Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive89

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noticeboard archives

v • d • e
Administrators' archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
Incidents archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350
351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360
361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370
371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380
381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390
391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400
401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410
411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420
421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430
3RR archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
Arbitration enforcement archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Community sanction archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14
Other links
Talk | Checkuser | Backlog

Contents

[edit] Possible advertising scam

Something suspicious has been going on with articles related to the Travolta family, specifically in relation to the article Rikki Lee Travolta and a book written by him My Fractured Life with the various users below adding Rikki (and removing other Travoltas) as members of the Travolta family and adding information to various articles in relation to this book. It is claimed that Rikki is son of a Michael Travolta, an Australian and supposedly a brother of John Travolta but I cannot any reliable source that lists a Michael Travolta as a member of John Travolta's family (this link lists only Joey, Sam, Ellen, Ann and Margaret as siblings of John).

These users seem to be involved: Special:Contributions/Icemountain2, Special:Contributions/DogStar123, Special:Contributions/Cokenotpepsi, Special:Contributions/Infinitytoday, Special:Contributions/ScholasticBks, Special:Contributions/Bostic5.0, Special:Contributions/Hardwoodhaywood, Special:Contributions/Paramountpr, Special:Contributions/Sonybmg, Special:Contributions/65.209.181.195, Special:Contributions/68.74.180.2, Special:Contributions/68.74.121.143. Arniep 19:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated the articles in question for deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_5#Rikki_Lee_Travolta. Arniep 01:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The article should be indelibly flagged as advertising and, unless a user can document the herdity claims, also as unsubstantianted and probably bogus. But behind the advertising the article contains some encyclopedia facts. All I am saying, is give flags a chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghosts&empties (talk • contribs) 16:17, 5 April 2006
Well two users did try to flag it as advertising but it was removed every time by the numerous sock puppets listed above. Arniep 17:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I started the Annie Travolta page and have been a contributor to many of the Travolta family pages including Margaret Travolta, Rikki Lee Travolta, Annie Travolta, and John Travolta. Many of those changes are reverting vandalism. It is right there in the history. There is no way, shape, or form that could remotely be confused as being in an “advertising scam”. I have NEVER removed members of the Travolta family from listings. I have worked hard to keep the integrity in tact. I think upon closer inspection you’ll see there was an influx of attempts by an anon (66.121.40.132) to vandalizing different Travolta family sites [1] (changing facts without providing sources or citations). When the anon seemed to be starting a revert war with different users I followed Wiki policy [2]and contacted them on their discussion page [3] to request documentation for the changes being made.
Its been noticed that you have made several repeated changes to the family elements of the John Travolta page and related pages. The policy at Wikipedia is to try to avoid revert wars going back and forth over the same territory. As follows are what we have confirmed as members of the Travolta family: Margaret Travolta, John Travolta, Ellen Travolta, Joey Travolta, Rikki Lee Travolta; Jack Bannon, Rachel Travolta, Nicole Travolta, Michael Salvatore Travolta, Helen (Burke) Travolta, Kelly Preston, Salvatore Travolta, Molly Allen Ritter, Jonathan Rau, Jet Travolta, Tom Fridley, Sam Travolta, Ella Blue Travolta, Valentino Travolta, and Annie Travolta. This is not an all inclusive list, but all those listed are confirmed. In respecting Wikipedia policy it is always necessary to approach differences of opinion in good faith. Although we have documented each of these individuals as relatives (of different levels of removal or closeness of course) within the extended Travolta family, ff you disagree with any person(s) on this list please provide the documentation and we should be able to come to a simple understanding relatively quickly (no pun intended). We thank you in advance for your cooperation.
The anon (66.121.40.132) did not respond. I assumed the matter was dropped but now I find out I am being lumped in some kind of witch hunt accusation by Arniep who seems to have some vendetta [4] based on feelings and assumptions without citing any sources and discounting such sources as TV Guide [5] and The Chicago Sun Times [6] as "just sites used by agencies".[7]
Firstly, the TV guide link says "There's also some kind of grassroots campaign on behalf of singer/theater actor Rikki Lee Travolta". A grassroots campaign led by who??? Secondly the Chicago Sun Times link is inexplicably not at the Chicago Sun Times website. Thirdly, the person you contacted had removed Rikki Lee Travolta from all the Travolta pages saying "Rikki Lee is not part of this clan" after you had added that name (see Special:Contributions/66.121.40.132). Arniep 20:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
If you look at Arniep's talk page [8] you see a long history of jumping to conclusions and waging war on opinions that are different than Arniep's. Not the spirit of good faith [9] that is intended and required for successful interaction. Sorry - one person's opinion shouldn't outweigh the facts. And Arniep is trying to make wide sweeping changes purely on opinioin without citing facts and ignoring the facts that do exist. The Rikki Lee Travolta [10] page appears to (now) have good documentation. The other page named: My Fractured Life [11] needs to be cleaned up and is so marked. This is nothing more than a witch hunt if you ask me and I'm offended to have been included in it because I was the one who tried to follow Wiki policy [12] to avoid this kind of pointless McCarthyism. Paramountpr 18:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but we can only use reliable sources of information (see WP:RS). Arniep 19:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rikki Lee Travolta is a real person and a relative of John per Daily Variety, the Chicago Sun-Times, Toronto Star, and others, per a Lexis/Nexis search. For example, from the New York Post in 2002,
THERE'S a strange postscipt to our item the other day about the Internet rumor that Steven Spielberg and George Lucas have created a computer-generated actor called "Rikki Lee Travolta." A rather odd actor named Rikki Lee Travolta does in fact exist, and held a press conference in Chicago Tuesday to prove it. "It's good to be alive," he stated. "I am an actor. I am a human being." Travolta, who is of Italian and Native American extraction and claims some family connection with John Travolta, appeared in "West Side Story" on Broadway. He wrote a novel, sports a gunshot wound and claims a doctorate in religious studies. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
Whether this person is notable enough for an article is another matter. Thatcher131 20:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no reliable evidence that he is even related to John Travolta, see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_5#Rikki_Lee_Travolta for further info. Arniep 23:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • See analysis at Talk:Rikki Lee Travolta and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta (although even if this is self-promotion by a non-notable person, hard to see why it should have been brought to AN/I). Thatcher131 00:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm named in this "scam" and only just found out about it from another editor named in the "scam". It turns out (it looks to me) that this FALSE claim is all some well orchestrated attack by a vandal trying to delete a page about Rikki Lee Travolta for some personal reason. Trash. Absolute Trash. Total Abuse of AN/I and Articles for Deletion. A total Abuse of the System. 65.209.181.195 18:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You are mistaken in naming me in this. Hardwoodhaywood 02:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Please see this user's contributions Special:Contributions/Hardwoodhaywood. Arniep 12:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I would specifically take a look at this one: [13]. Fan1967 03:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that an advertising scam is something I am hoping to be a part of. Is there a way to get univited? Did I do something wrong? thanx Dramalover 14:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry you have been caught up in this as you removed some names from Travolta articles. I removed your name. Arniep 15:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:ManiF

I've just received this message on my Talk page. As I'm involved in a dispute with User:ManiF, I don't want to get involved with this, but a quick investigation indicates that there is some substance to the complaint (note, on the other hand, that there are also editors who are engaged in the opposite abuse: trying to insist that Persians were actually Arabs... see Al-Karaji, for example). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mel Etitis,
I want to report the fanatical patriotism behaviour of a user User:ManiF. The following are only recent examples.
Geber, although he was born in Iran(part of the arab empire at that time), his ethnicity is with most certainity arab: Columbia Encyclopedia , Ancients & Alchemists , Britannica Encyclopedia, Encarta Encyclopedia .
In the articles, where his ethnicity is not important, In good faith I removed info regarding his arab ethnicity, but this user inserted "Iranian-born" infront of his name to make the impression that he was Iranian.
If I am wrong on this than please let me know. If not, then I ask you please to do what ever in your hands is to stop the fanatical patritiosm of this user, which is a threat to the success and credibality of Wikipedia.
Thank You. Jidan 11:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no substance to this "complaint". I've not violated any policy either, and nor would I take any action that is not in conformity with Wikipedia rules and regulations. User:Jidan on the other hand, has been breaking wikipedia rules regularly (3RR, sockpuppetry, false accusations, personal attacks as per above), and the one who originally removed the term "Iranian-born" from those articles despite the fact that Gaber, regardless of his Arab [or Persian] ethenicty which is itself disputed by contradictory sources [14], was infact Iranian-born, born in the city of Tus, according to all the sources. I just restored the term. --ManiF 11:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has interacted with both User:ManiF and User:Jidan (and several other) over long period of time at Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, and having looked over several of their other disputes, I can say that there is some thruth to Jidan's accusation, but that it applies to himself as well. Both (and several others) are using Wikipedia as a battleground, and in their little nationalistic war over the etnicity of several ancient scienetist have caused/are causing a signifinct amount of "collateral damage" to the articles they edit. I find this such a problem that I'm, as a third party, seriously considering starting a RfC or even arbitration against them. —Ruud 18:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I heartily agree with Ruud, and would be more than happy to support any wide action to settle this ethnic war. While I do agree that Jidan's concerns are not without merit, suffice it to say, speaking as someone who's been investigating this entire matter for some time now, Mani is easily the best of these users. A cursory look at what's been going on here and at a variety of related pages shows a broad spectrum of personal attacks, ethnic slurs, and ingnorant head-butting galore. While I certainly hope some other users/admins do look into the above topics, I firmly believe that only a case that looks at the situation as a whole, and all those involved in it, will end this fighting with some permanency. --InShaneee 19:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
There's currently an RfAr against User:Aucaman, instigated by ManiF and friends, which will go to the heart of the matter. It has been my suggestion for a while to widen that case to the whole Iranian group (at least User:Zmmz, User:Kashk and User:ManiF). I'm not sure if all their opponents should also be collected in the same case. We're dealing with one central faction of Iranian editors here, but they battle on several fronts with several other groups (perceived as representing Kurdish, Turkish, Arabic and Jewish POVs against their monolithic Iranian national POV). Lukas (T.|@) 22:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, there is currently an ArbCom case involving me, as a concerned user, and user Aucaman who was reported for disruptiveness. Lukas, please refrain from constantly tagging me, or perhaps others as some sort of a gang, or nationalists etc. It is considered uncivil, so take time and please review Wikipedia:Civility. The mob you speak of does not exit; but, sporadic editors, concerned with a few unreasonable users, do. You yourself are involved in other fractions with other users in other articles, yet, I do not feel it is appropriate for [me] to comment on it. However please know that, constant finger pointing, and accusations to take attention away from some users who operate more on a political platform, rather than academia is not looked upon kindly by most admins. Refrain from making frivolous allegations and allow the system to investigate the ArbCom case properly. Zmmz 22:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Rather than a 'concerned user', the arbitrators have actually said they are accepting the case to view your behavior, as well. And speaking as an admin, I don't see anything wrong with Lukas' concern; after all, you have been blocked more than once in the past concerning the aforementioned issues. --InShaneee 22:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I did initiate the case as a concerned user, and the committee did accept to review my contributions as well, which is welcomed, and frankly fair. I was blocked once for a few minutes for Wikistalking, which was a misunderstanding from my part, since I had left a comment in the talk page of a certain user, requesting help from an admin, yet, you [InShaneee] then unblocked me minutes later. And, in the beginning, I was blocked for the 3RR, as well. None of these, however, were blatant attempts to manipulate the system, rather they can be attributed to inexperience with Wiki policies. As some of the admins may attest, I have tried very hard to compromise with numerous editors[15][16]zmmz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Considering the kinds of edit warring and ethnically motivated personal attacks I've seen lately, I'm not entirely sure we aren't dealing with multiple groups here. Thusly, I do think that both sides of the issue should be put together in one case; it might take some time to sort out, but it would present a more balanced view of the issue, and have the advantage of being able to address innapropriate practices on both sides all at once. --InShaneee 22:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I would also appreciate not being tagged as anything, all it takes is to assume good faith and have a NPOV. Most who have been involved in the disputes have been blocked at one point or another and in my opinion there is no reason for Lukas to take such special POV from the against-Iranian users view and name me and others everytime there is something going on. - K a s h Talk | email 10:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I certainly do not accept the current name callings such as 'ManiF and friends' and 'monolithic Iranian national POV', etc. I consider it to be very rude and out of order, I would like to invite everyone to be WP:Civil on this matter and do not call names and certainly do not back each other up against Iranian editors, in any case this only shows why it may look like we are against others! because to me it certainly looks like everyone is against us! - K a s h Talk | email 10:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

User:LukasPietsch's comments are in breach of several Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL which explicitly prohibit accusatory comments and classification of users based on racial, national, political, religious, and ethnic affiliations. --ManiF 14:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WAS 4.250

Based on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brandy_Alexandre_%28porn_star%29&diff=prev&oldid=47412622 I have blocked WAS 4.250 indefinitely. The edit made deleted a request by Jimbo which has been honored. WAS_4.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been engaged in trolling in a variety of contexts; always taking positions which degrade Wikipedia. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Censorship&diff=47432420&oldid=47432080 seems designed only to disrupt.Fred Bauder 13:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I object to this block. As far as I can see he has contributed and continues to contribute in good faith to the encyclopaedia. The deletion of Jimbo's comment is unhelpful, but not grounds for an indefinite block in my opinion. Blocking of any kind should only have been considered if he did so repeatedly and after being warned. Maybe he missed Jimbo's name at the end - I myself deleted an Arbcom-mandated notice in good faith a few days ago and don't seem to have been blocked yet. His opinions on the inclusion of child pornography on Wikipedia aren't grounds for blocking either unless they reach the level of disruption or illegality. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The lack of any other edits on Brandy Alexandre and related pages, or anything else that would suggest a campaign to reveal her name, makes me more inclined to believe that the deletion of the notice was an accident of the sort I made. I'm open to correction. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I object to the block as well. No warning, no discussion, just bam an indefinite block. And the discussion he started at Wikipedia talk:Censorship was entirely good-faith and reasonable. Fred, please unblock him immediately. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm familiar with this user mainly because I keep the Evolution article on my watchlist. WAS 4.250 is a good faith contributor there, so I don't think a summary indef. is in order. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

But how do you explain how he got to the Brandy Alexandre page and and why he thought that edit had to be made? Fred Bauder 14:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

While I am generally of the opinion that we treat vandals, trolls, kooks and those who are just out to disrupt the project far too leniently, I would ask you to reconsider this block. I have seen WAS 4.250 making lots of useful contributions to Influenza related articles and think a stern warning with the understanding that Jimbo's word is effectively law would be more appropriate here. If he continues with such actions after being warned, I would then go for an indefinite block. --GraemeL (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
If he continues with such actions after being warned, I would start with a 24-hour block and progressively work up from there, same as for other people who are disruptive after being warned to stop. Surely indefinite blocks are only for pure-vandal accounts, proven sockpuppets, and ArbCom rulings to that effect! Jeez, you see something like this block and it's no surprise that some people write "This user is pissed off about admins ignoring policy" on their user page. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not an admin, but WAS 4.250 and I are disagreeing (Wikipedia talk:Censorship) in a manner that indicates he is willing to try to understand the other side of the debate. I'll put in a good word for his reinstatement. If one wants to know why he did something, asking him seems a good start. Even if it was WP:POINT indefinite seems a bit harsh. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I concur, discuss with WAS. I am neutral on the subject of unblock at this time. If it was POINT, it was a fairly blatant one, which requires serious examination. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Random article? RC patrol? Former Latter-day Saints? I've come across and edited weirder articles than that one. I'm not going to speculate on his motives, but I still believe it could have been a mistake. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked him. Fred Bauder 14:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] from my talk page

I have blocked you indefinitely based on this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brandy_Alexandre_%28porn_star%29&diff=prev&oldid=47412622 Deleting an administrative request made by Jimbo is not acceptable behavior. I have characterized your recent activity as destructive trolling. Another example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Censorship&diff=47432420&oldid=47432080 seems designed only to disrupt. Fred Bauder 13:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

After discussion I have unblocked you. Your edit remains inexplicable. The lady in question has tried earnestly to move on. Fred Bauder 14:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Doggone it, now I don't have an excuse for getting a new hobby. I had just finishd convincing myself it was a blessing in disguise. Oh, well.

