erik are the same person or were responsible for that threat. A lot of effort has been expended on him, but an unstable guy with "mental issues" who can't control his verbal diarrhea doesn't sound like the kind of person we should be actively trying to keep around. Opabinia regalis 12:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Both should stay blocked indefinitely. I don't know what the fuck is going on here but it's clearly not acceptable. Kelly Martin is right, this is beyond the level of thinking about the duration of the block, this is now about whether to contact the police. --Cyde↔Weys 13:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that he has produced "productive edits" is a total red herring - if you went to your place of work and started calling people a "dyke" and making the threatening comments there, it's unlikely your workplace is going to say "oh but he gets all his paperwork in on time". While, clearly, we do not get paid here, surely the aim and aspiration is for to work together in as productive and as professional manner as possible?

The editor in question might have issues that he needs to work out - but other editors and administrators cannot be expected to be the virtual punchbag on which he does so. Looking at his edit history, I'm surprised to see (to put it mildly) that we are even discussing anything less than a total ban. --Charlesknight 13:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The comments were beyond the pale; this is an encyclopedia project and we expect somewhat higher levels of decorum than, say, a dark alley behind IRC. I support an indefinite ban—there's no excuse for subjecting other editors to this sort of vitriol. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Support indef, Wikipedia is not therapy, and I concur with Syrthiss' succinct appraisal: "I'm always in favor of kicking someone off of wikipedia for death threats" too. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite, as in having no currently defined endpoint, is fine under the circumstances; I'd hope that when Brian is well again he might return but right now he is doing nobody any good, least of all himself. I am more disappointed than I can say. Just zis Guy you know? 14:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Death threats, however veiled or conditional, should not be tolerated here at all. An indefinite block is the least we should do. We should also contact his internet provider and the local authorities. -- Avenue 14:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Death threats are unacceptable. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Support indef block as per nearly everybody, but could some univolved admin remove Kelly Martin's indef and impose one of their own? It'd look better, since Kelly was involved in the situation prior to the block. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done this and added the indefblockeduser template. HTH, etc. -- ChrisO 21:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Brian G. Crawford has made repeated personal attacks and physical threats toward others on multiple occassions, and I am surprised that we have tolerated these actions for so long. [82] I support the indefinite banning of this user. Yamaguchi先生 22:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Brian G. Crawford and Erik the Rude are the same person. I have not made real physical threats to anyone. Those that believe they have been physically threatened need to get out of the house more. Scott Groehning/Kelly Martin is a disgusting abomination who would not be taken seriously by any police organization, given his status as a known pervert. You need to lighten up, people. This is not real life. If you want to cross the line by calling the police, you should be prepared for the sequellae such as civil suits and the discovery process. What I did to Catamorphism, nominating her for adminship when I knew she would be attacked visciously and shot down was just my sick idea of fun. I have to admit, I hate bulldykes, and I've hated bulldykes ever since I saw them on my college campus. They told us to be tolerant, but I just can't. There's a certain degree of conformity and decorum that must be maintained. Catamorphism had better change her attitude if she wants to get a real job. I can return at any time, in any form I choose. I can be anything I need to be. My knowledge is so general that it would be hard to label me a sockpuppet. Looks like you're out of luck. Brian G. Crawford 17:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Any more questions? Thatcher131 (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. It is unfortunate that Catamorphism's RfA had to be marred by this, since the candidate struck me as a generally good one. Given Brian's instabilities, I'm not sure I believe Brian's repeated claim that he nominated Cat just to see Cat fail. However, it isn't relevant to letting to Brian edit. This is so over the line it isn't even remotely funny. JoshuaZ 04:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon IP posting of personal info

