Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive118

Section break (1)

Wikipedia is loosing good people all the time - they leave or disengage from particular articles because of an increasingly uncivil enviornment, or they determine to stay and "fight it out," adopting a hostile approach, and reinforcing the vicious cycle. Constant low-grade incivility is corrosive, and it is disruptive. If we let it continue, we end up with an enviornment where it is the norm. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. As leaders, I think Admins should be the first to be cited for incivility, even if that means that their powers get taken away. They are supposed to be setting an example, and they so far seem to be setting a bad one. romarin [talk ] 22:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you tell us why Alienus's behaviour doesn't deserve a block instead of screaming about admin abuse? His behaviour is the real topic here, and I've yet to see it defended. pschemp | talk 22:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

So if Alienus were an admin you'd say he needed to be blocked? or just de-sysoped? I support the block, if that wasn't clear. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is that if Alienus were an admin he would not be blocked. Admins seem to be given cart blanche for being uncivil with impunity. The double standard is most clear in this case since all Al did was refer to someone as an "edit warrior?!" I have see countless times where even admins refer to "regular" editors in exactly that manner with not a peep out of anyone about its not being civil. Clearly Al is being singled out, targeted in a manner that is not based upon equal standards. This is another example of admin abuse having the effect of driving out the critical editors, who are among the best and brightest. Many admins seem to have formed something of a club, like some corrupt police unit. The prison vs. guard analogy is a particularly disturbing insight into the kind of mentality we are dealing with here. My opinion of admins has been going down fast (there are a few good ones), and this is just another nail on the coffin of the admin system. Why are so many admins of such low quality? If this perpetuates itself, Wikipedia is in trouble unless it gets rid of admins, or seriously checks their abusive pratices, throws out those who have shown to be terrible examples of the ideals of an ideal wikipedian.64.121.40.153 08:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That post comes from Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a clear block evasion, while blocked for 3RR and sockpuppetry. See here. AnnH ♫ 03:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a block that was never valid in the first place, based on a false and unproven claim. That my comment above, a single edit not in an article, while I abided by the the falseblock--to be used to justify another week block is such an ugly blotch on any notion of justice that my unblock notice was answered affirmatively and reversed. Your obsession with me, motivated by your POV disputes is quite transparent, even if you manage to convince others to do your dirty work to prevent me from editing, or undermining my contributions to important issues such as the above. Attacking the editor never will the the same as attacking their argument as much as you try to confuse the two objectives.Giovanni33 10:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that those people concerned with Alienus' approach to editing open an RfC or ArbCom case. This block/unblock cycle is neither fair to the user nor helpful to the project. Jkelly 22:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with trigger happy admins is that they are more likely to pull the trigger on people they disagree with, or have personal issues with. This block is such a case. ^^James^^ 22:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

fiddlesticks. Alienus has been warned about behaviour like this User_talk:Alienus#Glad_you_are_not_me and this User_talk:Alienus#To what do I owe... neither of which, I note, involve any of the admins involved in warning him in the past, in fact GTBacchus was one of his defenders in the past. You're being quite disingenious trying to paint this as some sort of big bad admin conspiracy. The guy is uncivil, he's been warned, he's not stopping and I think it's time that you all (James and Romarin) stopped too because you're way off the mark. ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Come now Lar, admin-baiting is a delightful sport for the whole family! Seriously, though, we've got to stop acting as though there's ever an excuse for incivility. I support Will's block. Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Lar, regarding the posts you cite, the first is obviously a joke. And in the second, GTBacchus calls Alienus a dick! And you have the nerve to call me disingenious (see WP:NPA). It seems any accusation will do, no matter how insubstantial. Throw enough mud and some of it is sure to stick. And please refrain from invoking the word conspiracy, as it is usually used pejoratively to tar opponents as tin foil hat wearing loons. Ie: It's a personal attack. ^^James^^ 23:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy! Paranoia! Admin Abuse! Personal attack! pschemp | talk 23:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Voice of All removed this as not constructive and he's probably right. Its true, I am not perfect. I apologize. pschemp | talk 18:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, pschemp. This is precisely what I'm talking about. Admins can't even control themselves while discussing a case of alleged incivility! And yet Alienus gets blocked for three days for referring to someone as an "edit warrior"?! It's ridiculous. But it goes to show: editors that are disliked are held to impossibly high standards, while admins can hurl insults with immunity.

Case in point: pschemp insults me above, then dares me to try to do something about it. Not a pretty picture I'm afraid. ^^James^^ 23:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense begets nonsense. pschemp | talk 23:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What is nonesense is that a user got blocked for three days for calling someone an "edit warrior". ^^James^^ 01:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Red beams go quietly to visa giant LEGO cats. pschemp | talk 02:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on the blocks in question, I'd like to again encourage all administrators to attempt to set an example of civil behavior. --brenneman 03:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Let sensation lewis beauty check design in fan spray. pschemp | talk 04:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp, you have seemed reasonable to me in the past, but you are losing me here.Timothy Usher 09:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Just my way of saying I've given up trying to explain things logically, as it doesn't seem to matter. Random strings of nonsense are being considered incivil now and that's a bit absurd. pschemp | talk 18:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, pschemp, but that's just not going to fly. You state above "nonsense begets nonsense". Thus, you are implying that every time you start spouting nonsense, it is because someone else did first. And calling the concerns of editors "nonsense" is not exactly civil. Just because you don't agree with these concerns does not make them nonsense, and it is quite disingenuous to suggest that those of us who question you are being absurd. If you have actually "given up trying to explain things logically", maybe you should let this one go and allow other editors and admins to take over. No one said you have to contribute here, and frankly, your incivility is not helping. romarin [talk ] 20:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think I was so uncivil, please file an RFC. That's what the community is here for. Of course you are free to interpret my comments however you wish, whether that interpretation is correct or not.pschemp | talk 00:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Section break (2)