The second example was me discussing the issue of censorship on the talk page of a guideline proposal on censorship. The proposal is currently undergoing a poll. The poll already reveals the proposal does not have consensus. So the question arises, do we need a guideline dealing with people shouting "censorship" or people shouting "porn". Maybe. So I was illustrating the issue with a relevant recent incident.

Concening the article on the lady in question, I deleted two things in the article.

One thing I deleted was the factually inaccurate statement that her real world identity is unknown. That is both factually inaccurate and provably so with public accessable court documents. In this deletion I deleted the word "unknown" in the template on her.

The other thing I deleted was an out of date comment (in the article space, not the talk space) by Jimbo on 31 December 2005 saying:

As a courtesy while we discuss the issues surrounding this article, please don't add Brandy Alexandre's real name to this article. And please treat SavvyCat with particular respect and understand that if she seems a bit touchy about this article, she has every right to be: it's about her. As a person with a biography about myself in Wikipedia which is frequently used as a place to attack me, I can say that Assume Good Faith is absolutely necessary in a case like this. --Jimbo --

It is clear that it is out of date because:

  • it says while we discuss the issues surrounding this article,
  • the discussion in question took place from 31 December, 2005 until 22 January 2006 with no further changes until 3 March 2006,
  • the talk page says In private email to me, Jimbo stated that he only originally removed the info pending proper sourcing, and only asked that the name not be re-added to the article while discussion was on-going regarding this issue on this talk page (see the hidden comments at the top of the article itself for Jimbo's request).,
  • and the talk page has not been edited since 24 January 2006.

Does that explain things? 4.250.198.204 15:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

An edit summary and/or an explanation on the article's Talk page were surely in order? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

please treat SavvyCat with particular respect and understand that if she seems a bit touchy about this article, she has every right to be: it's about her. As a person with a biography about myself in Wikipedia which is frequently used as a place to attack me, I can say that Assume Good Faith is absolutely necessary in a case like this. is a restatement of our policy on living persons and could be added to the top of every page of a living person and so I did not believe was meant to be permently at the top of this specific biography and thus claim more fairness for one person than another. It reads to me like a tempory comment meant to be removed as a whole at the appropriate time. So I did. I deliberately did not add her real name, as I thought it best for one bystander to declare the discussion over, and someone else to act or not act on that. 4.250.198.204 15:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, you are starting the controversy up again. Why can't you have the courtesy to honor her personal request that her real name not be included in the article? Fred Bauder 17:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I diagree completely with your evaluation of my behavior and the results of my behavior. Let's focus on the results of my behavior and the results of your behavior. I quietly deleted an out of date message that is out of date by the criteria stated within it and furthermore that is now made unnecessary by the Presumption in favor of privacy section of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which applies to all such cases and not merely this one. Blocking editors forevermore from editing this article is surely not your intent. Deleting the lie "unknown" removes the label "original name" leaving the casual reader with no clue the name given was not the original name. Now, your behavior restores the information to the article that there is an original name not given by the article thereby bringing attention to it. Your behavior has dragged this issue to the forefront of many administrators' notice when you could have simply asked me WTF on my talk page. You, Sir, are "starting the controversy up again", not I. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states:
Only details relevant to the notability of the subject belong in the article. If a fact or incident is notable, relevant and well-documented by reputable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If not, leave it out.

To the extent she keeps her real name from being noteable, it does not belong in the article by this guideline that did not yet exist when Jimbo typed his note. To the extent she makes it noteable, it does belong. If and when that occurs, I won't be the one to do it because I don't care enough about the issue to learn enough about her name's noteability to be able to make that judgement call. In summary, I have not done what you claim; you yourself have. Can we drop this now? Or do you wish to further add attention to a name you claim to want to not get attention? WAS 4.250 18:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ultramarine

Transferred to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Ultramarine.

[edit] Talk Page Blanking/Vandalism

  • User:Eyeonvaughan continually blanks his own talk page, and has been warned against doing this numerous times, especially since he is currently the subject of a User Conduct RfC, most recently is here. As well, I archived my extremely long talk page today and he decided that I had actually blanked my page and decided to revert it. If I tell him to stop, he'll just continue doing it, I'd appreciate if someone else could step in. Thanks. pm_shef 21:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) just came back from a block for personal attacks. It looks like Deckiller gave him a 48 hour block for blanking. Thatcher131 22:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Users are entitled to blank or archive their talk pages at their discretion, CVU's insistence to the otherwise notwithstanding. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Archiving is, obviously, acceptable, however AFAIK, blanking a user talk page is considered inappropriate, particularly if it contains evidence of policy violations. Werdna648T/C\@ 17:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Ummm, why "CVU's insistence"? Perhaps you mean "despite the insistence of someone who is a member of the CVU"? If the CVU has been issuing directives like this, they forgot to send me the memo... Essjay Talk • Contact 10:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of no prohibition against blanking. I can think of several sysops who prefer it to archiving. It's not like he's deleting it or something. Mackensen (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brandubh Blathmac

I have blocked Brandubh Blathmac (talk · contribs) for 31 hours for repeated insertion of POV material on Eamon de Valera, which has been consistently removed by a number of editors. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This user uses multiple socks and hops IP addresses to avoid blocks, so you'll still need to keep an eye on the article. See WP:RFAr#Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk • contribs) for the details. He's getting close to the point where I'm just going to indefinitely block all of his accounts on sight. --GraemeL (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Go admin abuse, yeh :) --Doc ask? 13:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Given that he is a sockpuppet of a user who in the past has been blocked for vandalism, is mounting the same attack campaigns on various articles and has a history of posting rascist abuse, I have blocked him indefinitely. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:69.194.137.183 and User:=Axiom=

I have blocked these users (the latter a sockpuppet of the first) for legal threats at Talk:Crossbow. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zadil

This user has been trolling Talk:Talmud for the last few weeks. It is obvious from the responses that his comments contribute little to the article, but are purely meant to infuriate. Request admin intervention and block on the basis of my earlier warning this his incitement amounts to trolling. JFW | T@lk 17:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evianboy

This user continues to remove the "Scandal" section of the Peter Wentz article, which I have repeatedly argued for including on the article's talk page. Rather than defend his stance that the article should not be included, he continually removes the section with either a blank revision summary or with something like "not appropriate encyclopedic content" or "removing unnecessary info." An anonymous user placed an html comment above the section warning that its removal will be treated as vandalism, and I have since been giving him test warnings whenever he does it. I am sorry if I should not have given him test3 and test4 warnings before reporting him here. -VJ 17:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Since he has only made one edit per day he has not violated the 3RR rule and this seems like a fairly typical content dispute that is unfortunately common on wikipedia. You can look into the steps of the dispute resolution process including putting out a request for comment on the article to get outside opinions from people who are not so close to the problem. Thatcher131 18:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slanderous Comments

  • User:64.231.242.202 recently reposted slanderous and defamatory comments that on to my talk page (the comments had previously been archived). The comments were originally posted by User:Eyeonvaughan (who is also currently undergoing a User Conduct RfC) who had received a warning for them, this time, the AnonIP user reposted Eyeonvaughan's comments as if Eyeonvaughan had posted them himself, see the diff. This is getting rediculous. I consider these attacks to be extremely slanderous against my character and they are not appreciated. I very strongly request that strong action be taken against these two users. pm_shef 01:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Following my submitting of this report, the anon user added two nonsense warning templates to my page, see this diff and a Defamation NPA Warning here. Neither of these have any credibility or a result of any action on my part, its vandalism on the Anon Ip's part. Could an admin please remove these from my talk page and take action? pm_shef 01:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually the NPA warning would be credible since you are currently making legal threats, please stop threatening legal action since threatening legal action is against policy and is not warranted. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 1) I was not making legal threats, you'll see that I very clearly said "in other circumstances" and in any case, that has its own template and certainly not the defwarn large graphic warning, which is certainly not called for. Especially in the context of the anon editors contributions, all have been to my page and the page of the editor for whom I sponsored a User Conduct RfC. The incorrect information template and the defamation template both are not called for. If you disagree, show me where I have committed this serious vandalism. pm_shef 02:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please check the time stamps on the diffs. 64.231.242.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) posted the {{Defwarn}} and {{NPA}} tags to pm_shef (talk · contribs) after posting this personal attack [17] to pm_shef's talk page. The IP resolves to Bell Canada and it should be noted that Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is in that part of the country and is currently on block. I can't find anything in pm_shef's contribs for the last 24 hours that would constitute anything remotely like a PA except for the use of the word "slander" here, after 64.231.242.202 reinstated Eyeonvaughan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) attack calling him corrupt and accusing him of bribery--basically wikilawyering by template. Can someone at least short-term block the Canadian IP addresses that pop up from nowhere to attack pm shef almost on a daily basis? Thatcher131 03:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block of User:MonMan

MonMan was suggested as a sockpuppet of me by User:Mais oui! (a user that disagrees with me). It was proposed on Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser on 08:47, 7 April 2006 and blocked indefinitely a mere 4 hours later at 12:51, 7 April 2006 by User:JzG (an admin who supports Mais oui!s PoV). There has been no evidence produced and no evidence asked of either myself or MonMan. This is clearly a malicious block and should be reversed as soon as possible. Owain (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Is MonMan actually a sockpuppet of yours, or do you refute the claim? CheckUser evidence is not open to the general public anyway. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The discussion is here; he refutes the claim, asserting MonMan is a friend but a different person. Essjay says meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry cannot be ruled out. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Why has the sockpuppet MonMan (talk · contribs) been blocked, but the sockpuppeteer Owain (talk · contribs) has not? Kind of a waste of everybody's time if we uncover sockpuppetry, but then do nothing about it? What kind of message does that send to the massed ranks of vandals?--Mais oui! 15:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

As Owain strongly denies the allegation put before him, I think there should be no further action taken until all sides have been fairly heard and all evidence and discussion has been seen. Blocking a 'sock' only 4 hours after it was alleged to be one and not giving its supposed user a chance to respond or defend himself strikes me as a very unfair and one-sidedt action, and a breach of admin powers. Mais oui! has had numerous content disputes with Owain and his characterisation of events should be acknowldged to be somewhat one-sided. Sysops, on the other hands, should be at pains to be even-handed, and this has not, so far as I can see, been the case with the blocking of MonMan. Stringops 16:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I must admit too, I would have looked better if the block had been applied by a third-party admin; given his past history with Owain, JzG should have recused himself and referred it to a third opinion. Can anyone suggest a way in which Owain and MonMan could prove they were different users, to the satisfaction of everybody involved? Does there exist a prescribed method that can be used? Aquilina 16:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned about Mais oui's intent to have both accounts blocked. Even if it is a true case of sockpuppets don't we usually allow one account to edit if it does so productively? I also wonder in general, if 2 friends both edit wikipedia and have similar interests, what's wrong with that? It is certainly a problem if they coordinate their activities to be intentionally disruptive, how can one fairly distinguish between coordinate disruption and simply a case of similar interests (especially when the editor they are in conflict with pushes for them both to be banned). Thatcher131 16:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC) withdrawn Thatcher131 02:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Not being involved with the conflict, I think this could certianly be the case. I'm afraid that while I do trust JzG's judgement often, I don't see this as cut and dried as him and Mais oui feel it is. If there was meatpuppeting going on, one vote isn't going to swamp many discussions here on Wikipedia. Both accounts have a long history at Wikipedia, so its not like someone was recruited just for that vote. So, in this administrator's opinion we should unblock MonMan. If there really is disruption planned from some collusion we can always reblock. --Syrthiss 18:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Only just seen this has make ANI. I am conserned by the block on User:MonMan as I believe we should AGF and take Owain at face value on this; i.e. MonMan is a friend, but not a sockpuppet. The checkuser was not fully conclusive. I also agree with Thatcher131, and request that a third-party admin looks at this block. See also this on my talk page. Thanks, Petros471 17:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

  • MonMan has only 30 or so edits but Owain has over 4000 [18] and has been a wikipedian for 2-1/2 years. I suppose it's possible that Owain created a sock account or recruited his friend for the specific purpose of defeating Mais oui in a vote on renaming UK counties. It's certainly not typical puppetmaster behavior, though. Thatcher131 18:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC) withdrawn Thatcher131 02:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • While he only has 30 or so edits, his account was created ~mid 2005. Thats a lot of forward thinking for a puppetmaster or meat recruiter. --Syrthiss 19:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


Comments after further analysis I withdraw my defense of MonMan (talk · contribs). See below at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block of Owain (talk • contribs) Thatcher131 02:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The history is highly suspicious, the checkuser evidence also supports it, but MonMan emailed me assuring me he is not Owain - only one sock has previously emailed me and that was from an address on the puppeteer's own domain, which was pretty clueless. Under the circumstances I will accept it at face value - and I would have dealt with it sooner if I had been able. Just zis Guy you know? 08:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block of Owain (talk · contribs)

Why has the sockpuppet - MonMan (talk · contribs) - been blocked, but the sockpuppeteer - Owain (talk · contribs) - has not? Kind of a waste of everybody's time if we uncover sockpuppetry, but then do nothing about it? What kind of message does that send to the massed ranks of vandals?--Mais oui! 15:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. Do you need to put this on both ANI and AN (sorry... its above here, I knew I had seen it at least one other place)?
  2. The RFCU response was likely, tho meatpuppetry wasn't ruled out.
  3. There was at least one objection on AN
--Syrthiss 16:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
If you had just uncovered a sockpuppeteer would you not wonder why the sockpuppet was banned, but not the pupeteer? It just seems very, very odd, considering what a menace sockpuppets are. I note that you have not answered my question. --Mais oui! 17:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The next time Owain is losing a vote, is it OK if he "asks his friend" to sit down in front of his computer, log in, and support his agenda? No? Yes? I'm honestly asking this as a question, not rhetorically, because as you have left it, anyone can log in under a different account, vote and comment and edit away in their own favour, and then when uncovered walk away totally without even a rebuke. Totally unbelievable! --Mais oui! 17:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
If the two accounts were coming from the same computer then the Checkuser evidence would not have been "difficult to determine". I notice you have done some vote recruiting of your own. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] Assuming that Owain and MonMan really are two different people, how is what they did different from what you did? Thatcher131 18:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC) withdrawn Thatcher131 02:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The massive differences are:
  • these people are not me, and have no connection to me other than being Scottish Wikipedians
  • these notices are open, public and above-the-board, and standard Wikipedia practice
Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are the opposite. The MonMan account is only used as a back-up to Owain's agenda - just have a look at the impressive accounts of those other Wikipedians I messaged. --Mais oui! 20:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
"these people are not me". How is that a difference? MonMan is not me either! You should not be talking about above-the-board Wikipedia practices, given that this debate was started because of your unilateral moving of a page and then deliberatedly editing the redirect so it could not simply be moved back. Your derogotary treatment of MonMan is completely without substance - just because he agrees with me and disagrees with you he is categorised as "the MonMan account" and his edits are "only used to back up my agenda". It is also telling that an admin who shares *your* agenda had MonMan blocked within four hours of the initial request, with no evidence requested, in the middle of the night US-time so he could not defend himself. I have offered on my user page to have an admin give us both a telephone call to prove we are different people. If every friend I have is automatically blocked as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet after making so few edits then that is not a very friendly introduction to Wikipedia is it? Owain (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