• Please see User talk:85.108.101.190 and history of Talk:Robert Mueller. Though it was in the Talk: space, it did not appear to have any legitimate reason to be there, so I removed it. — MrDolomite | Talk 01:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the edit (which contained an e-mail address in the edit summary) from the history - an Oversight-equipped admin might want to further nuke it from existence. FCYTravis 01:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Oversight isn't needed in this case. Please see WP:OVER for details. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would it not be? We're talking about non-public personal information, which is criteria number one for oversighting. The fact that it's not specifically spelled out in the list of items does not mean it's excluded from the list - "information such as." FCYTravis 02:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're worried that an admin is going to see that deleted edit and decide, for whatever reason, to email that address, then by all means request that the revision is removed. I doubt any of the oversight users will do so. Here's the thing: Oversight is used to remove revisions that the Wikimedia Foundation and/or oversight users don't feel need to be readable by admins. It's for when AGF isn't quite enough, when faith in the trust placed in administrators isn't quite enough to make WM feel safe. In any event that oversight IS used when it's not needed...and trust me, Wikimedia does watch the use of oversight very closely...then the user with the oversight permission loses that permission. Each time they use that permission, they have to be sure that what they're doing is the Right Thing To Do and that it falls under the guidelines given by the Foundation. Unlike, say, if I delete the wrong article, the use of oversight is very permenant and involves direct developer intervention and quite a bit of work (comparable to checkuser) to reverse. If you have any further questions, I'd be happy to answer them. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:RealityBoy's images

This user has uploaded 54 images, all lacking any statement of source or license. The user has been warned about this, multiple times, with no response. The user has been blocked before, for 24 hours, for doing this. Today, the user uploaded 29 of the 54 images. I have blocked the user for 48 hours for this. I am looking to gage support for banning this user, from this account and any future sockpuppets that can be clearly identified as beloning to the same individual. Please state your thoughts on this below. Thanks for your time. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

How irritating and what a waste of time. His user page says: I am a normal boy who like [sic] to have fun. Maybe he can't read English so well. If he does more of the same after his 48-hour vacation, give him a longer block. If the same pattern emerges elsewhere from another user while he is (or isn't) blocked, permaban the sock. If he doesn't get the hint after a ban of a week or so, permaban him. (NB I haven't actually bothered to look up the relevant policy; I assume that you have already done so.) -- Hoary 09:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The general way I do it is simply to double the block lengths each time, and re-block after each bad image is uploaded. The progression would be 1 day, 2 days, 4 days, 8 days, 16 days, 1 month (32 days), 2 months (64 days), 4 months (128 days), etc. Probably by the 4 month time I'd just change it to a perma block. I haven't ever had to go that far. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if he, for the most part, begins to adhere to the image policy, you should be more cautious with the block. So far, he clearly has been deliberately uploading pictures incorrectly, but later on you have to account for mistakes. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me amend my suggested procedure above - for every 5 sourced and licensed images uploaded, the next block length is halved; that will get it down to minimal with only a few good images uploaded. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonstop Vandal Reverts to House of Yahweh

• 64.185.45.35 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) is a vandalism only IP and has been making the same blatantly POV vandalous edit to the House of Yahweh article. Every time, I, or someone else, puts the appropriate warning template on their page, which eventually leads to having the user posted at WP:AIV, when I tried it this time however, they didn't block the IP, with the excuse; "user hasn't edited in hours". Let me just reinforce the fact that this IP only makes one edit and they've made that same edit repeatedly since May 2006. At what point do we say "enough is enough"? Is there anything I can do? Or do I just let this person continue to vandalize Wikipedia?

On a more philosphical note, is the fact that he "hadn't edited in hours" really a reason to not block someone who clearly only has one purpose on this site? - pm_shef 03:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

IP static, blocked for one week. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AD removal vandalism

Through discussions at the anti-vandalism IRC chat, as well as various edits by myself, CodexSinaiticus, and others are dealing with a vandal (originally named Panairjdde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)) who edits from 151.44.0.0/16 and 151.47.0.0/16 who constantly removes AD (Anno Domini) from various articles because of his interpretation of WP:DATE, feeling that the statement "Normally AD should not be used..." means that AD should not be used. While there is a discussion going on at the Manual of Style for Dates and numbers' talk page about the interpretation of this statement, this user has constantly removed the usage of AD from articles, most of which can be found in the history of one of the IPs he has used: 151.44.81.169 (talk · contribs). January and Gospel of Thomas were sprotected, but this user has way too much of a range of articles that he does his removals from that it is near impossible to sprotect them all. The following is a small sample:

• New Year's Day
• Medes
• New Year
• Luke 2
• Mark 6
• Mithraism
• Montanism
• Ethiopia
• Africa
• Kingdom of Aksum