Al and I have clashed in the past — like others he disageed with I was accused of having a bias for trying to achieve NPOV. (One of Al's inabilities is to understand that his edits are can be less neutral than he himself thinks. But then we all have that failing in some form or other. It can be a particular problem with Al.) I agreed with him however (much to Al's shock!) that Tony's behaviour towards him was prevocative and unnecessarily confrontational. Al can be tactless, while believing that he is being tactful, and provocative while believing that he is being the exact opposite. In this case, having read the comments that led to the block, my reaction is to think that, taken in isolation, they would not warrant a block. However taken in the context of numerous other comments over a long period, and past warnings to stop, a block is understandable. He does push it a bit and a block, unfortunately, was in my opinion only a matter of time. I would hope that Al might get the message and reign in his tendency to preach and judge. We all do it from time to time (I'm waving both hands in the air at this stage. I know I do it). Al tends to be his own worst enemy. There is however a distinction between someone trying to provoke and offend for negative reasons, and those who do it out of a genuine and well motivated belief that they are doing the "right thing". Al is IMHO one of the latter. He needs to ease off on the attack comments. If he does this block, I hope, will be a once-off and not something constantly to be repeated. FearÉIREANN^(caint) 21:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 04:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is much too late for this to be a "once-off". This is the user's tenth block, the previous blocks having been caused by personal attacks, incivility, or edit warring. -Will Beback 04:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the scale of that. That puts a different complexion in things. I created a template recently that covers a user with multiple blocks called {{blocknumbers}}. In it admins can fill out details of the number of past blocks and warnings a user has, the length of the most recent block and an explanation of the general context if required. It can be placed on the page of someone who is being blocked regularly so that other admins, in dealing with their behaviour, knows at a glance the stats, rather than having to go through their talk page and archives to see what their past behaviour was like. Perhaps you should put the template on Al's talk page so that the context is clear for everyone to see. It also has had the benefit of bringing home to perpetual offenders who may be in denial as to their behaviour just how many warnings and blocks they have received. FearÉIREANN^(caint) 04:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review Al's blocks and you will see that the case is not as clear as Will Beback would have it. Also pschemp's prison analogy is far more worrying that he realises - see read the Stanford Prison Experiment to see how the situation we have here can go very very wrong. The truth is that admins are very reluctant to block each other and unpopular editors get blocks for the same actions that admins cheerfully get away with (see my previous post). If you protest your block you are a labeled a trouble maker or accused of making PA's by effectively calling the admins incompetent and I have seen Al's blocks increased in this way. Too much trouble comes from people being "trigger happy" about what is written. One person's offense is anothers wierd sense of humour/reaction to stress. This is an international project and all the time I see underestimated how cultural differences affect the way we approach situations. I'm British so I'm very good at being polite and queuing for my turn to edit 8-). I personally find some US editors "full on" and almost aggressively direct but I have also met many Americans in person who come across the same way. However it is just their manner, their hearts are in the right place and as long as you stick to the facts and sources you should be able to work together. If the integrity of the encyclopedia is most important what we should be looking at here is whether Al was adding to it when he was accused of "edit warring" or whether he was disrupting it. I have not agreed with him on everything but I have never had a problem with him. In fact I'm able to work with several "problem" editors just by not rising to the bait and sticking to what the verifiable sources have to say on a subject.

Now his talk page is protected which is ridiculous especially as it looks from the history as if one admin added a comment by bypassing the protection giving Al no chance to respond [1]. If you repeatedly treat someone unfairly you are going to see a "pattern" of them resisting the system. I have been fully convinced that the last few blocks were intended to create an impressive history so as to work towards removing him and have seen nothing here yet to disuade me of that position. As for the juvenile comments by some admins above - what can I say other than that they no show empathy or understanding of the current situation and should be given LEGO blocks instead of admin tools. Sophia

I agree with Sophia. This might all be moot since we seem to have already lost now both Sophia and Al--both excellent editors, and certainly much better than many others, including admins, despite their weaknesses. Sophia's point bout the Stanford prison experiment was as pertinent and astute observation as it was obvious given the setting here. The fact her poignant observation is just ignored is telling, as it the irony that it was an admin himself who used the prison/prisoner analogy in the firt place. To Sophia's study refence, I add the equally famous Milgram experiment as also relevant for some of the social dynamics that are taking place, in particular in the reliance on authority here, i.e. the tendency to assume that if someone is an admin what they say is true and correct, and those who are accused are to be mostly ignored. What follows is that the strength or logic of an argument doesn't matter: AL is guilty and bad, and the accusing admins are good and right, case closed.Giovanni33 10:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, I appreciate your concerns. Certainly some people are odd. Heck, all of us have our eccentricities. I think that Wikipedia is extremely tolerant of different points of view, and of different behaviors. However we have a project: to create an encyclopedia by consensus. We've determined that civility is a necessity for this project to succeed, and so it has become one of our policies. Civility isn't an option, it's a requirement. Boorish behavior is not part of the expected norm. You are exactly right, we should focus on the edits, not the editors. Unfortunately, Alienus does not do that. He calls editors names. He doesn't say, for example, "those edits promote a certain POV", instead he says, "you're an edit warrior". Because he attacks editors he's been chastened repeatedly by a variety of editors. Personally, I think that Alienus makes some positive contributions to the project. But we cannot and do not tolerate incivility. Lastly, Wikipedia works by consensus. Eight different admins have now blocked Alienus. I'm sure it isn't a record, but it is a large number. At this rate he is in danger of exhausting the community's patience. If you appreciate his involvement in the project, then I suggest you counsel him to avoid behavior that could lead to a future, and perhaps indefinite, block. -Will Beback 08:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There can be no good faith extended to Alienus. He engages in the defense and avocation of trolls being let loose upon our fair wiki. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not take part in a rehabilitation project for disruptive people. One must really question Alienus's devotion to the encyclopedia when he/she speaks so freely of supporting that which would harm wikipedia. He's a openly admitted supporter of trolls. He, and the trolls he supports that would bring harm to this project, must be silenced and denied access to our website. -Zero^Talk 09:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Err, Wikipedia isn't some sort of fortress of civilisation that must be defended against barbarians. Once you start thinking like that, you've bought into the "battle" paradigm that is the root of about 85% or all conflict. And as to the number of editor who've blocked someone, there is an undeniable "pile on" effect where every block gets easier to justify, and people stop counting the number of unblocks. This is not a commentary on this case in particular, just that it's a terrible metric to use in judging how much of a "problem" an editor is. --brenneman 09:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, Alienus has been unblocked four times. Two were to remove blocks, one was to lengthen a block and another was to change the blocking admin. I note that one of those unblocking admins has now posted to Alienus's page endorsing this block, if for nothing else the attacks that Alienus has written on his talk page.[2] -Will Beback 17:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