Comments after further analysis I withdraw my defense of MonMan (talk · contribs) and agree that he is a likely sockpuppet of Owain (talk · contribs). I believe it is possible for two people to know each other off wiki and have the same interests without being meat or sockpuppets. However, I am no longer prepared to defend Owain (talk · contribs) and MonMan (talk · contribs). MonMan's first edit back in July, 2005 was to a talk page to support Owain's argument about traditional naming of UK counties [25]. Of MonMan's 30-some edits, the only edit to an article that Owain has never edited was to list Newport as a sister city of Kutaisi [26]. MonMan appears to back Owain up in contentious discussions such as [27]. He cast a vote alongside Owain here [28]. Most seriously, MonMan reverted an article after Owain had reverted it 3 times, thus saving Owain from a 3RR violation. [29] [30] [31] [32]

There is something Pythonesque about having a revert war over the issue of how English counties should properly be named. (I can understand abortion or GWB but come on, people). I also agree with Aquilina (above) that JzG is too involved in the same debate and should have asked for comment before placing the block. Consider this my (final) comment.Thatcher131 02:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Had to grin at your Pythonesque comment. What is worse is that the "ABC war" (ABC = Association of British Counties, the common link between people pushing this POV) has been going on for years on Wikipedia. 80.255 started it off, later ably assisted by Owain, and now others. And boy do these guys have stamina. Check out their talk pages archives (and the talk pages for lots of British places) for the number of people who've tried to work with them. Pcb21 Pete 10:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

May I ask what is happening with this case? I am not a frequenter of this page and do not know the procedure. --Mais oui! 15:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to repeat myself, but... may I ask what is happening with this case? --Mais oui! 09:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to oppose any block of Owain. If the findings were correct and MonMan was his sock, that sock is indef blocked. There have been several cases where we indef block the master and the puppets and then remove the block on the single account the user wishes to maintain. This would then be the implicit outcome of that: Owain continues as the user's account. If the findings were incorrect, and MonMan was indeed just a friend from the same area then I don't feel that any charges of meatpuppetry or disruption would support more than a short block if even that. If I can point out, neither of these users have a single previous block. I'm willing to give a longstanding editor a surfeit of good faith. Considering that your account is a quarter as old and has a block for 3RR you would even get the benefit of a surfeit of good faith. --Syrthiss 13:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on MonMan other than what I posted above; someone else will have to determine if my analysis and Essjay's likely supports a permanent block or not. On the issue of Owain I think he should be allowed to contribute so long as he is reasonably good about following the rules. If you believe he is using new sockpuppets to influence debate then bring it to someone's attention. If he has a long-term habit of using multiple accounts that might justify action against the master account. For now it seems to be a first offence. Thatcher131 18:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Syrthiss, Mais Oui has a block for 3RR only because Owain made tendentious edits to a template (supporting his "traditional counties" agenda) and then complained on AN when they were repeatedly reverted. Both were at fault, and it was Owain who made the contentious change not Mais Oui - I should have blocked both of them for a cooling-off period! Just zis Guy you know? 08:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please, do

Please,_do (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was blocked by me as a sock of Jason Gastrich about an hour ago. He's placed an {{unblock}} on his page. I request other Admins examine his contributions and assist in determining the best course of action. I wish to note that he made a few non-Gastrich edits, then voted Keep on Afd for an article with edits only by another Gastrich sock. I had blocked that sock earlier today. Gastich is known for making a few non-typically Gastrich edits, presumably to camouflage his identity, before moving on to more typical behavior. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

  • its beginning to look like I've blocked an innocent party. I am going to unblock and watch, and leave the name on the suspected list on the ArbCom page for a bit. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I don't think that one is quite so cut and dry. Probably best to unblock and keep an eye, and request a checkuser if any more fishy edits arise. --kingboyk 01:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've lost count of the times I've blocked Gastrich, and this is the first one that complained. That's my main rationale. But that his third edit was a vote to keep yet another Gastrich nn LBU grad bio is fishy. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Expansion: he voted on an unrelated Afd, then made one-word edits to his user and user talk pages prior to voting keep on the Gastrich article, Jack Eggar. That's classic Gastrich: he makes an "innocent" edit, adds something small to his user and talk pages so they won't be redlinks, then moves to Gastrich editing. I'm still suspicious. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think there's reason to be suspicious certainly but let's give the benefit of the doubt (and/or the opportunity to slip up, which of late hasn't taken Jason long at all)? --kingboyk 01:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Judging by the contributions, the account is obviously a puppet. Whether it is sock or meat, I don't know, but this matter should probably head to WP:RFCU for clarification. Hexagonal 03:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you asked for a User Check? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Results were inconclusive. So apparently although opinion differs as to whether this is likely JG via sock or meat, my decision to unblock and watch seems to have been the correct choice. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the checkuser folks are tired of cleaning up Gastrich puppets. I made a perfectly reasonable checkuser request that got denied for a bogus reason. Apparently its already been investigated, even though this new batch of socks hasn't been checked for sleepers or non-disruptive (yet) puppets. How do I appeal the declination of a checkuser request? Hexagonal 03:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
There usually is no point; a suspected Gastrich sock is blocked indef. I've only had one I had any question about, and that is Please, do, which is unblocked (by me) less than two hours after blocking. What's the point of running checkuser on the obvious ones? RFCU have a backlog as it is. KillerChihuahua?!? 07:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jami

Two editors, SouthernComfort (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and ManiF (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), insist on placing a NPoV template on a section of this article, despite new citations having been added (though it wasn't clear that they were needed). Neither of them has responded to the discussion at Talk:Jami for about three days, yet they won't allow the template to be removed. This seems now to be no more than disruption, whetever it was at the beginning. Could other admins take a look at this (I placed it at RfC, but it's aroused little interest from editors checking those lists)? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Last time I placed a NPoV template on Jami, was on April 7th [33] right after I had fully explained my concerns on the talk page. [34] There is still an ongoing dispute over whether the section in question meets NPOV requirements. --ManiF 15:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
It's true that SouthernComfort is now the main culprit. There have been no responses from either of you since 7 April, although four other editors have responded to you both. With no discussion for three days, it's difficult to see what you mean by "ongoing" (though, oddly, that's the term SouthernComfort uses in his edit summaries when he replaces the tag). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aeurian Order

Not sure if this will prove to be a big deal, but AO Charles has informed me on my user page that I "have been identified as an anti-semitic agitator by the Aeurian Order," and that my "edits will be closely watched and reverted if neccessary.(sic)" I have responsed on his talk page: "I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you are not out of your mind. I'm a Jew. I'm the main author of Wikipedia's articles on Yiddish theater, and one of the two main contributors to secular Jewish culture. If I'm an 'anti-Semitic agitator', it is pretty hard to imagine who is not."

Normally I'd just write this off as, well, someone most likely out of his mind, but his user page claims that he is "a member of The Aeurian Order" and contains a link to User:AeurianOrder, which announces, among other things, "We intend to act as independant (sic) Wikipedia administrators. As all of our members are currently at college campuses, we have unlimited access to IP addresses… [I]f one or more of our members are banned we will just start up new accounts."

They claim to be an anti-vandalism group, but any group who could imagine that I am an anti-Semite is likely to have a pretty odd notion of vandalism. I suggest that people try to keep an eye on this. - Jmabel | Talk 17:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This user's other contributions are all adding the equivalent of "so-and-so is an anti-semite" to various articles. I'm tempted to roll them all back but welcome anyone else to have a look and see if there is any validity to the edits. Looks like trolling to me. Antandrus (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I've rolled back this user's hostile missives, and have deleted and blocked User:AeurianOrder as a misuse of a user account. I have also told this user to be more civil in his dealings with other users. JDoorjam Talk 03:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm honestly a little baffled by this guy. He just posted a harassing note to Jpgordon [35] -- what the heck?? Both Makemi and myself just now left notes for him. Antandrus (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest not feeding the troll anymore. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I have indef. blocked AO Charles as a troll. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfairly Blocked From Editing Own Page

My online nickname is Orsoni

IP address 212.138.64.179

My IP address has been blocked and now i can't edit my own pages.

I live in Saudi Arabia and most likely will get no help from my local ISP.

Do I have any other alternatives?

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orsoni (talk • contribs) .

Greetings: since you were able to edit this page, obviously you aren't using that IP. However, I just unblocked 212.138.64.179 for you; it was tagged as an open proxy more than a month ago. I'll AGF for now since the proxy scanner I've been using is down, and I see your good edits at that IP. Antandrus (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just tried editing again and I received a "User is Blocked" page showing my IP address as 212.138.64.174.

I wasn't aware that my IP address changes (I'm a newb). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orsoni (talk • contribs) .

OK I unblocked 212.138.64.174 as well. Both IPs had been used for vandalism a month or two ago. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DakotaKahn (talk · contribs) misrepresenting my edits as vandalism

I reported Beckjord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)'s block evasion on the Arbcom enforcement page, and DakotaKahn (talk · contribs) considers that vandalism without giving me an adequate explanation. I see a failure to assume good faith here. Can someone look into this? --69.117.7.63 03:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be cleared up; mistaking the insertion of a lot of content for the deletion of content. Ashibaka tock 03:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two blocks related to Islamism

I blocked Kyaa the Catlord (talk · contribs) for disruptive edit warring on Islamism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). He has asked to be unblocked. Please review; if anyone thinks 24 hours is too long, or the block is unwarranted, reduce or remove the block.

Related to the above, I blocked MuslimsofUmreka (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for personnal attacks, specifically [36]. Again, please review and change if appropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 02:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


As Tom has thoughtfully invited me to register my opinion, it is simply that

User:Kyaa the Catlord did nothing wrong. His “edit warring” came down to 1) reverting User:MuslimsofUmreka’s repeated unilateral removal of other editors’ disputed tags, to which I’d also objected and 2) restoring a consensus (except for MuslimsofUmreka) version of the article’s introduction, which we’d discussed at length on the talk page.

MuslimsofUmreka had editted the article to be an incoherent and highly POV discussion of the term itself, rather than of political Islamism as a real-world phenomenon as per the article’s original intent. At no point has he engaged in meaningful discussion, but merely repeats his fundamentalist position, which boils down to 1) all Muslims must be Islamists, or are not true Muslims 2) How dare you call all Muslims (by point 1) Islamists 3) you are all racists [sic.] and have no right to participate in editting this article. No matter what anyone says, he always returns to these points. Further he has repeatedly violated WP:NPA as well as WP:SOCK and WP:3RR, and indeed if Kyaa did anything “wrong” it was only to respond to rather than to ignore MOU’s abusive comments on Kyaa’s talk page.
Administrators erred in indulging his ceaseless requests for intervention to begin with while overlooking his egregious violations of wikipedia spirit and policy, and erred in blocking Kyaa the Catlord for attempting to put a stop to this nonsense.Timothy Usher 06:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I support the blocks. Edit warring is never OK, even if someone feels they are "in the right." · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 13:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


I've reset Katefan0's block on MuslimsofUmreka (talk · contribs) and applied it also to Eastern section of the nation (talk · contribs), for using transparent sockpuppetry to evade the original block. Tom Harrison Talk 18:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spammer admits he's seeding links on Wikipedia

While the servers were malingering this Sunday, I spent some time surfing the web & found this. Maybe I missed some important nuance in this article, but I can't help feeling that this [word that indicates I'm not assuming good faith towards this person] needs to be made an example of. At the least, I feel Petertdavis (it's a real account) has earned much bad faith by writing, "Thanks for the comments Derrick. I acknowledge your opinion, but don’t agree. Are you an employee of Wikimedia?" Discussion? I'll assume silence means consent to a permanent ban from Wikipedia for Mr Davis. -- llywrch 02:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Davis appears to be a true, blue white-hat SEO, so that would make his comments about "how to spam" sarcastic. Why don't you ask him on his blog what his intention is. Ashibaka tock 02:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
And just what is a "SEO" -- "Sarcastic Executive Officer"? His exchange with Derrick -- who was clearly trying to have a good-faith conversation with him -- made it clear that posting on Davis' blog would be as productive as talking to a brick wall. Sorry, try again. -- llywrch 03:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
He hasn't done anything nearly bad enough for a permanent ban. He just dislikes Wikipedia and experimented with spamming it once. We don't permablock other people for spamming once, we warn them. By the way, there's an obvious way on Wikipedia to find out what an SEO is. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, SEO = Search Engine Optimization. --Cyde Weys 03:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I hate it when I try to assume good faith and get taken for a ride. Though he does misinterpret what I would consider as being an established contributor, "a few good edits" is way below the criteria I would use to evaluate this. All in all, the result of this is that I'm likely to be less tolerant of linkspam in the future. Though I agree with the posts above that he hasn't done anything to deserve a perma ban, I've noted the sites he was spamming and now consider them nuke on sight. --GraemeL (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