This user's main account was indef blocked, but he has used other user names and disconnecting and reconnecting and resetting his IP address. He seems to be using this Italian ISP, and if Wikipedia were to put long-term blocks on the two /16 ranges he editted from, that would block more than 130,000 Italian users from editting the English Wikipedia anonymously or otherwise. However, it appears that the only edits from these wide ranges are from this editor, and the ranges can be narrowed down further to 151.44.75.0/24 through 151.44.125.0/24 (I do not know the CIDR terminology for showing a range of ranges) and 151.47.75.0/24 through 151.47.125.0/24. These ranges would end up blocking near 25600 editors (I think) instead of the 130000 users of internet.libero.it. I am requesting assistance here, as there doesn't appear to be any way that this huge range can be dealt with. Ryūlóng 03:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You might try 151.44.64.0/18, which will catch 151.44.64.0 through 151.44.127.255 (16000 adresses). Thatcher131 (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

While that is a good idea, I am not sure if it will be used, as to prevent this vandalism the same block would have to be placed on 151.47.64.0/16. Ryūlóng 06:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I will suggest it to the admin who suggested I go here, but I would still prefer input from others. Ryūlóng 06:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin User:InShaneee is removing content from my talk page

This is a complaint regarding the behavior of Admin User:InShaneee, who removed content from my talk page (and that of others) which he claims to have identified as spam. There is no official wikipedia policy to remove internal spams on sight, as can be seen on the spams policy page. In general, removing content from talk pages is considered vandalism, and according to policy the only exception to that is removing personal attacks, which does not include spam. So technically this admin does not have a right to remove those posts from my page, and in doing so has obviously violated vandalism policy. The admin claims that these actions constitute common wikipedia practice. As they are, however, clearly against wikipedia policy, I asked him to stop them, so far without success. This informal complaint is a result of that fruitless discussion. Shervink 08:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

When did he do that? Please provide the diffs. Thanks --Aminz 08:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably here. Looks like a pretty clear-cut case of vote stacking by Zereshk (talk · contribs). Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job by Inshaneee of mopping up this attempt to stack an AfD, and if Shervink wants the edit back he only has to re-revert. --Tony Sidaway 08:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, InShaneee's removal of Zereshk's post is just a symbolic action, since people will get the "You have new messages" anyway.

But no worries, we have now Wikipedia:Iran,shiite and middle east related articles noticeboard/Incidents. Also, Shervink, be careful! Though you may not know the policy and this might be your first time, BUT you may be accused of being vowed to continue (read it with a particular stress on the word "vowed" please) accusation of vandalism and subsequently blocked for 48 hours which is longer than the typical 24 hours. Some of us here are good in reading your mind. --Aminz 08:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, even if you have over 15,000 edits to nearly 3,000 articles and after this long time of being in wikipedia, this is your first time doing something, then you are "vowed" to do it again. Since you are in serious need of doing that everyday! --Aminz 08:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

But that's not the end of story. Some other admins will congrat the admin who has special talent in reading your mind for his good job! Wonderful! Can it be even better? --Aminz 08:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, maybe I'm not clear on this, but the message in the provided diff didn't seem to request a vote in either direction, it simply served to notify the user that a vote was taking place. Or were there other messages he placed which did ask for a specific kind of vote? I'm not clear on the policy here, so I would like to request that it be clarified: under what circumstances, if ever, is it appropriate to alert someone to an ongoing poll or vote? Kasreyn 09:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A vote can nicely be stacked by selecting which users should be informed about it and which not, without giving anybody explicit instructions about how to vote...--Stephan Schulz 09:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the attempt can be made, but if someone who believes the opposite sees that talk page, they will be informed as well. I'm just curious what the actual policy is. Kasreyn 21:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A new research at the university of Wikipedia named "World through the eyes of different Admins" has shown that some people first take a position towards a matter and then try to find a reason to justify that position. --Aminz 09:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I'm sorry but I really do not understand what you are talking about, especially that metaphysical stuff about reading my mind. You mean you want to have me blocked based on what you think I think? I think you should think that over. All I'm asking is a quote for which policies allow that admin to remove content from my talk page. He is in clear violation of Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Spamming, none of which identify internal spamming as vandalism and none of which allow it to be removed from a talk page by third parties. Shervink 09:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