On top of that, consider that one of the unblocking administrators did so in the face of three administrators (beside the blocking admin) who supported the block, and afterwards expressed regret for going against consensus on the block. --Tony Sidaway 18:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

When an editor supports that which harms the project, I think it a valid reason to project the encyclopedia indeed. There is no battles and punishments on wikipedia. That's not the point of this website. When an editor is percieved as disruptive, they are blocked. And if they continue they are blocked longer. As editors of a project to freely distribute knowledge and assist those who seek it, there is no leeway for nonsense. To say wikipedia is not to be protected agaisnt this sort of stuff is entirely inapropriate. -Zero^Talk 10:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The User:Gibraltarian problem

The indefinitely banned User:Gibraltarian is still continuing to cause problems on Gibraltar-related articles, as he's still editing through anonymous dynamic IP addresses. I've just responded to a request for page protection for Algeciras and San Roque, Cádiz. He's also still hitting Gibraltar, so I've semi-protected that article as well.

I see from the protection log that semi-protection has been tried before but hasn't deterred Gibraltarian. I think we need to start thinking about stronger actions given his persistence. Realistically, I think we have two choices: leave the affected articles semi-protected semi-permanently, or block his entire IP range (i.e. 212.120.0.0/16). Any thoughts? -- ChrisO 19:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• you unfortunately can't block the entire IP address range without a great deal of collateral damage, it's the biggest dialup ISP in Gibraltar. Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Blocked_User:Gibraltarian. ~Chris (talk/e@) 20:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The user(s) of this range have permanently denied involvement!!! This is a hard case! -- Szvest 20:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Might not be the best thing, but I would block the range. According to Communications in Gibraltar#Internet, Gibraltar only has "severaly thousand users" - which is (in comparison to many other countries, like the States) simply a small number of people. Also, not everyone is using the same ISP. I'd block. Iolakana|^T 20:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Singapore has a small number of users, lets block them. Compared to the States Canada has a small number of users, lets block Canada. AOL is a small minority of the States users, lets block them, like you do every night. Innocent users? F em. Hort Graz 20:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

By "you", do you mean me directly? Iolakana|^T 21:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean the many block happy admins here who care less about collateral damage. Hort Graz 21:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Your semi-warning on my talk page because I used YOU instead of YOU GUYS is ridiculous. Please do not try to create a personal conflict between us just because you disagree with my opinion on blocking. I do not know you. Hort Graz 21:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. The developers are working on a solution to the AOL problem. --mboverload@ 20:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• If we'd block any range containing vandal edits, just because said range housed a minority of users, soon enough you'd have no users left. Take for example Camebridge University. Last year, I dealt with massive vandalism from one of their IPs. No doubt blocking the entire range would've hit many innocent users. It's simply not worth it. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  A sensible admin. My guess is that you have been a admin for years, its the new admins who show little regard for innocent victims from what Ive seen. Hort Graz 21:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• BTW, after extensive whois research, I have determined that he has two different IP ranges: 195.244.192.0/19 and 212.120.224.0/19. These are the only two IP ranges that belong to G's ISP, Gibtelecom (formerly Gibraltar Nynex Communications). 02:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Murder and rape threats by 205.234.223.167

I'm fairly new around here, but User:205.234.223.167 has been making multiple murder and rape threats against several people today. He's gotten a 2 week block for bad behavior, but still has access to his talk page. I know Wikipedia likes to go through a series of escalating sanctions before permanently blocking someone, but do you always have to do that? Can't there be bad enough behavior (as in threatening to drive to someone's house, murder the editor and rape his wife) that admins might be justified in just cutting to the chase and permanently blocking the IP address altogether?

Here's just a sample of his many cheery messages today: 1, 2, 3, 4.

And another question -- Wikipedia is very strict about "no legal threats"; editors taking legal action off Wikipedia is highly discouraged. Yet threatening rape and murder is a felony in every U.S. jurisdiction (and with good reason). I think this guy should be reported to authorities in his jurisdiction (somewhere near Chicago?) now, rather than later, but I'm concerned this would get me in hot water with Wikipedia. Personally, I feel only slightly physically threatened, but I suspect that this guy represents a much more real physical danger to people in his own community. If he's a psychopath, I suspect his antisocial behavior is not confined to Wikipedia. I'm happy to report him, but I am concerned that I would have problems with Wikipedia.

So what's the next appropriate step here? Where do I take this issue?

--A. B. 01:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on about that user here. Garion96 ^(talk) 01:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that at least that IP address has now been permanently blocked. (User talk:205.234.223.167).--A. B. 01:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I have a girlfriend who's ex-boyfriend has just been sent to prison for 3 months (18 months suspended) for making death threats and other threats via email. I suggest that this matter is dealt with in a more serious fashion and this users IP is traced and reported to the relevant authorities (i.e. Police) in his jurisdiction. He sounds like an idiot, but in the USA (for example) any death threat is treated seriously (which it should be). Better safe than sorry. (User Name witheld for obvious reasons!).