Yes, Llywrch, you do seem to miss the point of my blog post. You won't find anyone more anti-spam than I am. I spend over an hour every day just dealing with spam on different websites I admin and moderate. Yes, it's often difficult to figure out intent behind links that someone drops. Also, the "Derrick Smith" who commented on that article is Bobby131313. GraemeL, yes my comment "a few good edits" is hyperbole, is hyperbole now worse than actual link spammers? How about focusing more on this comment I made "So, the question is, if the information violates copyright, why is Wikipedia linking to it? If the information doesn’t violate copyright, why isn’t the information put into Wikipedia itself? Seems to violate the spirit of Wikipedia"? And, Llywrch, if "Derrick" was trying to have a good faith conversation with me, why did he not use his real name, Bobby? IPs don't lie, but people do. But, the big question really is, are Wikipedia admins going to accept someone dropping dozens of links to their own website, particularly when the content at the end of the link is not original, and there's a question whether it violates copyrights of well established publications? Banning me isn't going to make that issue go away. Peter
I still can't get past the fact you first accused Derrick of being a Wikimedia employee well before it occured to you to determine if he was Bobby131313 -- expecially when it's well-known that Wikimedia has practically no paid employees. Even if you meant to ask him whether he was a regular contributor, your question still shows a lack of good faith on your part: you attacked the messenger, not the message. Add to that your interesting usage of "link spammer" in your blog entry, & I have to wonder if you truly understand the point of Wikipedia: how you used those two words alone made me suspicious of the intent of your blog post long before I read your comments. Coming here & stating that I "won't find anyone more anti-spam than I am" doesn't negate what I felt was your message -- that if a spammer wants to gets his links into Wikipedia, the first step is to con one or more Wikipedians to help with this.
Wikipedia is not a tool to increase sales or link clicks, it's a source of information. If you can do it with a link to a website outside of Wikipedia, I think it's great; but far too many external links have no informational value, & are added just to attract eyeballs. Unfortunately, Wikipedians try to act in good faith because we all make mistakes, & newbies make more than folks who have been around for a while, so folks like GraemeL & myself often leave a questionable edit alone as a token of trust. So when we discover that we've been taken advantage by a link spammer -- as your blog indicates we were or can be -- we're more likely to be a little more suspicious of the next newbie who crosses the line, or a little more frustrated with the experiment that is Wikipedia -- or both. Your blog entry encourages this kind of abuse of trust that we are struggling to create on Wikipedia.
If you're not here to build a great encyclopedia, then don't waste the time of those who are. And social experiments like yours -- also known to some of us as trolling -- waste our time. -- llywrch 20:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Llywrch, that's what I'm trying to say. Exactly that. You should be a little (maybe even a LOT) more suspicious of the next newbie who starts off by inserting dozens of links to their own website. That's exactly what I'm saying. While I may be lacking in the protocals of Wikipedia, I have been fighting this sort of thing for years. My blog isn't going to bring more spammers here, they're already here. They're all around. Some are just much more stealthy than others. Regarding my comment about "Derrick" (his real name is Bobby, aka Bobby131313) being a Wikimedia employee, that was sarcasm. I'm sorry if my delivery fell flat on that. I didn't for a minute think he really was. Perhaps I can be accused of trolling, but, just maybe, what I'm saying will bring a greater awareness to the administrators here about the nature of link spammers. And, if I can do that, I am helping you build a great encyclopedia. And, that brings me back to the question I asked before, "if the information violates copyright, why is Wikipedia linking to it? If the information doesn’t violate copyright, why isn’t the information put into Wikipedia itself? Seems to violate the spirit of Wikipedia"? One of the most common types of search engine spam is people who copy content from other sources and republish it as their own work. Wikipedia seems to be particularly vulnerable to this type of manipulation, as at first glance, websites such as the one in my example, are packed full of useful information. It's extremely difficult for the search engines to determine which is the original source of this content, and I don't suppose it's any easier for Wikipedia editors. However, I think it's something important to keep in mind when all of you are considering proper editorial control on external linkage. It's a minefield of a subject. Peter

I don't understand why this horse continues to be beaten. I have never once said or claimed that the information linked to is original.

I'll explain it again. The coin facts and grading guidelines are taken from the 2005 Redbook (out of print). The facts are mintage numbers, compositions, edge types, and the like. No creative content whatsoever. How can a fact be copyrighted? If Nascar publishes the winner of a race on their site, I can't? It's no different. The grading guidelines are just a list of criteria which are strictly opinions. Again, no creative content. Copyrighted? I think not. The coin histories are used with permission and credit given. They are not even on the original publishers site anymore.

FYI, the "How to Spam Wikipedia" article seems to be snowballing here and here and here so far. Bobby 23:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 18:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Not again... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • SPUI, this is probably the eighth time that Curps' bot has blocked you. Please slow down that page moves. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have any suggestions for the best place to resolve this dispute? I've asked Curps to do something about it with no response. This is an unauthorized use of a bot, and admins are getting tired of cleaning up after it. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 19:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

SPUI, are you sure that there is a consensus on this latest round of pagemoves? I just want to make sure that you're doing some uncontroversial moves rather than controversial moves, which you previously got in trouble for. --Cyde Weys 03:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there seems to have been consensus on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Illinois State Routes. I checked before I unblocked him. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, this one had both consensus from the real names and consensus from editors. But Curpsbot assumes bad faith. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 03:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
And Curpsbot is a necessary evil. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not think this is the bot's fault; I ask again that if SPUI is doing mass page moves, please slow down to where this heading does not show up on AN/I again. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
You act like I have a button marked "slow down enough to avoid Curpsbot". Not so. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 09:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you are anthropomorphizing the bot, as if it was thinking evil cybernetic thoughts (I'm sorry, SPUI, I can't open the pod bay doors). -- Curps 08:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm anthropomorphizing your actions through the bot. Either you are not in complete control of the bot, in which case you should be blocked, or you are, in which case you are responsible for its actions. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 09:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

At this point I think SPUI should just get used to it as an inevitable fact of life :-P Cyde Weys 08:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If there's a consensus on this, can't you get other people to share the work? --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Rob requested that a bot do the moving, but got no response. I guess I'm just willing to do a lot of grunt work.--SPUI (T - C - RFC) 09:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you could just make the grunting a bit slower. That would cause decidedly less disruption. You haven't actually got a right to move many pages very quickly. Do it slowly and I find it difficult to imagine you'll be blocked. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
...The only disruption here was the Curpsbot block. As I said, I don't have a fucking button marked "slow down enough to avoid Curpsbot". This is how I have always moved pages. Now my improvements to the encyclopedia are being bot-blocked as vandalism. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 21:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
That's your problem, not ours.
I checked, and since January 1, the Curpsbot has issued 42 block. The last ten:


The complete list is at User:Calton/Sandbox#Page_Move_blocks. Most are Willys on Wheels sockpuppets, and almost all the rest are garden-variety vandals. Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) seems to been triggered the bot by accident, and most of SPUI's blocks to to be from his unilateral moves in his one-man war on highway names.
In short, the bot performs a valuable vandal-fighting service, and if SPUI gets caught up in it he should slow down: his alleged inability to slow down isn't anyone's problem but his own. Rapid-fire page moving is not a constitutional right, and given SPUI's track record, allowing him to do rapid-fire page moves is probably not a good idea to begin with. --Calton | Talk 00:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Civility please. You seem short on it. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 03:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
"Mr. Pot? It's Mr. Kettle on line two. He says you're black." Laying out facts which contradict you = incivility: got it. --Calton | Talk 05:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Did you just call me black? Racist :P --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 06:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I just realized I can uncheck the "move talk page" box, and probably avoid the bot. Of course then the talk page would not be moved. Most are just wikiproject boxes, but there is some useful stuff. Any comments? --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 21:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why he doesn't just whitelist your name. And if there's no facility with his bot to have a whitelist, he should add one, it can't be that hard. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Really. That borders on no-brainer. Where's the Lady from Philadelphia when you need her? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that given SPUI's track record, that's not a good idea. --Calton | Talk 05:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
He whitelists admins. I disagree with the idea of a whitelist, as it creates one more division between haves and have-nots. I've written some more on the issue at User:SPUI/Curpsbot. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 06:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Never mind. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I think SPUI should be whitelisted too. I understand why admins are whitelisted, although I do agree that it sucks that that creates a user/admin divide, but the admin list is a good list of trusted users. But I think that almost any user with a significant list of contributions who gets tagged by the bot when they're doing legitimate work should be whitelisted. If they do something against policy, that can be addressed separately. moink 08:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Half of these moves are controversial though... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
More then half I'd say. A user who is acting unilaterally without consensus when there is opposition is definitely not worthy of whitelisting and is definitely violating WP:BOLD. JohnnyBGood 18:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user:Kashk

user:Kashk had removed two large sections from the article anti-Arabism [37]. His edit has not been reverted yet.

A few hours later, he accuses user:Aucaman of vandalizing, he claims that Aucaman removed content from Wikipedia. [38] Inahet 05:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(Non-admin view) With respect to the first complaint, from what I can tell, a section of the article was removed consistent with a discussion on the talk page. Curps, ostensibly avolitionally, reverted the edit, and Khashayar returned the page to the form about which talk page agreement existed. Joe 05:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, but I don't see any evidence of an agreement on the talk page. Actually, the user who had orginally added the information decided to remove it because he felt he was being harrassed by user user:ManiF. From my experience dealing with user:Kashk (and he is aligned with ManiF) I can tell you that user:Kashk's edit was based on personal reasons rather than on a supposed consenual agreement on the talk page.--Inahet 06:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I think we should assume good faith for now. His actions seem to be in sync with what was discussed on the talk page. --Khoikhoi 19:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Khash's talk page. He does have a history of asserting his version of a page to be correct, and accusing those who change his edits to be 'vandals'. --InShaneee 19:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta

This is the oddest case I have seen in a long time. Either Rikki Lee Travolta is the greatest actor of his generation or the greatest astroturfer of his generation. All the accounts listed here share very unusual characteristics; they were all opened months ago; their only articles in the main space have been to Rikki's article or to insert information about him into other articles; and they have all suddenly rushed to his defense once the article was nominated for deletion. It doesn't seem to fit the requirements for a checkuser since their participation does not seem likely to change the vote outcome. However they look like rather obvious sock puppets and if someone with more experience thinks this is a good use of Checkuser could you please crosspost it for me? Thanks.

Paramountpr (talk · contribs)
Sonybmg (talk · contribs)
Brotherstork (talk · contribs)
Bostic 5.0 (talk · contribs)
65.209.181.195 (talk · contribs)
Icemountain2 (talk · contribs)
Hardwoodhaywood (talk · contribs)
Cokenotpepsi (talk · contribs)

Thatcher131 06:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I would keep an eye on them in case they start editing other non-notable people and movies/books, but the Travolta articles are gone, so unless they start barnstorming on DRV, I wouldn't worry about it. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doom127, The Eye, & Jean-Luc Picard

Earlier this evening, I intervened in what was quickly becoming an edit war between Cyde (talk · contribs) and Doom127 (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jedi6. Cyde had made a comment using the Wikipedia-specific spelling of "rouge admin" (rather than "rogue admin") and Doom127 corrected it to rogue; Cyde then reverted, Doom127 reverted, and it continued until I stepped in, returned it to Cyde's spelling (it was, after all, his comment, and he's entitled to spell or misspell as he sees fit) and left a note on Doom127's talk page, pointing out that it was inappropriate to alter other users' comments, especially to eidt war over such, and noting that he was approaching violation of 3RR. Doom127 responded with several rapid-fire edits to Jedi6's RfA (see Special:Contributions/Doom127), ultimately changing his support for Jedi to strong oppose, based on his apparent fury at my warning him. He continued with a rash of incivil and enraged edits until blocked for three hours by Pgk (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), to give him time to clam down and avoid doing things he would regret.

In looking into the situation further, I noticed a series of such explosions and subsequent temporary departures, as well as an odd similarity with another user, The Eye (talk · contribs). On a hunch that there might be sockpuppetry involved (see this edit, as well as the similarity in contributions between the two accounts), I ran a checkuser, and discovered that Doom127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), The Eye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), & Jean-Luc Picard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) are all without question the same user.

The three accounts have been used to triple vote on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jedi6, as well as to game the Three Revert Rule on a number of video-game related articles; additionally, specific IP addresses used by these contributors (and only these contributors, across two separate ISPs) have been used to violate 3RR. Interestingly, within minutes of Doom127's explosion, Jean-Luc Picard shows up to change his vote to oppose as well. I suspect that given sufficient time, The Eye would do the same.

Given that I am involved in the situation, both as the bureaucrat that extended the Jedi RfA, and as an admin warning Doom127 on the disruptive edits to the RfA, I don't feel neutral enough to tag and block the sockpuppets, and take action on Doom127. I strongly encourage an uninvolved admin to look into the matter, tag and block the socks ({{SockpuppetCheckuser}} should be used), and consider what to do about Doom127. If the community feels it necessary, I'm willing to raise the issue to Arbitration, and forward my evidence to the AC. Additionally, I'm willing to provide my results to another checkuser if they would like to review my findings. Essjay Talk • Contact 09:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, someone should strike the sockpuppet votes on Jedi's RfA, and at least note the bad faith involved with Doom127's, if not striking entirely. Essjay Talk • Contact 09:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmmph, I resemble that characterization that I was getting into an edit war. --Cyde Weys 09:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Cyde & I both just rangeblocked 4.243.60.0/24 as it is one of the ranges used by these three, and has been vandalizing Jedi's RfA non-stop; my block for three hours should clear both blocks when it expires. If there is collateral damage, unblock. Essjay Talk • Contact 09:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The IP's were also blanking Jedi's user page and talk page. This was followed by blanking my user page after I blocked 3 of them. I ended up blocking both User:I am the lizard queen! & User:TAt this rate we're gonna run out of usernames! indefinitely for the same actions. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

At this point involved/uninvolved doesn't matter. This guy launched an all out assault, using various IP addresses and over a dozen sockpuppets. This guy is a vandal, clear as day. I've taken the liberty of striking out his votes on the RFA in question and indefinitely banning all of his sockpuppets. Someone still needs to decide what to do with the main account, Doom127, however. --Cyde Weys 10:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

He's still blocked but for only another 25 minutes. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps someone should extend the block, even if only for 24 hours to give us plenty of time to talk over what to do. Essjay Talk • Contact 10:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Now blocked for 24 hours. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Think you can make it a permanant block, old chum? After all, that WAS the intention (I've left a little on Cambridge's page regarding the care and feeding of them and the purpose of such). It takes a lot of work to create three sockpuppets AND have them have unnoticed edits for the better part of a month in order to create an account implosion. What's the point of me going to all the trouble if I can't get an indefinite block? Cheers! -- user:doom127 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Classical Music Fan (talk • contribs) 11:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
User has been blocked indefinitely as another self-proclaimed sockpuppet. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Bloody hell. Of COURSE I'm a "self proclaimed" sockpuppet! I already TOLD you that I've been planning this bloody thing ever since my first runin with that filthy molehill Cyde. Now, given that you've already blocked my lovely Classical Music Fan account as a sockpuppet of Doom127, would you please block the Doom127 account? It all seems anticlimactic now, to be honest with you. For shame, having to ask for a block on myself. Do I really have to spend another hour spoofing IPs? Bloody hell. --- user:doom127—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.242.12.194 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Striked the user. Another sock-puppet/vandal. Notice to admins - Please block ip as you see fit. Especially see talk page of the ip. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but after seeing Doom losing his temper over the spelling of rouge, and creating and using sockpuppets for bad purposes, I think hen should be blocked for an additional week. Note that I had no experience with him until Jedi6's RfA, so I am not one you should probably listen to.--ac1983fan-Talk 14:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Doom127 created and updated. Claming for indef block for Doom127, if he is a proclaimed and comproved sockpuppet guy. --Pinoi 01:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't get it, Brazil4Linux. I created multiple sockpuppets, wildly violated Wikipedia policy, harassed and insulted multiple admins, disrupted an RFA AND even went on here asking for an indefinite ban, and all I get was this lousy t-shirt... err, I mean a 24 hour block? I would have thought only one of these things would have been enough to merit an indef. What gives? Daniel Davis 20:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please review 3RR block

I blocked Goodandevil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) for 24 hours for a 3RR violation on abortion. The four edits are [39], [40], [41] and [42]. As you can see, the fouth edit is a simple blanking of the paragraph objected to, rather than replacing it with the previous version, presumably to avoid a 4th revert?