Shervink, I am not an admin. Were I, I wouldn't have been ignored [83]. If I were an admin, other admins would have NOT disputed my wrong decisions even when an editor cries for a tiny bit of attention and calls other admins for just looking into my so-called "light" punishment imposed on some other editor.--Aminz 09:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Arminz, your style of writing is rather involuted and does not parse well. I can't figure out what you're trying to say. Could you be more plain? Kasreyn 09:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Kasreyn, I didn't have much experience with both Zereshk and InShaneee, when I was involved in Zereshk's block by InShaneee. Zereshk asked all persian editors whom he knew, to vote for the AfD of the article Misconceptions about Iran (or moved to Views of Iran in Media or something similar). Well, Zereshk was spamming. It was his first time and he didn't know about the policy at all (as I can argue he even now doesn't know the details of what has happened to him now). From the very beginning, InShaneee was warning him of getting blocked. I have been around in wikipedia for awhile. I know, nobody gives a {{test4}} for a first time vandalism for example. Anyhow, I was at that time surprised with InShaneee's warning. Aside from the fact that Zereshk has over 15,000 edits to nearly 3,000 articles and this was his first time doing spamming, I told him that yes, he has done spamming but he was only notifying editors who have experience of living in both west and Iran. Zereshk added that some editors whom he has notified have given votes against his vote. Anyways, I asked the other editor who first reported Zereshk to notify several other editors on his choice. It was considered against policy and it passed. Please continue the story in the section on Zereshk here:[84] I was mainly objecting to the length of Zereshk's block and and that his controversial comments could be read or understood in other ways. I was "only" asking another admin to just "look into" this case. Nothing more. --Aminz 10:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This confusion probably would have been avoided with an explanatory edit summary (no offense to InShanneee, not all of anyone's edit summaries are exemplary). I've noticed that many admins and veteran editors get huffy when someone removes content from their talk page, often saying that they can decide things for themselves, yet they do it to others without due consideration or explanation (I'm not saying that this is what happened in this case). Also, while it looks like vote stacking in this case to me, whether it is vote stacking, and therefore whether it should be removed, is usually decided by someone who disagrees with the alleged vote stacker's opinion, which is less than ideal. Removing the comments may not do much good, anyway, since editors will still get a new message notification and they can see the deleted text in the history of their talk pages. Finally, while I am opposed to what he was trying to do, if AfD is really not a vote, how can there be vote stacking? -- Kjkolb 09:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We are getting off-topic here. The point is this: As far as one can see from the actualpolicy, internal spamming is not vandalism:

Wikipedia editors are not to engage in aggressive cross-posting in order to influence votes, discussions, requests for adminship, requests for comment, etc. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that [t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice. However, excessive cross-posting goes against current Wikipedia community norms. In a broader context, it is unwiki...

As you see, no mention of vandalism, let alone a request to remove by third parties. In a sense, it is a matter of point of view how much cross-posting is aggressive. Even then, it is not vandalism according to policy, and is not to be removed.

On the other policy page we read under types of vandalism:

Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page ...

Thus, no mention of a legitimate deletion of internal spam or cross posting. According to policy, The deletion of those comments is thus vandalism. Shervink 12:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

• Um, Zereshk (talk · contribs) edited over 20 user talk pages in the space of 14 minutes, adding requests for users to vote in the afd. As you state, Wikipedia:Spamming policy notes Wikipedia editors are not to engage in aggressive cross-posting in order to influence votes, discussions, requests for adminship, requests for comment, etc. The policy at Wikipedia:Vandalism allows spam to be removed. Hiding Talk 12:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

For those who don't know, Aminz's comments above are simply mocking me over my block of Zereshk (I told him to stop spamming, he said he'd continue, so I blocked him)(incidentally, his user page is now a giant rant about the evils of me and wikipedia). As for my actions, I only wish that policy allowed me to delete the edits from the page history entirely, since rolling back the spam messages did almost nothing to stem the tide of one-sided votes. --InShaneee 22:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't "mocking" you; that is true for sure. If I don't write poetic or ambigious, you'll block me (for some n times 24 hours, where n is a natural number greater than or equal to 2) as well. And who says it was about you? ;) But I don't think you have already made the decision to block me after all. --Aminz 01:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Try assuming good faith. Talking like I'm block-crazy isn't very polite, either. --InShaneee 02:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said you are a "block-crazy"... Gosh! --Aminz 02:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the personal attack from Zeresh's page, which Aminz immediately reverted, and had the temerity to lecture me about editing other people's User pages. I have blocked Aminz for 5 minutes for reverting to the personal attack, and have reverted and protected Zeresh's User page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, please indicate on your user page that you are an admin. Next, I would be happy if other admins check the message I left for Zoe and how he is replying back to me:"(Aminz) had the temerity to lecture me about editing other people's User pages. " Thirdly, I am standing for justice. I promise that Zoe has not had even reviewed the case closely him/herself. I request Zoe to block for a week if his/her defend of InShaneee is based on his/her close review of the case. --Aminz 02:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot possibly give any greater support to that suggestion than I am now. Either way, she shouldn't have to prove that she's an admin; any user is welcome to remove such hate-filled speech at their discretion. --InShaneee 02:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk feels he has been under injustice. He has the right to express himself. I see many people make fun of bush everyday. Of course, he didn't make fun of you. But we should let Zereshk to express himself. That's freedom of speech. --Aminz 03:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