• • • On a side note, it would appear that this "person" just found out what the word "pedantic" meant and decided that he needed to use it as much as possible. Batman2005 03:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad username User:Doug E Fresh

Doug E Fresh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This would be a username after a famous person, namely Doug E. Fresh who's an 80s beatboxer. Kevin_b_er 04:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There is the possibility that this user is Doug E. Fresh. It may be worth asking. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have very good working email at the moment, but info@dougefresh.com is the address to ask such a question from his official site. Kevin_b_er 05:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. If he later claims to be Mr Fresh then we can arrange confirmation. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this block was way out of line. You have alienated a potential contributor to the encyclopedia and assumed bad faith on his part. The name isn't so unusual that there couldn't possibly be more than one person with the same name. The correct procedure would have been to ask first, as was suggested above. Please remove the block, or I will do so next time I'm on. JYolkowski // talk 23:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Your unblocking would be way out of line. We have a firm policy about not using the names of real celebrities as User names. Don't start a wheel war. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of wheel warring; my intentions are merely to stand up for well-intentioned new users who have been victimised. JYolkowski // talk 01:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not allow certain types of usernames, including the following... names of well-known living or recently deceased people". From WP:U. Please check policy before you declare your intention to wheel war. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reblocked the user with a less biting block summary. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How on earth was my block summary biting? I explained the exact reason for the block and left a full explanation on his talk page. A lot of admins just write 'user...' when blocking inappropriate usernames. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't think to check the talk page. I agree that the message you left there was perfectly appropriate, and that there was thus no need to give the same information in the block message. Sorry. I guess I've been dealing with AOL anons so much lately that I'm starting to forget that some users can actually be reliably contacted through their talk pages... :( —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oprah Winfrey sockpuppets

• Editingoprah (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Cardriver (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Zorklift (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Kittykash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  19:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

They have all been introducing unsourced images, POV and other stylistic problems into the article. More importantly, the others show up when the previous account was blocked/had received its final warning. He/she/it has violated the 3RR more than once, an offense for which Editingoprah has been blocked. (see #Editingoprah_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29) Can someone please look into this? — getcrunk what?! 00:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There is some strange editing in this log of edits from a deleted copyvio image. The users (how often do newbies have revert wars spaced out over hours on an image) fight over the copyright status of an image that they both spend time adding into Oprah's article. Can we get a check user please? Harro5 00:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

A check user request has been made. Harro5 01:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Getcrunk, I'm not sure why you are so frustrated with the inexpereinced newbies at the Oprah article for including relevant early-life images you consider unsourced, when you as an experienced editor endorsed the use of this Janet Jackson image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Janetjacksonnew.jpg The only source info provided is speculation on where the photo came from and the link provided does not even work. It's very difficult for newbies to follow the correct standards and procedures of wikipedia when they are applied so inconsistently by the very people endorsing said standards. I understand that you are acting in good faith and do not mean to be creating double standards or confusion, and thus I offer this as the most constructive of criticism. Cardriver 19:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Update -- now using Borgengruft?

A new user, Borgengruft, just made his/her first edit -- restoring one of 64.228.225.xxx's spam links to Hank Williams.--A. B. 19:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As I go about deleting these links, I make sure to check each linked site on the off chance that it is truly OK and useful. (Believe it or not, I actually found one, so I spared its link). I've noticed these sites load so slowly partly because they're loading stuff like precisionclick.com code and pop-ups. Precisionclick.com was rated OK (or at least not totally criminal) by McAfee Site Advisor but users on the same McAfee page are saying otherwise.--A. B. 21:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

After many tedious hours, I have reversed all the bad links I found and put warnings on all the IP numbers I noted above. It still would be useful if someone checked other IP addresses in the 64.228.225.xxx block. (Note that there were useful edits in 2004 relating to French Wikipedia links and to Quebec/French culture, so don't reverse those!)

--A. B. 17:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Our spammer's sites are certainly an imaginatively diverse mix -- most of them fall into one of three categories: World War II, Indian historical and religious figures, and American country music. I doubt many Hank Williams fans are very familiar with the Hindu goddess, Kali. The linked sites all have the same links and ads at the bottom, however, reflecting the spammer's real objective.

--A. B. 18:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

WOW socks, {{unblock}}, & more

A user responsible for a number of blocked WOW socks has been going from one sock's talk page to the next posting the {{unblock}} template with the reason "I wish to write attack pages on the following: [insert names of various Wikipedians]". I noticed it because it triggered the IRC bot that notifies of any use of {{unblock}}; I've cleaned what I've found of it up, and after about the fourth one, I checkusered the accounts, determined them to be all from a single IP, and blocked it for six months. I don't expect any collateral damage (it appears to be fairly static) but just in case, it's 82.42.145.158. I strongly recommend against unblocking it unless a legitimate Wikipedian is affected; this vandal is having fun doing WOW moves and then causing trouble via thier talk pages once blocked. I don't doubt for a second they would try to instigate a wheel war over good-faith unblocking. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't even get this message saved before he was at it: User talk: 82.42.145.158. Strongly urge against unblocking. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the story doth get better! After being denied the unblock via the IP's talk page by User:Bookofjude, he's now attempting to use a doppelganger, User talk:Sunholm1 to deceive someone into unblocking him. Why deceive? Because if he posted it from his actual account, User talk:Sunholm, the unblocking admin might see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User:Sunholm and realize who he is and what he's been doing. (As User:Firefox did when denying the unblock).

At this point, I think there it's a good idea to discuss what to do with Sunholm & Sunholm1, as he's proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he is the same user that has been doing the WOW vandalism; I held off on saying anything about those accounts because I had a strong feeling he would use them in a manner that would make a public connection between the WOW vandalism and the other accounts. I suggest indefblocks on both, but of course, yield to the judgment of the community. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 10:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please block indef. We don't need to deal with repeat vandals like this. Although I see Theresa has asked for an explanation, so I guess we'll wait and see what that is. pschemp | talk 14:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

. He may be an innocent user, but, at the moment, my hackles are up. But we should AGF for a bit and give him the chance to explain. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

. Theresa knott, Ive just explained about the situation on your talk page. hes a good user. we shouldnt upset him. people can and do use others pcs. and as for his ip being dynamic,

see http://www.by-users.co.uk/forums/?board=networkhelp&action=display&num=1101910618.