Anyway, since the user has objected to the block on the grounds that I'm involved in editing the article in question (which I am), I request a review of my action by other admins. I thought it was a fairly open-and-shut case, but I'm open to feedback. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't have done it yourself, but those are certainly four reverts (counting the wholesale removal of the section) by most people's accounting. Mackensen (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No objections here. I ran into Goodandevil in the past and it was more of the same. --Cyde Weys 17:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

By the book, as GTBacchus wasn't participating in the edit war; rather trying to stop it with discussion on talk pages; I think he was sufficiently removed. - RoyBoy 800 21:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I would say that the fourth revert, while not technically a revert, was definitely intended to have the same effect — that of removing the paragraph that Goodandevil objected to. I did wonder at the time about GTBacchus carrying out the block himself rather than reporting it. If there's any admin who can definitely be trusted to be fair to those on the opposing side as well as those on his own side, it's GTBacchus. (I say that as someone who has the opposite POV from his.) Nevertheless, to avoid giving people cause to complain (you blocked this editor and you didn't block that one), I think it's more prudent for us not to carry out blocks on pages or editors we're involved with (except, perhaps, in cases of obvious sockpuppetry). If GTBacchus had reported instead of blocking, I'm sure another admin would have blocked. That said, I fully agree with RoyBoy that he wasn't participating in the edit war, and was therefore not in violation of the blocking policy which says, "sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute." AnnH ♫ 00:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal Reporting - Ban

Wwjd2009 has repeatedly blanked information within the article New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc. NPOV discussions have been ignored. Vandalism warnings have also been ignored. Last warning given 4/4/06. Last vandalism by Wwdj2009 done 4/10/06.

[edit] Gator1 again

User:Kibbles and bits and stuff put a welcome message on Gator1's user page and talk page[43]. These were the only edits of that user. I deleted both the user page and talk page, per the discussion above. But who is this user? And what's the deal? Someone who knows more about this situation than I do should look into this. I'm still on wikibreak, by the way. Chick Bowen 16:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems odd that a new user's first and only contrib would be to add a welcome template to Gator1's talk page, but maybe AGF on the account I guess. I'd be inclined to support semiprotecting Gator1's userpages until this blows over a bit. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that would preclude keeping them deleted, which was decided above was the best course. Has anyone ever done a buzilla request for the possibility of a true protection for a deleted page (i.e., preserve red links but for non-admins nothing would happen when you clicked on them), rather than {{deletedpage}}? Chick Bowen 20:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK the pages only need to be completely blank until Google has purged its caches, then they can be protected. But see above for a discussion from someone who sounds like he knows what he was talking about. Thatcher131 23:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mike the Chick

I'm not sure if this is appropriate, but I couldn't think of any other way to contact adm. I just wanted point to out that this user has made invaluable contributions to my 17th Century Poetry page and would like to know how I can award him a barnstar or somethingJonathann 17:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Just my two cents here: User:Mike the Chick vandalized my homepage at one time so I dont feel he deserves a barnastar.Ripitup! 18:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? You don't have any edits other than this one? What are you talking about? JoshuaZ 18:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please eleborate. I am terribly confused. I feel dizzy and am about to vomit from this vertigo inducing confusionWishIWasAdmn. 18:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
All 3 have only ever posted here and are clearly the same person. User:Mike the Chick doesn't exist. I suggest indef blocks for all 3, looks like round 2 of the "look I can post as multiple people at the same time" exhibition. --kingboyk 18:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Any objections to me blocking all 3 (Jonathann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Ripitup! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) WishIWasAdmn. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)) indefinitely as disruptive accounts/probable sockpuppets? --kingboyk 20:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
By all means, pwn away. JDoorjam Talk 20:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Done. --kingboyk 20:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
King-boy: I have noticed that your threshold for doing a block is approaching zero. Please consider taking a Wikibreak, maybe like Ashibaka and Gator1 just did. You are helping to ruin Wikiculture. -- 68.123.47.30 01:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else smell sock? --InShaneee 01:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ingoring Mr. In-Shaneeeeee's snide remark; King-boy: I see that you are doing Category work. Good for you! Uh, please keep up the good work and please do not do any admin work for a month or two until you get a little less trigger-happy. Thank you for your constructive contributions to Wikipedia. -- 68.123.47.30 02:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of admins, Kingboyk. They're making nasty comments about you. Good work. And keep it up. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muppeteer blocked a 2nd time for uploading bad images

I've blocked User:Muppeteer for a 2nd time, as he has continued to upload images with unacceptable source or copyright information. I doubled the block length, from 1 day to 2 days. I intend to continue to double the length, until either the account is blocked for a year, or no-more unusable images are uploaded. Just letting the WP:AN crowd know. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet more proof the dev's need to impliment an upload flag for users that can be toggled on and off.  ALKIVAR™ 20:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed Alkivar Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 22:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khoikhoi

Khoikhoi violated the three revert rule two times by vandalizing my userpage. OghuzRaider 19:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet go home. Mackensen (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Smells like Inanna. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
This account has been blocked indefinitely, please see the block log for details. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
By two sysops at the same time. Now that's *blocked*! Mackensen (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

When i have reverted two times i was blocked but when khoikhoi reverts three times, nothing happens(!) Whatever, i won't discuss the double standards of yours.I hope you learn not to favour anyone just because same countries...I have never edited any articles since i was blocked.The all i want is deletion of the IP adresses.There is no user such as -Inanna- anymore.Even i didn't edit any articles by most of those IPs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.90.135 (talk • contribs)

IP blocked for 24 hours as yet another attempt to circumvent -Inanna-'s block. --InShaneee 19:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
It won't make any difference. As you can see, her IP changes all the time. As Clown suggested, we need an IP range block. --Khoikhoi 19:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
It would probably cause too much collateral damage. Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
You mean by blocking all of Istanbul? That's collateral damage. --Khoikhoi 20:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
It could be worse. Istanbul is not Constantinople. --Cyde Weys 23:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I get it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:RememberOctober29

This user has a long history of attempts to add a screed to the Steve Jobs page. After an absence from WP, he has returned, put a nasty note on my personal (not Talk) page, blanked the vandalism warnings from his Talk page, and started vandalizing Steve Jobs again. -- Gnetwerker 19:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it appears User:Mackensen came to the same conclusion I was about to: User:RememberOctober29 has been blocked for 24 hours for disruption. With luck we won't have precisely the same discussion at this time tomorrow.... JDoorjam Talk 19:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gnetwerker

This user has repeatedly vandalized my edits and my discussion page. He is oblivious to the rules of Wikipedia and is working on behalf of Apple computer. He is here with multiple names and accounts and ignores discussion pages, in favor of real vandalism mostly targeted at Apple and related articles. User:RememberOctober29 19:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

See thread directly above. JDoorjam Talk 19:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Gnetwerker should be permanently banned for false reporting of abuse. I believe he has mod access as User:Mackensen who blocked me for absolutely no valid reason besides the fact that my edit conflicted with his personal interests. The block occured immediately after User:Gnetwerker vandalzed my edits to the Steve Jobs article. User:RememberOctober29 11:44 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Double bubble sort

User editing from several IP addresses keeps reverting the redirect at Double bubble sort, making the same argument as User:Irate, who is banned indefinitely by order of Jimbo. Gazpacho 20:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page in the form of a redirect until sources justifying a separate page are forthcoming. Angr (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Gabbard

Could someone take a look at Mike Gabbard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)? There's a dispute over an external link to this Anti-Mike Gabbard site, and I'd like to be sure I'm not misunderstanding anything. Tom Harrison Talk 20:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling by encouraging socks?

[44] This is just bizarre. New user is going to banned user's talk pages and encouraging them to establish new accounts. I doubt this is news to anyone, but i'd consider it trolling. --Mmx1 22:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering that that account's first edit came right about the time of this:

15:26, April 10, 2006, Marudubshinki (Talk) blocked #136003 (expires 15:26, April 11, 2006) (Unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Snowtroper". The reason given for Snowtroper's block is: "since you refuse to dialogoue about your wrong and unsourced edits, you are a vandal. good)
And because the first edit was to Snowtroper's Talk page, I have a feeling it's probably Snowtroper. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed the comments as coming from a blocked user and blocked the account indefinitely. I can't think of any way that this could not be seen as abusive sockpuppetry. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template namespace initialisation script blocked?

Template_namespace_initialisation_script (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), a script used by Tim Starling quite a while ago, has been doing edits that are extremely suspicious related to the North Carolina vandal. I saw when looking at the block log and it surprised me, because I assume the account is compromised, and don't know if someone cracking down its password could have bigger security implications for the site. What's going on? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That's just a vandal. The old scripts ran under pseudo accounts that nevertheless weren't actually real accounts. Some vandals are rediscovering the name of these scripts and actually registering user accounts under those names, thus hoping to disguise themselves as the script. Needless to say, vandals should be blocked immediately no matter what their username is. Also see WP:BOTS ... bots/scripts should be blocked immediately if they're malfunctioning or vandalizing. --Cyde Weys 23:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't seen today's user creation log. I do remember that the initialization scripts were given a user ID of 0, but I thought those usernames were reserved and therefor ineligible for creation. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expletive username

I believe using a Spanish expletive as a user name is against Wikipedia guidance. What is the normal procedure for dealing with someone like user:Hijo de puta? Elroch 01:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Username block, just as though it were in English. As you can see, [45] it's been done. His only edit was vandalism anyway. Antandrus (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - not sure how I managed to miss that. I wonder if the IP address associated with this user was at all familiar? Elroch 17:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Freestyle.king

I have blocked Freestyle.king (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) indefinitely for disruption, personal attacks, and vandalism. —Guanaco 02:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

N1u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) appears to be a sockpuppet of this user intended to impersonate Nlu. Also blocked indefinitely. —Guanaco 03:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you please link to some specific diffs from Freestyle.king? I perused some of his latest edits and they appeared legit. --Cyde Weys 03:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Happy_Happy_Happy.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=47896565 (vandalism)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jiang&diff=prev&oldid=47624627 (personal attacks)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NickBush24&diff=prev&oldid=47367486 (general nonsense)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiwan_independence&diff=prev&oldid=43839012 (POV pushing)
Those are a few of the more recent examples of disruptive edits. —Guanaco 03:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Good enough for me. Based on those edit summaries I would be willing to support a block of no less than a week. You say he's been doing this for awhile, so I'll believe you and support the indef block. --Cyde Weys 05:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, is there a user named freestyle frape or something close to it? Are we sure that this now blocked account was used to impersonate that above user or no? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to believe there is any relationship or attempted impersonation between Freestyle.king and Freestylefrappe. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lou franklin

I have blocked Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) for a week for vandalism and extreme disruption on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and its talk page. —Guanaco 03:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I have blocked him indefinitely. Wikipedia has gained absolutely nothing from his presence, as Lou's only edits have been to Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and related discussion pages. —Guanaco 03:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

see also: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lou_franklin/Proposed_decision KimvdLinde 04:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I am going to revert the block back to a week, due to what Guanaco said about "Wikipedia has gained absolutely nothing from his presence". That disagrees with the statements of most of the editors on the affected article, who say that he has been helpful in making the article NPOV, however he is just too hard to work with. An indef block is not on the table in the ArbCom case either, so I don't think it's justified. Thanks for being willing to deal with these troublesome issues, though. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
he does not learn anything, see this diff which is clearly uncivil. --KimvdLinde 04:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Whether Lou actually did help is questionable, as when he came in other editors were already looking at the article and seeing how it could be made more POV. He's certainly not been in the least bit helpful for weeks. That said, I support reducing the block to one week and leaving this to the ArbCom. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:VaughanWatch

VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is one of the subjects of an RfC that has been vandalizing the RfC and the talk pages of involved users, despite being warned to stop. A quick look through his contribution history will confirm this, but I particularly want to point out the removal of the list of his confirmed sockpuppets from the RfC, and again, repeat vandalism of Leotardo's talk page, and the thanks I get for trying to teach him the rules. He has already been blocked once, and continues to ignore the rules. Mangojuice 12:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked them for 48 hours and am considering a longer block if they don't show improvement. --Syrthiss 15:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] problem in the making

  • 80.220.222.68 (talk · contribs) anon editor shows up and starts making wild personal attacks in order to derail an article, ignores all requests to cease vandalism as well--IworkforNASA 14:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually IworkforNASA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is jumping from one article to another making disruptive edits and leaving misleading, often insulting, comments.--Pro-Lick 15:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually Pro-Lick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) seems to the one doing that, which really makes me wonder who our friend 80.220.222.68 is--IworkforNASA 15:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • IworkforNASA is using edit summaries to make personal attacks against other editors, calling them idiots. Acuses User:80.220.222.68 of sock puppetry without any proof. Doesn't seem to understand what a sock puppet is. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 15:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • And removing warnings from its talk page, calling them reversions.diff As far as I can tell, none of the edits have actually contributed anything. Seem to be either POV pushing or simple reversions to a prior version. This is all very clear looking at IworkforNASA's contributions. The username also seems to be stretching username rules.--Pro-Lick 16:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

IworkforNASA's use of vandalism templates to attempt to stifle edits by the anon when the edits were a content dispute are not helpful. The anon is obviously not a newbie, since they know about 3RR, but IworkforNASA's edits on the George Bush impeachment page are highly POV, and the anon was attempting to correct them. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page move vandalism

Platyplus_milky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) moved User:NSLE's userpage and user talk page to various different destinations, including 阳萎ＳＢ欠肏, 二百五小流氓SB, 弱智太监，十八岁就给人切掉阳具去做鸭, and Talk:弱智太监，十八岁就给人切掉阳具去做鸭. I've moved them back to where they belong, and warned Platyplus not to move other people's pages. I don't know if these Chinese titles (now all redirects) need to be kept for evidence or anything. If not, let me know and I'll delete them. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It's also disturbing that it stayed this way for three hours, and I only noticed by chance. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to delete them...they're personal attacks in Chinese. See zh:太监. --HappyCamper 15:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Angr (talk • contribs) 15:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced image on main page

Image:FBK1948hurdles.jpg has no source, only several places the image can be downloaded. There is no information on who the actual copyright holder is, and thus it cannot be used under fair use. I have tagged the image talk page as no source, as the actual image page is protected. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 17:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Johnleemk for responding on IRC and replacing it with a free image. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 17:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gibraltarian/User:212.120.227.111 evading block?

The IP address 212.120.227.111 is being used to repeatedly edit the page Falkland Islands away from a hard-won consensus. The IP appears to be that of blocked user User:Gibraltarian. -- Gnetwerker 18:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rock

Somebody altered the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_%28geology%29

to include 'crack rockss', a fairly obvious allusion to illegal drug use.

Taken care of. In the future, feel free to make the necessary changes yourself. Isopropyl 19:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Herschelkrustofsky

I would like to block Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs) for violation of LaRouche 1, LaRouche 2, and Nobs01, which placed him on indefinite probation and prohibited him from making edits related to Lyndon LaRouche.