He has no such right; quite the opposite, as a matter of fact. "Freedom of speech" simply means that the government can't pass laws that censor the people; Wikipedia is in no way related to any government, and thus is free to tell all its users what they can and can't say. That said, we'd like people to keep their opinions to themselves (or take them elsewhere, like a message board) and actually work on some articles. --InShaneee 03:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee, true or false, there are two users who think the block at least in terms of its duration was not right. If they can not express themselves somewhere about their feelings, they can not work on the articles either. It may not be wiki policy but it is a humane thing. If you believe you were 100% correct in your decision, you should not be bothered by what Zereshk writes in his user page. Should you? If it is wrong, it will only prove something about himself and not about you. Similarly, all my posts here will prove something about myself if they are wrong and I have already accepted this. --Aminz 03:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I have never ONCE blocked someone without someone complaining that it was wrong. I can think of at least half a dozen users who've told me just that, and I am happy to report that they are all incorrect. As you'll notice, there's yet to be one admin here who's said that Zereshk shouldn't have been blocked. Now, Wikipedia isn't humane, either. It's not here for you to do as you please. We're trying to write an encyclopedia here, thank you. Your innermost feelings can wait until you've surfed elsewhere. I wasn't bothered by what Zereshk wrote, but the point was he doesn't GET to write that. If you can't be productive and useful, you shouldn't be here, period. --InShaneee 03:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked both Zereshk and Aminz for 24 hours for personal attacks, disruption, and harrassment. There is no merit to any of their claims; they're just out for blood now. It must stop. --Cyde↔Weys 03:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to second Aminz' sympathies for the conduct of the other blocked editor, but I don't see that Aminz has violated any policy, in letter or in spirit, and no diffs have been provided to substantiate the charges of "harrassment and personal attacks". Someone has made a mistake here. Aminz should be unblocked.Timothy Usher 06:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Timothy. It seems to me that there is too much enthusiasm here on the part of the admins to block people. You have that right for a reason, and you might need to reconsider what that reason was.

As for Inshaneee's post on my talk page, which I prefer to respond to here, I'm not saying Zereshk was right to do that. I'm saying that what you did is not strictly according to policy, which you by the way admit on my talk page "Just because it's not written down doesn't mean that it's not done by dozens of admins every day". So you mean admins can do as they please in Wikipedia? It's a good thing that you warned Zereshk, and maybe even that you blocked him (although I think for too long). What I am complaining to you about is only your editing of my talk page which I politely and respectfully ask you not to do in the future. I hope any misunderstandings are erased now. Shervink 09:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

Timothy, I'm afraid I can't agree. Aminz has all but stopped editing to pursue his campaign against me in the last few days, which is wrong any way you look at it. Shervink, yes, administrators do have discretion in a wide variety of situations, and if someone spams your talk page again, I will be removing it. --InShaneee 22:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Inshaneee, on my talk you acknowledge that what you did is not according to policy, but is done by many others as well. You claim now that you can do so because you are an admin. Do you realize that you are openly claiming you have a right to violate policy because you are an administrator? Once again, I'm not supporting the spreading of spams. But you are declaring that you are willing to violate policy in order to enforce it. That is unacceptable. I once again urge you not to do this, and I ask you not to remove content, spam or other, from my talk page, except for cases where you can back it up with the exact text of Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Shervink 11:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