I dont like people upsetting users. the writing style of these wow impersonators is difrent too. --KarlaJoanne 14:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

btw sun holm is not like user:poolguy he seems to be good editor. i am probably what you call 'mete puppet' and think we should not complain. sunholm is not vandal. see notices on talk page for info. btw he is good user. see WP:ER on editor review it is chance to give sun holm some feedback. may be i am right. please try and see positive light of situation rather than try accuse him of being vandal. he is not sock puppet of any one. he has alternate account for if he use public terminals (which he does in frequently). i would hope u could be nice to him. he isnt wow whoever wow might be. oh and as for how he baned wow from his pc. well u just delete user using administrator acount in windows xp. can we try and be nice 2 sunholm? --KarlaJoanne 14:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you take us to be complete idiots! Ditch this sock, come back as your regular account and explain yourself properly. Using a sockpuppet account to back up protestations of innocence w.r.t. creating vandalising socks is just stupid. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

but i am not sun holm. check writing style. theres a kn ott i am on diferent ip to sun holm. writing style is completly diferent. i am 'mete puppet' if yu think this of me. it is not protestation of inocence just resoning for why he is the way he is. he is gud contributor. --KarlaJoanne 15:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm srry bot makeiing multeeple speelng misteaks dows not meen u r a diferrnt preson. Wee ar'e not stupeed. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

{{WP:NPA}} - btw, sun holm is diffrent prson to me. i am on difrent ip. check user me if u wnt prf. --KarlaJoanne 15:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain the personal attack I am supposed to be making and please explain this edit Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

accusing me of being sock puppet. as for edit i made on sun holm talk page it was because i am not new user. i used to edit as invisible anon from various ip addresses. some contribs were gud others wr not. theresa knott thes r the facts. --KarlaJoanne 15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So you don't know him personally then? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

i do know sun holm personally. he is gud person. he make good contrbutions relating to car articels on wikipedia. see his mainspce contrbs for mroe info. --KarlaJoanne 15:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case, go tell him to come here himself, as his sockpuppet is just making things worse for him. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ER#User:Sunholm to discus user. --KarlaJoanne 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No i think we'd better discuss him here. He has been accused of being WoW after all, this is a higher profile page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that Karla cannot decide whether she should misspell 'good' as 'gud' or not (second paragraph up). She also has prior knowledge of Wikipedia (knowing not only about our personal attack policy, but its shortcut, WP:NPA, as well as CheckUser), and her previous edits are very suspcious. I can't decide whether to block now or whether this is worth CheckUser's time. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"KarlaJoanne" ain't going to do much more chatting here, I've blocked "her" indefinitely as a transparent sockpuppet. Just look at the history of contribs, including to Sunfazr's RFA. Sunfazr was the old account name of Sunholm, by the way. --Cyde↔Weys 15:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I thnk we need to block all the other accounts associated with this user, including sunfazer, sunholm and two others i can't remember off the top of my head as being WoW socks. I'll do it in a little while unless anyone objects Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. Morven has been involved in multiple blocks of IPs also used by Sunholm which are always coincidentally used by vandals also. There have also been numerous assurances made that the vandalism will stop. (e.g. User:82.42.237.114). It is also interesting to note that it was Sunholm who Cyde blocked as a bot when removing WoW from the list of permenantly banned users... --pgk^(talk) 18:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked them all Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I apprecaite everyone keeping on top of this while I was asleep. (By the way, I answered Theresa's question on my talk page, if anyone was waiting for an answer to that.) There is an open checkuser request on WOW at RFCU that Mackensen has been dealing with; it just mentioned Blueyonder, the same ISP, so perhaps he may have useful information as well. Something tells me this isn't going to be the end of it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Mywayyy

If there are no objections I am going to indefinately block User:Mywayyy for consistent block evasion and disruption. He has been warned many times and appears to have no useful contributions. Before I go ahead and do it, I'll give people some option to object. - FrancisTyers · 13:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment from interested party: See background information here. Problem is: He seems to think that he can wear his opponents down by sheer persistence until people get tired and let him have his way. As long as he believes that and he is determined to disrupt, it will be difficult to stop him. In addition to a long-term block/ban, I'd suggest considering:

• Semi-protect the most affected articles (currently Kalymnos, Samothrace, Simi, Tilos, Chios, Mytilene)
• And/or establish a routine of short-term range blocks of range 88.218.32.0/19, in addition to 24-hour blocks of each new block-evading IP as they come in (reports and fast response through WP:AIV).
• Carrot-and-stick: Give him an offer to come back under a strict topic-specific 0-reverts parole, until he has successfully sought dispute resolution and reached a consensus with other editors. Otherwise give him an unmistakable message he will be treated as a banned vandal forever.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry i didn'r realise this conversation was here and I've gone and indefinately blocked him. The way i see it it. He has made no attempt whatsoever to even try and work with others, and his blatent evading of blocks cannot be tolerted. I've semiprotected most of the articles concerned to stop the edit warring. I am willing to protect as many as necessary - just let me know of any that I have missed.