He recently engaged in an edit war at Synarchism, deleting or modifying criticism of LaRouche six times over a couple of days. [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] I left a note on his talk page warning him that his edits were a violation of the arbcom rulings. [52] [53]

wHe stopped editing the article, but yesterday left a note for another LaRouche activist, BirdsOfFire (talk · contribs), asking him to make the edits instead, [54] which BirdsOfFire did a few hours later, even though he's only an occasional editor (90 edits in four months.) [55] I see Herschelkrustofsky's use of BirdsOfFire, whether as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, as a violation of the ruling and of his probation, and I'd therefore like to block Herschel for three days and reset the ban on LaRouche-related editing. Other input would be much appreciated. I've pasted the pertinent rulings below. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest getting an immediate ip check on BirdsOfFire because if it is indeed a sock (as the patterns appear to be the same and the infrequency of the BirdsOfFire edits seem to suggest) then indef. block... I would also suggest bringing this back up to the arbcom if this continues for potential re-evaluation of the ruling to see if an indef. ban might be needed for Herschelkrustofsky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pegasus1138 (talk • contribs)
  • CheckUser confirms both userids are using the same IP ranges. Jayjg (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Jay and Pegasus. I've blocked BirdsOfFire indefinitely as a sockpuppet and I'm going to block Herschel for three days and reset the ban. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I've also banned Herschel from editing Synarchism in accordance with Nobs01 and Wikipedia:Probation. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, at this point it may be worth it to ask the arbcom to revisit the ruling since Hershcel has repeatedly violated the ruling and has created numerous sockpuppets to try to get around it, though for the love of me I don't see how anyone can be so obsessed about Lyndon Larouche to purposefully violate 5 or 6 major guidelines at a time trying to POV skew the article about him. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 05:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
This is getting absurd. I don't mind spending time or conceding points to get articles right, but it ticks me off when it turns out that other editors are pulling stunts that make the job more difficult or that take advantage of the system. The aggressive POV pushing by HK and (what have turned out to be) his puppets is an abuse consensus and of our open editing. In previous ArbCom cases HK could argue that he aided the project on topics unrelated (or barely-related) to LaRouche, like classical music, but recently he has only worked on LaRouche-related articles. I don't think that anopther ArbCom case is needed - the previous cases included addtional enforcement procedures that we just need to follow. -Will Beback 06:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I use one computer only. No one else has access to this computer. It automatically logs on to this screen name, and I never log off this screen name. SlimVirgin's accusations of sockpuppetry are an entirely fraudulent and dishonest vehicle for pushing her POV. As far as IP ranges are concerned, I access the internet from an AOL account in the Los Angeles area; there may well be a few dozen other Wikipedia editors who are using these IP ranges as you read this post.

I don't know what the IP addresses are, but I'm guessing they're the same ones that were identified during LaRouche 2 that seemed to have been used by you and at least one of the other LaRouche accounts. In my view, it's more than a cooincidence that another person using AOL in Los Angeles uses the same two IP ranges, edits the same articles from the same LaRouche POV, and even though he hasn't edited in days is there within hours to revert to your version after you ask him to on his talk page. Of course, that doesn't mean you're necessarily the same person; it could be another member of the LaRouche movement that you use as a back-up, but that counts as sockpuppetry for the purposes of LaRouche 2. I don't see what difference it makes, in terms of your probation, whether you're physically making LaRouche edits or asking someone else to. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
You have made accusations of sockpuppetry, and yet you "don't know what the IP addresses are"; you're "guessing." I would like Jayjg to come forward and reveal the IP addresses involved, in order to take the guesswork out of this. But then you say that it doesn't really matter, that BirdsOfFire is a "member of the LaRouche movement" anyway. Well, he says he isn't on his talk page, and you routinely brand anyone that gets in your a way a "LaRouche activist." You say that I "asked BirdsOfFire to make the edits instead"; my words on his talk page were "I wanted to call your attention to another article, Synarchism, which the Berlet crowd is attempting to convert into a soapbox." Since we are talking about further admin sanctions against my editing, I think that you ought to have the decency to come up with some real evidence, instead of a bunch of half-truths.--HK 23:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

2. The article Synarchism has not historically been regarded as a "LaRouche article"; it does not appear on the "LaRouche template," and I did not add material about LaRouche to this article. User:172, in collusion with User:Will Beback, began adding original research, in the form of gratuitous and irrelevant misrepresentations of LaRouche's ideas, to the article, and I objected. SlimVirgin and her cohorts designate articles as "LaRouche related" at their pleasure, just as they designate any editor who questions her tactics as a "LaRouche activist" (as SlimVirgin did BirdsOfFire in this instance, or as Will Beback designated User:Northmeister after that user disagreed with him on the talk page of American System (economics).)

What counts as an article closely related to LaRouche is up to the administrator, and these edits were about LaRouche. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Likewise, re-setting my ban for yet another year, based on spurious charges of sockpuppetry, should be regarded as an example of SlimVirgin's underhanded Nacht und Nebel tactics at their worst. I will emphasize in closing that SlimVirgin and Will Beback are not disinterested Wikipedia admins, merely trying to bring order and make the trains of Wikipedia run on time. They are both impassioned anti-LaRouche activists. One of SlimVirgin's first interventions into Wikipedia was the creation of the attack article Jeremiah Duggan, which is basically a mirror for the Justice for Jeremiah website, created by Chip Berlet and the usual gang. Will Beback obsessively compiles lists (see User:Will Beback/LaRouche topics) of every article ever edited by myself, or by other editors that he has designated as "LaRouche editors." The two of them constantly compare notes, and they are generally comically misinformed about the objects of their vendetta (see this example.)The actions taken against me by these two, under color of enforcing ArbCom decisions, are POV warfare, scantily disguised as administrative action. --HK 20:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You've tried many times to tar me with the label "anti-LaRouche activist." If that were true, I'd have rushed to the LaRouche pages to delete your pro-LaRouche edits as soon as you were banned, but in fact I've hardly looked at them. My interest is only in making sure you don't introduce even more POV, and that you abide by the terms of the arbcom rulings. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a division of labor here; slanting the LaRouche articles in a defamatory way (in violation of WP:BLP) is Cberlet's job, with some assistance from 172. Your job is to bite the newcomers, bullying them and threatening to ban them (or simply banning them outright, as you did BirdsOfFire,) combined with frequent reverts with no edit summaries. Will Beback wikistalks and harasses anyone who objects. However, your credentials as an anti-LaRouche activist were already established in your first month at Wikipedia, when you authored the attack article Jeremiah Duggan. Although I know of no Wikipedia policy that says you should recuse yourself from the use of admin powers in controversies where you play such a partisan role, I should think that common decency would dictate that you do so. --HK 23:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The 23:45, 3 April 2006 post on this page by Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs) (see above) is a personal attack on four longtime Wikipedia editors: SlimVirgin, Cberlet, Will Beback, and me. In summary, Herschelkrustofsky is accusing Cberlet and me of 'defamation' of Lyndon LaRouche, SlimVirgin of writing bad-faith "attack artilce" related to the tragic death of Jeremiah Duggan, and Will Beback of "wikistalking." The attacks violate Herschelkrustofsky's arbcom probation stemming from the Nobs and others decision. According to the most recent arbcom ruling, if Herschelkrustofsky is disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia by making the personal attacks such as the ones posted above, admins are supposed to note the following:

Herschelkrustofsky is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained in a section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others. Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed, Herschelkrustofsky's probation shall automatically end.

Arbcom rulings are meaningless unless admins enforce them. If Herschelkrustofsky is causing disruption on the administrators' noticeboard, the arbcom instructs admins to block him for up to one year for disregarding his probation. 172 | Talk 02:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should propose an enforcement in this case, pursuant to the ArbCom's rulings. -Will Beback 18:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to request a review (by unbiased, third party administrators) of SlimVirgin's actions in blocking me and re-setting the one year ban. BirdsOfFire is not my sockpuppet, and I would like to see some sort of evidence that would justify SlimVirgin's actions, other than her own POV agenda. I would likewise like to request a review of Will Beback's actions in blocking me and re-setting my ban on September 30 of 2005, after he had initiated an edit war at the article American System (economics). I had not added material on LaRouche or his ideas to this article since the time of the first LaRouche Arbcom decision, although other editors (including Will Beback) have subsequently done so. Will Beback professes to hold the singular point of view that the entire school of economic thought known as the American System is a "LaRouche concept" [56]. Will abused his admin powers by misrepresenting my edits to this article; he insisted that a reference to the Centennial Exposition represented "material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche," a fanciful theory which I regard as an entirely illegitimate reading of the ArbCom decision. Since Will re-set my one year ban in September of last year on the basis of this theory, other editors have begun working on this article, and the section which was disputed by Will Beback has been restored, not by myself, but by consensus of those editing the article[57]. --HK 00:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
HK, you have pushed an unusual POV into several articles recently in a disruptive manner, exactly the behavior for which you have been thrice-chastened by the ArbCom. Lyndon LaRouche has eclectic interests, and so many articles are involved that it would be ineffective to block each individually. Therefore, rather than blocking a small number of articles for a long period, I think that a shorter general ban is more apt. The ArbCom has asked any three admins to agree to parole enforcements, and authorizes bans of up to a year. In this instance I propose a general ban of one month. The community has decided repeatedly that it is not going to promulgate ideosyncratic ideologies on the same basis as common wisdom. -Will Beback 08:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Will Beback is now charging me with having "pushed an unusual POV in a disruptive manner." Even if this accusation were warranted (and made in good faith,) I believe that I would still be within my rights to ask that these accusations be examined by neutral administrators who are not party to the long-standing conflict between myself and SlimVirgin/Will Beback. I contend that these two are attempting to misuse the arbcom rulings as a tactic in POV pushing; if these accusations against me were coming from other admins with no ideological axe to grind, they would carry considerably greater weight. SlimVirgin/Will Beback are attempting to establish a tautology whereby I am designated a "LaRouche editor," therefore any article I edit becomes "LaRouche related" (this is the essential basis for Will Beback's list,) and consequently any edit that I make violates the arbcom rulings, ipso facto. Any editor who agrees with me then becomes a "meat puppet," and may be banned by SlimVirgin without warning or explanation. I hope that there are some admins reading this who can see how harmful to Wikipedia it can be, if these tactics by SlimVirgin/Will Beback go unchallenged. --HK 15:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
You're a self-confessed LaRouche activist, and have been for, as I recall, 30 years or so. You're on indefinite probation and banned from editing LaRouche pages or making pro-LaRouche edits. You have continued to do so from time to time, ignoring that ruling. After repeatedly reverting criticism of LaRouche at Synarchism, I reminded you of the ruling and asked you to stop editing that article. Note: I asked you to stop; I didn't block you. You responded by asking another LaRouche editor (who has made only 62 edits to the encyclopedia, most of them LaRouche-related), and who edits from within the same two IP ranges as you, to revert on your behalf, which he did, though he'd never edited that page before. You must have known this was a violation of the spirit of the ruling, yet you felt confident about doing it, because in fact the LaRouche rulings have not been strictly enforced against you. In addition, the other editor hadn't edited in days, yet was able to revert for you within hours of your request. You were therefore blocked for three days (though it could have been much longer) and had your ban reset. You returned from that block making personal attacks and allegations of corruption, as you do at every available opportunity. Now you're wondering why you're being accused of disruption.
If you really want to settle down and become a decent editor, the simple solution is to stay away from any article (or part thereof) that deals with LaRouche or his ideas, and stop making personal attacks. For some reason, you find that course of action impossible. I would definitely support a longer block. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, accusations made against me by SlimVirgin and Will Beback should be evaluated in light of their shared and strongly held POV. Both of them have now sought out opportunities to block me and re-set my one year ban, on grounds which I do not believe can stand up to scrutiny by neutral administrators. However, no other admin has found fault with my editing. I have not received so much as a complaint, let alone a warning, from anyone other than SlimVirgin and Will Beback, since the LaRouche 2 arbcom decision. In the "Nobs01 and others" decision which they cite, there was no finding of fact against me. And, I am not alone in alleging that these two have abused their admin powers to further a POV-pushing agenda. There have been numerous other complaints against these two; see, for example, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/SlimVirgin2,Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw (Willmcw being another user name previously used by Will Beback,) WikipediaWikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-17_Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, or Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Archives/2006/03. The present accusations against me should be evaluated by neutral third parties. --HK 21:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Far from having "sought out opportunities to block" you, this is, I believe, the first time I've done so since the case against you 15 months ago. As for your having "not received so much as a complaint" from anyone other than Will and me, it was in fact 172 who asked me to look at your activities at Synarchism, and apart from Will and me, people who have complained to the arbcom about you, resulting each time in remedies against you, have been Snowspinner, Cberlet, Adam Carr, AndyL, and John Kenney, all good editors. In Nobs01 and others, you were placed on indefinite probation, which sounds to me as though the arbcom is tired of seeing the same behavior from you, so for you to conclude that you have "not received so much as a complaint" from anyone other than Will and me is a little misleading. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
My reference to complaints was with respect to other admins; the arbcom rulings that pertain to me are administered by administrators, not Wikipedia editors in general. My understanding is that 172 agreed to cease functioning as an admin after the second arbitration case against him. Snowspinner initiated the 2nd LaRouche case, but I have not heard from him since that time, and if you will take a look at my post above, what I wrote was "However, no other admin has found fault with my editing. I have not received so much as a complaint, let alone a warning, from anyone other than SlimVirgin and Will Beback, since the LaRouche 2 arbcom decision." This is in fact the case. --HK 22:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe your ban has been reset three times: once by Snowspinner [58], once by Will, and now once by me. The reason a small number of admins are dealing with you is that we're the ones who are familar with your editing pattern. As I said above, the full-proof way to avoid attention is to stop making personal attacks and to stay away from pages that deal with Lyndon LaRouche and his ideas. We have over one million articles, so that shouldn't be so hard. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The moment I edit any article, it goes on Will's list of "LaRouche-related articles." I don't recall why Snowspinner re-set my ban, but in the case of Will Beback, it was re-set because of an edit dispute at American System (economics) that had nothing to do with LaRouche. Will Beback and 172 have both adopted the tactic of crying "LaRouche!" whenever one or the other disagrees with me (see Talk:Privatization and Talk:Anti-Defamation League.) In your case, you re-set my ban because of an edit made by another editor, who you then claimed, without proof, was my sockpuppet. I would like this whole business reviewed by a neutral third party. If I were as "disruptive" as you and Will Beback claim, I am certain that other admins would have noticed, regardless of whether they were "familiar with my editing patterns." --HK 00:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
No, the list of LaRouche related topics is not the same as your edit contributions. The number of redlinks alone should make that clear. It is no coincidence that virtually all of your edits are to topics related to LaRouche. Adding LaRouche theories to unrelated Wikipedia articles is not permitted, but you have persisted in doing so in an disruptive manner. The linkage between Lyndon LaRouche and the American System is well-known, and the particular theory you were adding can be referenced only from LaRouche sources. You have never shown contrition or admitted any wrongdoing in your three ArbCom cases, and it has become characteristic for you to protest your innocence and claim a conspiracy against you. -Will Beback 00:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I reset your ban because you asked another pro-LaRouche account to revert to your version of a page, where you had minimized criticism of LaRouche, an edit you'd been told violated the arbcom ruling. You must have known that getting someone else to do it was as bad as doing it yourself.
As I keep saying, the way to ensure that Will has nothing else to add to his page of your LaRouche-related edits is not to make any. Don't edit LaRouche pages, or pages about LaRouche-related ideas, or any sentence or paragraph about LaRouche on an unrelated page. And don't encourage other editors to do it for you. Then you'll be abiding by the terms of the three rulings against you: LaRouche 1, LaRouche 2, and the Nobs01 probation. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I insist that the claims by Will Beback and SlimVirgin are disingenuous, and I ask that a neutral third party review the facts of the matter. --HK 06:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I am merely pointing out that I, a AFAIK "neutral thrid party" have reviewed "the facts of the matter" and consider SlimVirgin's actions to be justified and correct as I posted on a talk page some days ago. HK seems to have somehow missed this. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed I have. What talk page would that be? --HK 00:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I found it on User talk:SlimVirgin: you say that "HK makes no credible answer to the claim of sockpupetry except to say 'it didn't happen.'" My response, there as well as here, is to say the following: "Please note that until some evidence of sockpuppetry is presented, there is not much to which I may respond." Allow me to reiterate that I am asking a neutral admin to take a look, also, at the decision by Willmcw/Will Beback, back in September, to re-set my ban, based on the theory that a reference to the Centennial Exposition is somehow "promotion of LaRouche." The instructions at the top of this page indicate that this is an appropriate location to complain about the conduct of admins. Note also that although SlimVirgin has twice claimed in this discussion that I asked BirdsOfFire to revert specific edits, you can see for yourself on his talk page that I said only that I wished to call the article Synarchism to his attention. The idea that he then became my "meatpuppet" is highly speculative and a reflection of SlimVirgin's relentless POV pushing. --HK 00:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You asked for a neutral admin to look at the block and resetting of the ban. A neutral admin looked at it, and agrees it was done correctly. Now you're arguing with the neutral admin. It's also disingenuous of you to deny that you posted to the BirdsOfFire account page that the account should revert to your version at Synarchism. Clearly, by saying you wanted to "call it to his attention," you were not asking him to revert against you. The arbcom ruling is clear: any account making the same pattern of edits as you, and judged by admins to be a sockpuppet of yours, should be blocked indefinitely. We don't need technical evidence. But in addition, that account and yours both edit from the same two IP ranges. It's therefore not clear to me what evidence you're asking to see. You know what IP ranges you edit from. So whatever they are, BirdsOfFire edits from the same ones. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that SlimVirgin and Will Beback have adopted an impermissably broad interpretation of the Arbcom decision known as "Nobs01 and others". This decision names Cognition and myself as "LaRouche editors"[59]; no other parties are named, and SlimVirgin and Will Beback have arrogated to themselves the authority to apply this ruling to other editors, as an excuse to apply administrative sanctions during edit disputes. At Talk:LaRouche Movement, BirdsOfFire posted the following comment: "I have looked over a number of the LaRouche articles on Wikipedia. It seems that there are more of them than necessary. It also seems that they are dominated by a small number of editors, who have something of a jihad against LaRouche. These editors seem to have done a bit of bullying toward newcomers. I think that those of you who belong to this group should have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and allow these articles to become a bit more neutral. LaRouche is controversial and a bit of a weirdo -- just quote him, let his words speak for themselves, don't feel that you have to strengthen your case by a lot of theorizing and speculation about what he really means." To extrapolate from this that he is a "LaRouche activist" seems like a stretch; even if it could be demonstrated that BirdsOfFire is a "LaRouche activist," which he says he is not, the ArbCom decisions do not authorize SlimVirgin to block him. SlimVirgin and Will Beback have also threatened to use similar tactics against User:Northmeister.--HK 22:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