That is PRECISELY what I'm saying. Admins aren't bound by the letter of policy; for example, if someone is being a nusence, it is within our discretionary authority to do so, and is perfectly 'acceptable', thank you. --InShaneee 22:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Your previous comment contains a personal attack. Be warned please. 2. You claim admins do not have to follow policy. Can you please tell me where that exception is declared? Thank you. Shervink 10:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

I do not fully understand the basis for Aminz' block. Was it for reverting User:Zereshk's page after Zoe removed a personal attack? Is there something more to it that I am missing? I am surprised becuase Aminz certainly does not have a history of personal attacks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have explained my reverting of the User:Zereshk's user page here [85] --Aminz 17:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

After a bit of cooling down, looking back into what happened, I do admit that I lost my temper block of Zereshk. Even having a point can never justify my voluminous criticisms of InShaneee's administrative decision. I ignored the fact that one's admin actions does not necessarily depend on what a person has immediately done. I do admit that I lost my temper again after I got blocked myself and have done what I shouldn't have done; and by doing so, I have poisoned the well. So did I after Zereshk's block. --Aminz 08:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of tags by SlimVirgin

Contrary to policy User:SlimVirgin has removed an {{autobiography}} tag [86] from Gary Weiss despite the fact that Weiss has been editing that article using various sockpuppets. She has also removed a sockpuppet alert from the talk page[87]. Neither tag named the useraccount, they simply notified readers of the situation. 130.15.164.126 23:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, 130.15.164.126 is User:HOTR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What evidence can your provide to support these assertions? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The following list is incomplete but begins to address your request for supporting evidence.

Mantanmoreland created the article about Gary Weiss[88]

Then he added a link to an article (from 1997!) written by Gary Weiss[89]

Then he added a reference to a book by Gary Weiss[90]

Then he added another reference to a book by Gary Weiss[91]

Then he added another reference to a book by Gary Weiss[92]

Then he added another reference to a book by Gary Weiss[93]

Then he added another reference to a book by Gary Weiss[94]

Then, some funny editor removed a single adjective about the book by Gary Weiss and Mantanmoreland reverts without explanation[95]

Tomstoner, a suspected Mantanmoreland sockpuppet, added a reference to a book by Gary Weiss[96]

Confirmed Mantanmoreland sockpuppet Lastexit is also the only other substantive contributor to the article about Gary Weiss[97]

Lastexit added a reference to an article by Gary Weiss[98]

Lastexit added another reference to an article by Gary Weiss[99]

Mantanmoreland voted to delete the article about Josie Robertson, whose husband Julian once sued Gary Weiss for $1-billion[100]. The deletion nomination came from Lastexit[101]--66.102.186.21 00:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, have a look at the page history, look at the diffs provided. Slim isn't the one making these edits. Guettarda 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be WordBomb who has been harassing User:Mantanmoreland, posting what he believes are Mantan's personal details, and adding nonsense to Gary Weiss. He has also been harassing people by e-mail. It's a longish story and I'll pass on details by e-mail to any admin who wants to see them. I didn't remove any tags, but I sprotected Gary Weiss and talk page, and Mantanmoreland's user and talk pages, which are also under attack. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Mantanmoreland and tell me where the violation is that justified protection? Slim is protecting her friend, alright, but for all the wrong reasons. 130.15.164.126 23:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've protected it so you can't post to it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Facts as I understand them: User:Mantanmoreland and User:Lastexit have been confirmed to be sock-puppets by Fred Bauder. These accounts have improperly supported each other in discussions, edit disputes, and/or consensus 'votes'. Our anon, who is apparently User:WordBomb (again, per Fred), further suspects that User:Tomstoner is the same person and that all of them are Gary Weiss... and has been indefinitely blocked for stating this belief and thereby revealing what he thought to be personal info about an account holder. That about right? If so, then I'd say 'all of the above' ought to be watched and the lack of a block on either Mantanmoreland or Lastexit seems a bit odd. --CBD 13:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is an email that was sent to me via Wiki Email by the user who commenced this discussion:

From: "IPFrehley"

To: "Mantanmoreland"

Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 11:57 PM

Subject: Wikipedia e-mail

Gary,

Just wanted to thank you for responding so perfectly today. This is going to be easier than I thought. Talk to you again soon.