If people feel that he can be reigned in then unblock with my blessing, but i feel he should be community banned and be done with it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to go ahead, but looks like you beat me too it :) No complaints here. - FrancisTyers · 11:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think his indefinate block would be a great loss for the community; especially, considering the costant bad faith displayed through his endless block evasions; and even his other edits appear to be of doubtful quality.--Aldux 23:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I was also not aware of this discussion here, so i left a comment on his talk page (as i was requested to do, with all the good faith), and also expressed my opinion on the matter in Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page. Theresa Knott, i think u exagerrated in permabanning him, but i won't make it seem a big deal... --Hectorian 00:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Goodandevil/User:136.215.251.179

User:136.215.251.179, a sockpuppet of User:Goodandevil, was checkused and supposedly blocked indefinitely on 4 July 2006, but was somehow able to post on the Ann Coulter discussion page on 5 July 2006. Technical error with the checkuse script? J.R. Hercules 14:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any trace of his block in his log. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Does the checkuse script automatically block an IP, or does the blocking need to be done manually? Maybe the user accidentally slipped through the "to block" list. J.R. Hercules 14:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no "to block" list on CheckUser. It is the responsibility of the person who requested the CheckUser to make sure that some sort of action is taken based on the results. Usually it's good enough to contact an active administrator and post a link back to the confirmed results on the CheckUser page. --Cyde↔Weys 15:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason for the length of this block (two years, two months, two weeks, etc.). Goodandevil has problems with the NPOV policy, as do many editors, and has edit warred in the past. I have no idea if there has been any improvement, as I haven't been following his contributions. But he's not a banned user. He's just a user with a long block log. He's not blocked at the moment — at least not as Goodandevil. While IPs are sometimes tagged as sockpuppets, in my view that's more for identification purposes than for accuracy. If I get logged off and make an edit from my IP, that doesn't make me a sockpuppeteer. It's different if I make three reverts to an article using my username, and then deliberately log off so as to be able to make another three incognito. But Goodandevil last edited under his username on 5 May, so the IP was not being used to get round the three-revert rule. I recall a few months ago, after he had been editing from IPs for some time, he returned as Goodandevil, and said that there had been some problem, now solved, which had prevented him from logging on, but that he had never tried to conceal that he was Goodandevil when posting from IPs.

As I say, I haven't been following his contributions recently, but unless that IP did something that would warrent a ten-week block, I think the block should be undone. Blocking it because it's Goodandevil is not appropriate (unless I'm missing something), because Goodandevil is not blocked, and because the IP is not a puppet trying to split number of votes and reverts between two accounts. Can someone link me to the appropriate entry on the checkuser page, please? Thanks. AnnH ♫ 07:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not exactly a violation of WP policy, but I find it worth mentioning that after the uproar over his IP edits, Goodandevil proceeded to begin editing as "himself" again as of July 8th. By a strange coincidence, his talk page, including all its old warnings, was archived and blanked immediately preceding these new edits. Cheers, Kasreyn 23:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Georgewiliamherbert and Todd Bridges

Georgewiliamherbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Todd Bridges (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are currently the subject of a checkuser request for edit warring on Talk:Gorilla. Georgewilliamherbert's very first edit was vandalism against Mystic's userpage, plus the edit warring indicates this is a role account for vandalism and/or trolling. Todd Bridges is obviously a username vio. I suggest both accounts be indef blocked. Thatcher131 15:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• After looking into the situation further I wonder if they might both be socks for Biff loman9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who was indef blocked for using socks and making personal attacks. Thatcher131 15:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, editorial commentaries fit the pattern. Todd Bridges (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s editing pattern/topics edited in particular strongly suggests he's a sockpuppet of Biff loman9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Netscott 16:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• As a side issue, both are inappropriate user names (famous and infamous people). Geogre 18:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wha'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note Georgewiliamherbert (talk · contribs) != Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs); the later is a nice respectable chap. I've blocked as an inappropriate username. Shimgray | talk | 18:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, our eyes play tricks that the vandals design upon us. George William Herbert doesn't have to be the GWH, after all. As for Todd Bridges, I imagine it's like Michael Bolton in Office Space: anyone with the actual name is being encouraged not to use it anymore. Geogre 20:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm baffled - who is the GWH? GWH is the GWH I knew of from Usenet, as far as I can tell, but calling him (in)famous seems a bit unexpected... Shimgray | talk | 20:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm the same George from Usenet. I am a decendant of the poet, but not he (and certainly neither 414 years old nor usefully poetic...). I am most certainly enthusiastically not this User:Georgewiliamherbert one-L impostor account, and I greatly appreciate Shimgray's having blocked them for the obvious impostor username. I am sort of curious as to which kook was scattered out of the woodwork enough to do these two sock accounts and start attacking people. I wonder if this was related to my posts on unblock-en-l.

I strenuously object to any assertion that I can't use a WP editor name of my real name, even if one of my ancestors has a WP article. Georgewilliamherbert 02:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • • As an additional point of information, 70.53.111.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) vandalized my homepage, and complained about User:ThuranX last night, and reverted a warning on User talk:Todd Bridges. Looks sorta suspicious. Georgewilliamherbert 03:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with more than one person having their own account on a single computer - it certainly does not mean they're all the same person. I also do not believe it is true that any attacking of people has gone on. Certainly not by me, certainly not by the others. The name Georgewiliamherbert was actually taken from some guy on Amazon who made a list. I don't know if it's the same guy as here, he says he's from Oakland, CA. The vandalism that was done in his name, as he told the person vandalized, was done while he was away from the computer. Other than that, I don't think any of us has done anything wrong. ThuranX, however, has committed vandalism. All you need to do is look on the Gorilla talk page history, and his own talk page. Todd Bridges 12:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • • George Herbert. I don't think there's much likelihood of confusion. · rodii · 20:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no vandalism by me of the Gorilla talk page. That was done by ThuranX (who should be investigated), and it was reverted by UtherSRG (and he was right to do so). I have never heard of George William Herbert. The name Todd Bridges is probably possessed by a number of people. Besides, he's not exactly famous famous. I'm surprised it wasn't already taken. Do whatever checks you want, you'll find no connection between me and those other users. Also, I don't believe I've committed any vandalism. I've looked back through my contributions and can find nothing - not even anything to support the "general incivility" charge one user levelled against me. Todd Bridges 00:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Checkuser confirms that user:Georgewiliamherbert, user:Todd Bridges and user:Mr. Conky are all the same person. Thatcher131 11:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. That's a lie. We are certainly not the same person. Why don't you do something useful, and investigate ThuranX? Todd Bridges 12:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Essjay also confirmed that you are both likely socks of Biff loman9 [3]. Thatcher131 14:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to add fuel to the fire... Just 7 minutes after User:Todd Bridges made the "Oh, we stole the name off an Amazon booklist" comment above, the one-L User:Georgewiliamherbert account made the same claim on his/her talk page. Survey says... socks! Not that that wasn't clearly evident and obvious a couple of days ago. But that they keep doing dumb stuff and incriminating themselves is indicative.