BirdsOfFire made 62 edits to articles, at least 45 of which were pro-LaRouche (and some of those on unrelated pages may have been too, but I haven't checked), and he made 27 edits to talk, all of which were pro-LaRouche. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This provides the interested bystander with another glimpse into SlimVirgin's POV agenda. By her reasoning, such things as asking for verifiable sources at LaRouche articles, or posting the POV dispute tag, are classified as "pro-LaRouche edits." These articles are full of speculation and original research; to ask that they be cleaned up is not "pro-LaRouche," it's just responsible editing (here is the edit that got BirdsOfFire permanently blocked.) But to persons intent on making these articles into a soapbox, asking that they comply with WP:V is "disruptive." --HK 23:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This interested bystander is impressed by SlimVirgin's continuing courtesy and impartiality in the face of constant attacks on her character. Snottygobble 23:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the Herschelkrustofsky rulings say

  • (Nobs01) Herschelkrustofsky is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year." [60]
  • (LaRouche 2)"Herschelkrustofsky is restricted to one account for editing. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely." [61]
  • "Herschelkrustofsky is placed on POV parole for up to and including one year. If he re-inserts any edits which are judged by a majority of those commenting on the relevant talk page in a 24-hour poll to be a violation of the NPOV policy, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week. Repeat deletions of text, similarly judged to result in a violation of NPOV, shall be treated in the same way." [62]
  • "Herschelkrustofsky is banned from editing any article relating to Lyndon LaRouche for up to and including one year. If he edits any LaRouche-related article, he may be blocked for up to one week by any administrator. Administrators may use their discretion in determining what constitutes a LaRouche-related article. The prohibition against inserting La Rouche material into other articles remains in effect." [63]
  • "If, in the judgement of any administrator, Herschelkrustofsky or any user who is considered a sockpuppet of Hershelkrustofsky edits any article which relates to Lyndon LaRouche or inserts material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche into any other article he may be banned for up to one week. Any ban shall reset the one-year ban on editing LaRouche related articles and the ban on inserting LaRouche material into unrelated articles ..." [64]
  • (LaRouche1) "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as 'promotion' of Lyndon LaRouche." [65]

[edit] User:StarHeart adding insults and personal remarks to Police state

Could someone please look into User:StarHeart's conduct on Police state? He has added a few condescending personal remarks to the article, including this one:

"Note: This may come as a suprise to you adolescents living sheltered lives, but books should be based on REALITY, not the other way around. If you ever spent more than an hour away from your invaluable keyboards you would know that. Yes, boys and girls. Factual statements can ACTUALLY be based on EXPERIENCE, rather than just being based upon a BOOK (which appears to be the case in your pathetic life)."

See diff: [66] Rhobite 03:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

He's also been quite liberal in making them directly. Not satisfied in placing his offensive rant to me on his talkpage (Apparently I'm an expert on video games. Who knew?), he also took the liberty of sending it to me directly via wikipedia email. siafu 05:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I've have also been personally attacked (just to give everyone a fuller idea of this colourful character). For examples, see [[67]] (search "stick your nose") and [[68]] (search "get a life"). Lundse 08:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Vandalized my userpage tonite. To be fair, user may not know the difference between article pages and talk pages. Appears that way. Herostratus 07:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defamation and Vandalism

In addition to this which has yet to be addressed, a different anonIP, but I believe the same user, 69.156.148.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has now taken to vandalising my UserPage and reverting nonsense warnings on my talk page. This is a clear attempt to slander my good name. In addition as Thatcher stated above, the AnonIP could very well be User:Eyeonvaughan who is currently blocked (i think) for his initial defamation of my character. I very strongly request that serious action be taken. - pm_shef 04:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked 64.231.242.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 69.156.148.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) for 24 hours. —Guanaco 04:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
It's hard to keep an IP hopper out by blocking, though, and it carries a high risk of collateral damage. Since it doesn't look from the history as if you're in the habit of getting much in the way of legitimate edits from anons, temporarily semiprotecting your pages might be an alternative. If you get any more harassment from anon IPs, feel free to contact me and I'll do that, unless anybody here has a major objection. Bishonen | talk 10:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Molobo blocked for disruptive edit warring

On March 29, Molobo (talk · contribs) was blocked for a week for his umpteenth 3RR violation. Since that time he's carried on a huge amount of edit wars across a number of articles, not violating 3RR in any one of them, but coming close and certainly violating the spirit of if (which is to stop disruptive edit wars) by doing it on such a wide scale. As a result, I've taken the possibly unusual step of blocking him for a month again for what I see as very egregious and disruptive conduct, and, while that is up for review, I suggest that we consider a more permanent block. Note that I haven't blocked his most frequent counterpart in the edit war, Sciurinæ (talk · contribs), despite similar disruption, mostly because I don't have the energy to look at it after compiling all this (so some other admin probably should). This block on Molobo was prompted by the following. Molobo returns from his block on April 5, and these are some of his edits in the short time since then (these are all in the span of a few days): Soviet partisan, 4 reverts [69] [70] [71] [72]; Province of West Prussia, 4 reverts [73] [74] [75] [76]; Federation of Expellees, 5 reverts [77] [78] [79] [80] [81]; Konrad I of Masovia, 2 reverts [82] [83]; Lucas Watzenrode the Younger, 2 reverts [84] [85]; Polish 74th Infantry Regiment, 4 reverts [86] [87] [88] [89]; Polish contribution to World War II, 4 reverts [90] [91] [92] [93]; Vorkuta, 3 reverts [94] [95] [96]; German 17th Infantry Division, 5 reverts [97] [98] [99] [100] [101]; Selbstschutz, 6 reverts [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107]; Free City of Danzig, 2 reverts [108] [109]; German Empire, 2 reverts [110] [111]; Erika Steinbach, 2 reverts [112] [113]; German 4th Panzer Division, 3 reverts [114] [115] [116]; History of Poland (1939–1945), 2 reverts [117] [118]; History of Germany, 2 reverts [119] [120]; Treaty of Oliwa, 2 reverts [121] [122]; Heinz Guderian, 2 reverts [123] [124]; Gdynia, 2 reverts, [125] [126]; Monastic State of the Teutonic Knights, 2 reverts [127] [128]; Danzig Research Society, 2 reverts [129] [130]; Józef Zajączek, 3 reverts [131] [132] [133]; Wrocław, 2 reverts [134] [135]; Warsaw Uprising (1794), 3 reverts [136] [137] [138]; Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, 2 reverts [139] [140]; German Eastern Marches Society, 3 reverts [141] [142] [143]; and this ominous threat to continue revert warring indefinitely: [144]. This is a user who is not being productive at all, and who we ought not put up with any longer. As the last block was a week and had no effect, I've blocked for a month, if at least so that we can take a breather while he's blocked. This block will be Molobo's eleventh block for 3RR or edit warring [145], 2 of which were extend due to evasion. Therefore, I think we should discuss an indefinite block now, for incorrigibility. In any case, admins, please take a look at the situation and tell me what you think. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 06:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you've implemented such a long block on the user for violating the spirit (and not the letter) of 3RR, but not on his sparring partner, who, from what you say, is guilty of the same. I think that when one interprets 3RR in such a drastic way, one should take great care to make sure it is applied fairly. Appleseed (Talk) 17:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Your analysis sounds spot-on to me. --Cyde Weys 06:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I would support an indefinite block. Molobo appeared on my radar screen when he edited articles about early modern scientists (Nicolaus Copernicus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Johannes Hevelius (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Gabriel Fahrenheit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)). There are several contentious issues regarding their places of birth/residence and/or nationality, including the infamous Gdanzsikg Gdilemma. In all cases Molobo has repeatedly trivialized the issues, usually by inserting an unequivocal designation of "Polish" somewhere, even when doing so is misleading, inaccurate, biased, or goes against established consensus or explicit warnings against POV pushing. This is a typical edit; note that the article already contained a nuanced discussion of the historical background to the question of Copernicus' nationality when Molobo made that edit. This edit illustrates the same problem. Moreover, Molobo insists on phrasing the debate in terms of verifiability and citing sources, usually referring to the Encyclopedia Britannica to back him up, when the real problem is a fundamental inability or unwillingness to understand and follow the NPOV policy. This smacks of trollish rules-lawyering, and the way things have been going further NPOV and 3RR violations seem inevitable. While an indefinite block could stop all of this, a community imposed editing ban on Poland-related topics, broadly construed, might be sufficient. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Complete support on the block, this was long overdue. I had negative experiences with this user pretty much since he started editing on Wikipedia. I especially dislike his twisting of historical facts and/or Wikpedia guidelines to support his position, and his edit warring, ignoring any kind of majority unless it is his kind of majority. I would also appreciate a permanent block or a ban from editing Poland and Germany related topics -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever run across Molobo, but from the looks of what Dmcdevit has listed, I think "exhausting the community's patience" certainly applies. Indfblock and be done with it. Essjay Talk • Contact 08:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid since the time we launched Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Molobo, the editor's behaviour degraded to pure trolling and revert warring. Although User:Piotrus attempts to represent Molobo as a valuable contributor and has gone to wheel warring because of that, everyone editing Eastern European topics knows Molobo for a ram weapon to spread nationalism and divisive comments all over Wikipedia. He turns the most innocent topics - such as Ded Moroz or Fyodor Tyutchev - into battlegrounds for incessant and pointless revert warring. For the fate of his only original contributions to Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russsian_claims_about_Warsaw_Uprising_1794 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judas of Slavdom. Another "original contribution" of Molobo is a systematic replacement of the word "Slavic" with "of Slavic origins" or "Eastern and South Slavic", as he regards the notions of Slavic unity or "Slavic languages" as an imperialist propaganda. [146] When Molobo is on a reverting spree, it takes the combined efforts of dozen wikipedians from different countries to undo his reverts. It's easy to check his contributions to see that not a single edit of this "precious contributor" (as Piotrus calls him) remains unreverted by one editor or another within an hour or two. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Having handed Molobo several 3RR (escalated) blocks myself to absolutely no effect, and to an outright statement that he plans to edit in precisely the same fasion upon their expiry, I think an indef block is the only sensible option. Incorrigible, unreformable edit warriors are not welcome here. -Splashtalk 13:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Quick info: Molobo is now editing on the Polish wiki, and gets reverted there frequently, too. -- Chris 73 | Talk 16:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
A sad example of lying used to attack other contributors: [147] In fact I have yet to be "reverted quite often". --Molobo 17:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC) (copied here from User talk:Molobo by Chris 73 | Talk)
While my Polish is not good, these edits on the Polish wiki seem to be titled as reverts: [148], [149], [150]. I did not check if other edits have been reverted without an explicit "Revert" comment. Other edits lead to lengthy controversial discussions on Polish wiki talk pages. All of Molobos Polish Wiki contributions are here if someone is interested. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I still think that Molobo is not as evil as many attempt to paint him, and that such a long block should be taken before the ArbCom, in the face of the apparently overwhelming condemnation of his actions by the community, and the apparent consensus that a long block is justified here, I will not dispute this block. Nonetheless I have one question: it takes two to have any revert war: are Molobo's opponents all innocent?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've run into Molobo on German 17th Infantry Division, where edit warring has gone on since January over use of a long quote in the article. There is consensus among everyone except Molobo on omitting the quote, but he keeps inserting it. If this editing behavior extends to all the other articles cited above, then I agree that the block is justified. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
A month block seems fair on Molobo. Many of Molobo's frequent opponents are frequent only because they know his character and follow him around. Molobo perhaps understandably feels victimized and paranoid that his views are being suppressed, and is at the point where he probably feels he has nothing to lose. Molobo is not a bad contributor when he refrains from POV pushing. Perhaps a month would be the a ban of the kind of severity Molobo needs to calm down and reassess his own behaviour. A Permaban is very severe, and I doubt it would do much good, as he would undoubtedly come back with a new identity. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This block should have been expected all along as well as Piotrus' followup comment that this should have beed done via ArbCom and otherwise unfair. The ideal world solution would be an ArbCom ruling that would have allowed this user to create content (not an outright ban from Wikipedia) but stripped him of his trolling tools, of which the main are:

  • revert warring
  • pasting (from outside sites to Wikipedia and from one article into another)
  • blanking (fragments or images he doesn't like).