IPF"

He is referring to being blocked three times under three different user names, in pursuing this nutty vendetta against Gary Weiss who he is convinced I am. After this he whipped up a chain letter [102] which he posted from various aliases on a number of user pages of people he presumed to have ill will toward myself and SlimVirgin.

At one point he sent around an email calling me (as his proxy for "Weiss") a "cancer" and saying: "I pushed back much harder than I normally would, and chose to operate outside the normal protocols, because the idea behind that exercize was to gather intel and save my bullets, not affect change. The time has come to affect change."

Then he moved here, pursuing an off-Wiki cyberstalking campaign (of questionable legality) here, and giving his Internet audience a blow-by-blow.[103]. In the link, the Yahoo alias is the same as the email address of WordBomb/IPFrehley. Make no mistake about it: what you are dealing with is a determined and relentless off-Wiki cyberstalking campaign by an anonymous person who goes to great lengths to switch IP addresses to preserve his anonymity. The file originally posted by WordBomb and since deleted was professionally put together, and his switching from IP to IP shows a determination to evade detection -- not to mention evade the block on his three named aliases, which he has of course done very easily.

He has so many IPs and aliases that it is hard to keep track of them. Three named aliases have been blocked and a fourth (User:Schroedinger the Cat) remains active. That was created yesterday for the purpose of harassing the administrator who blocked him.--Mantanmoreland 13:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There have been bizarre e-mail threats, including that he's going to the media to expose Wikipedia. He also sent me a link that appeared to be a live link to a Wikipedia user account, but in fact went elsewhere, presumably hoping I'd click on it so he'd have my IP address. Not a good-faith actor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wordbomb and Mantanmoreland/Lastexit are two different issues and it looks like Wordbomb has already been blocked so that's done with. Checkuser confirms the sockpuppetry so both Mantanmoreland and Lastexit and possibly this third sock should be blocked for violating WP:SOCK by pretending to be different people as was done with Anomicene and Gnetwerker discussed here. 70.48.90.54 19:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It sure does "look like" he's been blocked for otherwise you wouldn't need to haul out another IP to evade the block, would you?--Mantanmoreland 21:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User:70.48.90.54 was HOTR. He admits it here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland was warned about socks and unless more happens that is the end of it as far as I'm concerned. Fred Bauder 22:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concern About Archiving Recent Talk Page Warning and Discussion about Multiple Identities on Wikipedia

I would respectfully ask that an administrator take a look at recent activities on User talk:Mantanmoreland. The user has archived a current and very significant ongoing discussion and warning from a Wiki administrator and member of the ArbComm committee regarding the use of multiple identities on Wikipedia. I tried, respectfully, to ask Mantanmoreland to keep this material current. I put up a post asking him to clear up any confusion and doubt created by this situation by clearly identifying how many user identities he is presently using, or has used, on Wikipedia. He has now twice deleted these remarks, and labelled them as “trolling,” something he does commonly as a way of removing anything he doesn’t want on his talk page. I believe this is a situation that warrants an administrative warning, or a significant block. This behavior has been repeated many times over quite a long time. Thanks. Ptmccain 12:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

He has received an administrative warning. Unless he has continued to use multiple accounts in a deceptive way please let it go. Fred Bauder 12:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

How would one go about determining the use of multiple identities on Wikipedia? I truly don't know. I'm happy to let it go, but I have no indication that the user will in fact cease and desist from using multiple personalities. Please advise how one can investigate and determine the use of multiple identities. It is appropriate to archive an administrative warning so quickly on one's talk page? Ironically, this same user told me that this was not appropriate when I was archiving. Let me know what Wiki policy is on this. Thanks. Ptmccain 13:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You would make a request at WP:CHECK. Proto::type 13:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I will assume for now that the user in question will cease and desist from posting under multiple identities and if that is the case, great! But it is good to know what the options are. Ptmccain 14:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ptmccain, if you have further questions or need to discuss the matter further, you can contact me on my user talk page or by email. As Fred says, the situation has already been investigated and is being handled by several admins. FloNight ^talk 13:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris

I have stepped into an incipient page move war at this featured list. Someone please second guess me (actually, on second thoughts, just shoot me, it will be quicker). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That is one lame edit war... You do not seem to be a party to the move war so reverting per lack of consensus and locking the page is totally within bounds. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you looked down far enough - there was a counter-proposition to move the article to "Île-de-France" that waited seven days before closing. Only one opposed the move, and this is the same that reverted. This isn't only about consensus, but referencable fact - I suggest you read the talk page. Sorry it's so full of cruft, but please pay particular attention to mention of references - this is what a proper name is all about, even before it became a question of consensus. THEPROMENADER 14:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