For what it's worth, that is indeed my booklist. I would be happy to add an appropriate item, such as Bedtime for Bonzo, to the list temporarily if anyone desparately needs me to prove it's me. What this impersonator thought they were doing grabbing names off an Amazon wish list is bizarre. Georgewilliamherbert 02:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Charlesknight

I know this is the good place but I'm not so sure about what we should do with User:Charlesknight. I first "met" this guy when I set up my profile. Before I could remove the userboxes that didnt concern me (2,500 edits, Vandalproof user), this guy emailed me wandering why I had these icons(though I didn't how it worked). So I kindly asked him how it worked, (I even had trouble discussing on talk pages) and before he could answer me he vandalized my page. Now I've contributed to many articles and he keeps vandalizing my contributions. As I'm trying to be more and more involved to improve wikipedia I find myself with a weight that drags me down. Actually he motivates me to keep on improving wikipedia a website that I so admire for its real freespeech. Anyway I dont wanna have to deal with him again on his talk page, cuz all he does is remain silent and vandalize. Should I block him or warn him? I've tried once warn him but he didnt understand why he had been warned. Please let me know, I'm in desperate need of help to help this poor fellow. --Abdelkweli 16:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

ok Debate about my actions and methods I'm quite willing to take - out and out lies are quite different. All I am going to say - my user history and my interactions on the talkpages speak for itself. --Charlesknight 16:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, no, this ISN'T this place to bring this. Second of all, removing a VandalProof template when you're not approved to use VandalProof is hardly vandalism. Take it to mediation. --InShaneee 17:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

he could have given me time to breathe... I was a newbie, don't bite. Charlesknight is an angry person, he should calm down. Wikipedia is about contributing not expressing hatred or other forms of non-physical violence. Take care --Abdelkweli 23:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone an 'angry person' and accusing them of 'expressing hatred' instead of contributing isn't helping, either. Both of you need to take a deep breath. --InShaneee 00:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

ok now can you tell me who tried to impersonate me creating abdeikweli for AbdeIkweli and vandalized pages. It's interesting to see that the person who did that kept talking about me and charlesknight "verbal fight". Abdelkweli 18:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see what that has to do with this discussion. --InShaneee 22:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

IP sock of banned user

84.223.152.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appears to be the IP of banned user Brian G. Wilson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His only edits are related to the user page of the blocked user, and even requested that the User and talk pages be deleted at WP:AN as seen here. Ryulong 20:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've now blocked that IP for a week. I've also blocked Sky-surfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of Brian G. Wilson (based on contributions evidence, and he admitted it to me in an email). In his email he also said he's using other sockpuppets, I suggest people keep a look out for them... Petros471 21:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned Sky-surfer and B G Wilson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here on July 1. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive115#Brian_G._Wilson_apparently_evading_block. —mjb 23:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Real Life Stalker is Wikipedia Administrator!

I request administrative assistance in resolving a dispute with NYTheaterHistorian, whose talk page indicates that he/she is also known as Anonymous anonymous. This individual is a real life stalker, who most recently has attempted to divulge what they think is my current place of employment. This person, who is apparently an Administrator has harrassed me unmercilessly for days on end repeatedly posting slanderous remarks about both myself & my former place of business. They have also falsely represented themselves as having a legitimate affiliation with a close colleagues' corporation.

Based upon their remarks, (what they know and do not know),it is clear to both myself & others that this can be only one of two people (one male, one female). There is a Federal Court order against both of these individuals prohibiting them from harassing or slandering me in any way. Unfortunately, I have had to seek police protection from these individuals in the past. PLEASE, HELP ME!

The pages which have been vandalized are : Marilyn Majeski, Grove Street Playhouse and Gene Frankel.

Thank you, §--Theatrelog 02:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are gravely mistaken. All Anonymous Anonymous did was to welcome user:NYTheaterHistorian. You might want to refrain from making such wild accusations. You also appear to be a scokpuppet of MissMajesty and as such as I have blocked your account. pschemp | talk 02:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you believe this to be a real-life stalker, you should probably take the issue to your local police, rather than bringing it up here. Unlike us, they have the power to arrest people if they've broken any laws. Until then, though, please try to avoid labeling these edits as "vandalism" or "slander", since they seem to stem from a simple content dispute. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This user {Theatrelog, who is herself a sock of an earlier account) has now spawned at least three sockpuppets editing the above articles disruptively. I'd ask any other admins who come across this to keep an eye on it. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of MissMajesty. Thanks. pschemp | talk 05:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Is a children's theater company even notable? There are so many. Let alone the former director of a defunct childrens theater. Hort Graz 06:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD'd both articles. - Merzbow 08:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea.pschemp | talk 11:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that she is making wild legal claims which are not substantiated, federal courts do not issue edicts prohibiting individuals from contacting others. If she is not banned for being a sock, she should be for the legal threats/claims. Batman2005 03:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Indef block of User:BrittonLaRoche

This user has made it clear on his talk page that he intends to troll Wikipedia. I don't see why continuing to grant editing privilages to this account benefits the encyclopedia. I have indef blocked the account. Feel free to unblock if you wish. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Concur. And since he was continuing to troll after being blocked, I protected his user talk page as well. Kimchi.sg 07:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Suqport. -- Drini 18:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A welcome would've been nice