Prohibited to blank and paste and with the right to revert in Poland related articles restricted to one per day or per week (excluding reversion of simple vandalism) all the values of this "valuable contributor" (as he was called by some who used him as a battering ram to advance the "right POV") would still be here but the disruptions would go.

As we all know, that ArbCom submission is complex and time consuming. I once submitted to ArbCom a case against one arch-Troll and it took the Committee about two or three months to rule on an open-and-shut case (with a ruling more severe than I actually requested, btw). The bottom line is that the ArbCom is slow and should be alleviated from plain obvious cases of the user's abuse. The admin discretion should be allowed as it is and the user here is not blocked on the Admin's whim but after a clear pattern of egiting abuse. If he is reformed in a month, good for him and all of us. If he uses this time to write some articles (even within his eternal agenda about wrongs perpetuated against Poles by Russians and Germans) and posts them upon return, this is just as well. While it is regrettable that he comes to WP with the sole intent to pursue such a narrow and divisive agenda, this is a legitimate agenda if he doesn't troll.

Having said that, if I see him back in a month (or in two weeks or whatever should his block gets shortened) back trolling in the full throttle, I will set aside several hours to write an ArbCom case. This needs to be put an end to. If he returns as a contrubutor (rather than a troll) even exclusively to divisive topics, I will welcome that. He, by no means, was the worse of the worst: usually reasonably civil, rarely but sometimes reasonable, just hysterical. So, for now, I say a month long break is what he and we all need. --Irpen 21:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Although it is clear that a month chill out for Molobo will be benefitial, I strongly oppose an indefinete block of him - as is shown above, there is no consensus for a perm block. If some users want such a drastic solution, by all means, go to ArbCom. See also User_talk:Dmcdevit#Disagreement_with_indefinite_block_of_Molobo.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Molobo should be unblocked now. --Deutsche 13:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gidonb

A long history of spinning articles and PoV pushing about Israeli related articles. He is also violating "No pesonal attack policy" all the time against me. --Haham hanuka 19:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here. You may wish to consider filing an RfC. Mackensen (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
User almost daily "blesses" my edits, which are according to our rules and respected by people from all backgrounds, with very harsh and un-Wikipedian terms. He is very often banned for sock-puppetery and 3RR and breaking of other rules. At the Wikipedia in his mother tongue he is indefinitely banned from participation. The very mentioning of my name on this page does me injustice. gidonb 10:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Romeroma

User:Romeroma has been vandalizing pages releated with the current Peruvian national election, 2006. (See His Contributions. Normally I would wait it out for the vandal to leave, however this is a current event that many responsible Wikipedians are working on and the user is going to make it difficult to progress and furthermore, these pages (in particular the Ollanta Humala page) have been targeted before. The Humala page just got semi-protection taken off a few days ago and Spanish Wikipedia is currently protecting the Humala page due to heavy vandalism. I strongly suspect that this user is one of those IP vandals and just created an account.


Some of this user's recent contributions:

  • Alan Garcia: Alias "el chancho en la estrella... and he maked peru a poor place...and decreasing money...that means artery problems and red annxious for blood [151] P.S "El Chancho" means "the pig".
  • Lourdes Flores: vota por Lourdes, vota por el Peru, vota por Humala vota por la muerte...Translation "A vote for Lourdes, is a vote for Peru. A vote for Humala is a vote for death". [152]
el mayor delincuente del mundo entero Translation: "The biggest delinquent in the entire world" [154]
that is a very crazy animal, an ex-communist of sendero luminoso and nationalist from crazyland... [155]--Jersey Devil 20:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked him for a day. Tom Harrison Talk 21:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
And I've semiprotected Ollanta Humala yet again. It's being targetted by many IPs. Bishonen | talk 19:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] User:RomeoVoid

RomeoVoid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is another music-articles blusterer, insisting on removing relevant material from articles that he considers his, describing non-vandalistic edits (including basic Wikification) as vandalism, etc. I've been editing some of the articles involved, so I'm not in a position to take action (and I'm not sure things have reached the stage where it's needed anyway), but could another admin have a look, and if appropriate have a word? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute. He may be starting to lose his cool and I've left him a message to that effect as an uninvolved party, but I see no reason why this is an incident needing admin attention. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, in the same way that most of the incidents here involve content-disputes, but it's not that part of it that I'm concerned about; it's his incivility , etc. Thanks for your comment on his Talk page, though; I hope that it has some effect. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, it hasn't really worked. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impersonation

I have just indefinitely blocked Jaulwood (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for trolling and attempted impersonation of Mindspillage. User was misusing the {{office}} template. Despite the user's protests, I'm absolutely 100% certain s/he is not Mindspillage! --RobertG ♬ talk 14:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, I'm absolutely 100% certain s/he is not Mindspillage. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
yes, but how can you be so sure (:?HappyA1 23:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:The-thing

I have blocked The-thing (talk · contribs) indefinitely for massive User Talk page spamming. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Morrow

71.139.175.48 (talk · contribs) Person in the same IP general range continuing the same conversation as Andrew Morrow [156], [157] Postings yesterday were removed yesterday by AnnH. With the comment "Post from indefinitely-banned user removed, per Jimbo's instructions.[158]". Derex 21:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Derex. I've blocked the IP. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-life article vandalism and/or disruption by well-known disruptor

Please review the repeated etreme POV insertion into the pro-life article. The user Pro-lick is a known disruptor/troll/sockpuppet king/queen. The disruptive extreme POV editing is here. ____G_o_o_d____ 21:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Pro-lick's extreme POV edit created this section of the pro-life article:

==Pro-Life Activism==
Pro-lifers primary method of activism is to harass both the people seeking abortion and the
people providing abortion. They also like to pray and read out loud from the Christian
bible outside of clinics.
Historically, they have also used more extreme methods:
  • blowing up clinics
  • shooting doctors
  • shooting nurses
  • distributing photos and videos of aborted fetuses
  • handing out pamplets with false medical claims
Those edits seem perfectly reasonable and NPOV to me. And I say this as one who has had several disagreements with Pro-Lick. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
He's also currently indef blocked. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. But since all the above can be backed by citations from reliable sources, I don't think there is much problem with including it. Just zis Guy you know? 10:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Um, I'm not so much pro-choice as anti-baby, but even I think that there's a bit of a context problem in that edit. Besides, which citation backs up "Pro-lifers primary method of activism is to harass..."? --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, anti-baby sort of sounds awful when you've just read the particulars of Partial-birth abortion. Anyway, though Pro-Lick's edits may be curious at times, many of them are (in my opinion) alright per WP:NPOV. The problem is that Lick does not accept consensus when it goes against his/her edits. AvB ÷ talk 12:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Seems pretty POV to me, especially "Pro-lifers primary method of activism is to harass both the people seeking abortion and the people providing abortion." JoshuaZ 13:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the style is bad. But the facts are there: one of the things which has always puzzled me about these guys is the "life is sacrosanct, and if you take life I will kill you" bit. Obviously I use a different form of logic. Just zis Guy you know? 20:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arights (talk • contribs) admits to using sockpuppets

See [159] Werdna648T/C\@ 01:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it's User:Arights, not Alrights. Secondly, unless I'm missing something, and I've re-read this several times, this user never said they used sockpuppets in that post; on the contrary, the post says that the person he's complaining about is using sockpuppets, not him. Third, while it's generally considered "uncool", there's nothing specifically wrong with using sockpuppets, unless they're being used to subvert Wiki policy. Fourth and finally, the grievance that User:Arights mentions in that dif you've provided seems like it is possibly legitimate (though I've done no serious investigation into the matter and so cannot comment on the veracity of any claims made there) and may be more worthy of admin attention than this, the very claim which brought the link to AN/I in the first place. Phew! JDoorjam Talk 02:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page for Ayman_al-Zawahiri

There's an irrational, heated exchange on the Talk page for Ayman_al-Zawahiri under the 'Not dead until it's confirmed' paragraph. It involves political opinion/debate, and such exclamations as "May Allah avenge that on the infidels, because there is no other law but eye for eye, teeth for teeth!"

I'm not sure if this is where I report such an incident. I've never seen anything else like it, nor could I find any specific policy on this, but it is obvious enough to me that such offensive banter does not belong here. Please let me know if this is the appropriate course of action. Thanks. - Slow Graffiti 05:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged the talk page with {{controversial}} temporarily, posted a little message asking people to keep things in the realms of civility, and I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for bringing it to our attention! Proto||type 09:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bizarre rant / legal threat at alt.usenet.kooks

The IP addresses, 210.50.143.20 (talk · contribs), 210.50.143.21 (talk · contribs), and 210.50.143.22 (talk · contribs), have been repeatedly posting a long rant into the article on alt.usenet.kooks claiming that the article might be violating some Australian state law against hate speech. *Dan T.* 11:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Given that the rant is identical, and the IPs are just one digit out from one another, I think it's safe to say it's the same person. I have posted a final warning to the talk page of each of the three IP addresses, and if it continues, I think a block is in order. Proto||type 11:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
In case no one noticed, he took a break for a few hours after this and started up again.--KSevcik 23:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Account seems to have been created purely for vandalism - claims to be the North Carolina Vandal. I've blocked indefinitely, but I'd welcome review/comment as blocking is not something I do much. --ajn (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

looks good. --Syrthiss 17:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weird addition of "Office" tag on Girls Aloud

Various users, Salsuroy (talk · contribs), Jaulwood (talk · contribs), and Kalzamare (talk · contribs), have been adding the WP:OFFICE tag to Girls Aloud, apparently without any sort of authorization from the actual Wikimedia office and without giving any explanation. One of the edit comments claimed that it was to make a WP:POINT, but the actual point was unexplained. These users claim to be sockpuppets of admins, but there's no reason a real admin should have to act through a sockpuppet. *Dan T.* 11:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

All three have already been indefinitely blocked for vandalism and impersonation. Proto||type 11:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, damn. Looks like I jumped the gun on protecting the page, then? I'll leave it protected, Just In Case, but anyone should feel free to revert me. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I've taken the protection off, in the Spirit of Wiki... or whatever. I'll watch the page and post-steroids-Barry-Bonds smack vandals out of the park if they keep tagging it. As these accounts appear new, maybe a semi-protection might be in order, but for now I think it can be open. JDoorjam Talk 13:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Danny is the only person who can perform an WP:OFFICE action. --Deathphoenix ʕ 11:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that – despite the absence of mention in the WP:OFFICE page – we probably should be very wary of removing a WP:OFFICE tag left by Jimbo or a member of the Wikimedia Foundation Board (around here, most likely either Anthere or Angela). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think they need to use WP:OFFICE, which is nothing more than a delegation of a few "board" powers to someone who wouldn't have them otherwise. --cesarb 19:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that they don't need to use the template or policy. However, if they did choose to slap a WP:OFFICE template on an article, it would serve to emphasize that they were acting in their roles as Wikimedia Board members rather than as regular admins.
While most of our admins are bright enough not to undo Jimbo's adminnish actions without discussion and a really good reason, we've probably got a substantial population of admins (particularly newer ones) who might not recognize other members of the Board without prompting. Although wheel-warring is always to be discouraged, tangling with the Board (and the Board's associated legal rights and responsibilities) is really frowned upon. If a WP:OFFICE template could avert such a conflict, I don't see the harm in it being used even if it is not strictly necessary. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Cuñado19 sockpuppet

Someone created User:Cunado19's sockpuppet to make one useless edit in an ongoing discussion. The User page is intended to deliberately insult User:Cunado19. Is it possible to determine if a registered user did this? MARussellPESE 13:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, take it to WP:CHECK. I've indefinitely blocked the account as an impersonation / attack of a registered user. Proto||type 14:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Evading Blocks

68.115.72.93 (talk · contribs), who has already been identified as a sock puppet of Braaad (talk · contribs), is working on his blocked accounts and harassing other editors again. McNeight 17:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Vorash

I didn't want to bring this issue up here; I hope it would be resolved without administrator intervention, but I feel I have no other option, since it has been going on for weeks now. Vorash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been repeatedly reverting attempts made to remove uncited sales figures from the article Mariah Carey singles discography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) without adequate discussion or explanation, and his blanket reverts have been undoing dozens of good edits made to the article in the meantime. This originally started back in January when I removed material which I believed to be unsourced; Vorash subsequently reverted, and continued to do so after that (see, for example, [160] and [161]). I dropped the issue after I noticed some websites included within the article's references section, but upon closer investigation they do not support the material that Vorash insists on reinserting time after time. He has also reverted without edit summaries and marks reverts as "minor" edits, despite being requested not to do so. As can be read at user talk:Vorash, I referred him to the appropriate policy and guideline pages, and his response was to call my message "bullshit" and accuse me of vandalising the article [162]; he continues to refer to me as a "vandal" in his edit summaries even though I have asked him not to.

I know that this isn't the place to report content disputes, but this has gone beyond that; it's a case of a stubborn and unresponsive user performing blind reverts to a weeks-old version of an article which border on vandalism, and this can all be seen in the page's edit history (see [163], [164], [165], and most recently [166]). This revert, for example, re-introduced a factual inaccuracy into the article which had been previously removed (and was only spotted again today). It would be appreciated if somebody were to at least drop him a note on his talk page, since that might be the source of the problem: the only other editor involved here is myself, and Vorash may give his histrionic reverting a second thought if somebody else tells him that what he is doing is absolutely unacceptable. Extraordinary Machine 20:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Try a WP:RFC. Stifle (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I.P. 68.45.21.137

Please consider Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for this in future. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. evrik 22:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reporting more incidents

I would like to report a few more of my blocks and other incidents:

Mike Rosoft 20:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • A week seems a little steep for the 24.2 guy; usually I try 48 hours before I hit 'em with a week (at least for IP edits). On the other hand, for registered users, if they've contributed nothing but vandalism like this guy has, I just block them indefinitely. So I guess I'm drawing some kind of distinction that might not quite make sense. For the third guy, blocking for one silly-ass joke seems excessive. First guy's kinda the same category as the second. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • All right, I am reducing the block length of both of them to 48 hours. In case of the third user, I have already unblocked him; I immediately realized that I had been a bit too trigger-happy. - Mike Rosoft 22:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:StarHeart NPA and various

StarHeart (talk contribs) has been making various non-policy edits of Police state, Astrology, Dictatorship, created a vanity article up for AfD, and has apparently created an open sockpuppet at User:Andrew Homer. Latest incident is this recent entry on the second account talk page in which he exceeds previous personal attack levels. He seems to be escalating. I don't know if a block is warranted but an uninvolved neutral party admin might want to take a look at what he's up to. Georgewilliamherbert 23:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)