After a riveting read of the talk page, I would conclude that ALoan's actions are correct. There appears to be one very motivated editor itching to move the page (even inexplicably threatening RfCs to one editor who - correctly - described his actions as 'page appropriation'), and a number of editors who believe the page is fine where it is. Therefore, the page should stay where it is, as per consensus, and the numerous precedents on Wikipedia that ThePromenader seems to be ignoring. Proto::type 15:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not at all opposing ALoan's actions. Because of the low traffic on the page(s) in question, the argument in question has become a one-on-one over fact, and only one side in this is arguing for fact. Now that the page is blocked, if you like you can take the time to decide who. Excuse my shortened tone but I can't help feeling I'm getting the short end in this. THEPROMENADER 15:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Captain scarlet, who has so far always seconded User:ThePromenader (read: User talk:Captain scarlet#Son of "Tallest structures"), hid the list of skyscrapers from List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris. What's the point of the article if the list is hidden? I restablished the list. More disturbing still, the same Captain scarlet has transformed List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France, which was so far a redirect, into an independent article by starting a stub there. That sort of weasely behavior is quite disturbing. Is that how Wikipedia is supposed to work? Hardouin 16:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Captain scarlet has now removed the list of skyscrapers altogether from the article and moved it to List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France (which was previously only a redirect), leaving List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris as a rump article. That's called moving an article by doing cut and paste, which goes both against consensus on the talk page and Wikipedia policy. Hardouin 16:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have rolled back the changes, and protected the original article until genuine consensus is reached. --ajn (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The 'hiding' was indeed a step beyond, but I think we can attribute this to the high editing temperatures caused by the wholesale reverting and short-sightedness in all this. It doesn't matter who's on 'who's side' but the verifiablilty of it all - by all means, let's talk, but through referenced fact only please. THEPROMENADER 17:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have and until the article either hs appropriate content or an appropriate name I'll do it till the situation is described properly. I have no intentions on accepting erronous information on the grounds of User:Hardouin having particular and special beliefs when it comes to geography. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the article cannot remain in error, and will eventually change - but the fact that the road to this is obstructed by one using any means but reference to reverse any progress towards this indeed maddening. I do understand the frustration, but I wouldn't go drawing the line in that way: what we need is some sort of referee to ask for reference in the matter, then all will be clear and we can be done with all the referencless bantering and unjustified reverting and we won't have to bother anyone. THEPROMENADER 23:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are precisely the sort of attitudes which will keep the article protected. I have blocked Captain Scarlet for a week because his response to the protection was (yet again) to try to subvert it and avoid discussion by changing links in other articles in anticipation of the "inevitable" name change. Negotiate, properly, on the article's talk page. Having looked at the history and "evidence" myself, I'm inclining towards the view that the current name's the right one and that moving to another name would represent the triumph of mindless literalism and pedantry over common sense and common usage - but I'm not going to get involved in the discussion, just in ensuring that any changes are the result of proper discussion, consensus and compliance with policies and guidelines. --ajn (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for wading in. At least I can now express my opinion on the talk page :) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, you were right to block the article and put a stop to the reverting/moving/forking etc, and I even thank you for it. As for attitude, this only appears where discussion fails, and it would seem that this must again be discussed. As you seem to be getting involved, I can thank you for that too. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 10:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EddieSegoura/Exicornt Vandal

YankeeFan2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was blocked today as another EddieSegoura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)/Exicornt vandal sock. Yankeefan2006.. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has now appeared, using a partial copy of User:YankeeFan2006's user page and talk page. It seems likely to be another sock or possible impersonator. More info: [104] and [105]. Thanks. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ps3fan2005

Ps3fan2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has written several articles and uploaded several images that are clearly copyright violations. Speedy deletion, {{prod}}, and AfD templates added to the articles in question have been removed repeated and it appears as though the notices regarding copyrights on the user's talk page are being ignored. Can an admin take care of the situation? Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a warning regarding the removal of the {{afd}} templates (apparently he hadn't actually gotten one before). Let's see if he heeds the warning. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)