I really love your website and there are lots of people that don't like me in school that say I'm retarded. I think of you guys as my real friends and decided to use my real name from here on. PS if I see vandals in my school, I will report them.Jackie R. 07:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad you're here to help Jackie, tho this noticeboard is usually for things that need emergency help from our administrators. Anyway, let me welcome you to Wikipedia and I hope you enjoy your long stay =D--mboverload@ 07:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

AN:I troll... --InShaneee 18:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice. (→ Netscott ←) 21:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Was that a bad faith block :(? Lapinmies 21:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. Why would you assume so? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Very first post outside of their user page is to WP:ANI? (→Netscott) 22:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Standard AN:I troll MO. --InShaneee 22:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Endorse block. Now if an {{unblock}} pops up though... probably cause for further review. :-) (→) 23:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Not endorsed here. What part of Wikipedia:Blocking policy was relied on to block based on the two line post above? Disruption? Hardly justified for two contributions. Block was way too hasty in my view. It may turn out to be a troll as suggested, but assuming good faith should have suggested to wait for a bit longer than two non-vandalism contributions. Regards, MartinRe 23:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How about assuming good faith from the admins who have to deal with the ANI troll on a daily basis? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for User:WP:ANI Troll to show up any day now. (→) 03:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• If we assume good faith, the contributions history is very sad. Was this user perhaps under another name before?--A Y Arktos\^talk 23:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. Try looking under the block log for ANI troll. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with Zoe, it's the same troll. [4] was an earlier block I made tonight. Compare the posts, punctuation, style, etc. Duck test. Antandrus (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:Cellpreference

I blocked Cellpreference (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of Daloonik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Daloonik was blocked for a week for repeated personal attacks. Cellpreference uploaded images (such as Image:Glencedar.JPG that had previously been uploaded by Daloonik (and subsequently deleted), with Cellpreference claiming to be the author and releasing them under GFDL. In one of the edit summaries, he then admitted to being Daloonik. As a sockpuppet created to circumvent a block, I indefinitely blocked Cellpreference, and extended Daloonik's block by a further week.

As Cellpreference (a few sections up) complained about my speedy deletion of articles he recreated, it was brought to my attention that I should have let an uninvolved administrator carry out these actions. I agree, and so submit my actions for review. Please feel free to undo / reduce either block as you deem fit. Proto///type 08:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Today's WOW vandalism

I'm having difficulty undoing today's bout of WOW vandalism (here's the list) because Wikipedia keeps logging me out and I have to go to work now. Can other admins please look at the list? Thanks. -- Francs2000 08:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the gruntwork Franc =D --mboverload@ 11:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Block requested following RFCU

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/HeadleyDown :

user:JHartley is behaviorally almost certainly a reincarnation of blocked sock-master user:HeadleyDown. There are a variety of strong indications to back this (due to HeadleyDown's long term abuse potential, I'm not listing the exact details here but will be glad to summarize by email if needed).

User:Mackensen replied that checkuser is inconclusive, but "Per Arbcom, if he's acting and editing like a HeadleyDown sock go ahead and block him." [5].

I have weighed up the evidence carefully... but the evidence is not all guesswork, and I still come down to the same conclusion that he's almost certainly a reincarnation, and requesting a block is appropriate.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Upon further review and consideration I have blocked JHartley indefinitely as a sockpuppet/reincarnation of HeadleyDown. Mackensen (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yay for civility!

I left a somewhat terse message for User:Janizary after having a look through his charming contribution history. I got back this charm-filled reply. What would the hivemind suggest in the case of this user? Collect suitable diffs, then what? - David Gerard 10:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

His message to you is unacceptable, but could you provide specific links to show why you warned him in the first place? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I find that a normal "please follow the rules or you (will|may} be blocked" works quite well. You don't need all the brainpower to come up with individual responces. hehe. --mboverload@ 11:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

DavidGerard, his reply to you was unacceptable, but your "warning message" to him was a diplomatic train wreck. Please find a more congenial way to give people warnings than "work on the civility or go away". That's kind of asking for a negative response. It's possible to ask someone to be civil in a way that inclines them to do so. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• I would really recommend bookmarking Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. I agree that David Gerard's note was not merely terse but undiplomatic. The default templates might help those who wish to warn or advise new users to keep cool.--A Y Arktos\^talk 22:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

rascist abuse by user

Feline1 (talk · contribs) has been in dispute with a number of Irish editors over the contents of the British Isles page. Put simply, the question as to whether Ireland is now regarded as one of the British Isles is controversial and disputed. He however insists on trying to erase any suggestion that there may be a question mark over it, and launches rascist attacks on Irish users who seek to try to draw attention to the fact that things are not as simple as he wants to claim.

Last night he was reported for 3RR. No admin was available immediately to deal with it. His response was to keep blanket reverting (up to 5 reverts and climbing) with taunts to all other editors who would not go beyond three). Given the mounting number of reverts, with taunts, I intervened to block him. As I had been one of the people involved in the edit war I put an explanation on the 3RR page, here, and elsewhere, and independent admins judged it the right intervention in the circumstances. Feline's reponse, as usual, as been to post rascist taunts. His most recent one (as well as nutty claims that 172 and I are sockpuppets!!!) involved accusations that I have made "barbed sectarian POV rants" (people who know me here know that I do not make sectarian attacks on people). He added in the (even by his standards) deeply offensive and provocative claim Frankly I imagine someone like him will never be happy until the entire article is replaced by a picture of the potato famine with the caption "YOU ENGLISH B@STARDS!!!!!!" (written in Irish, of course) He has called other Irish users "sectarian nitwits" and made numerous other derogatory comments.

Could someone please intervene with this individual. His rascism and bigotry has gone to far this time. It is bad enough to have him highjacking a page and deleting everything he disagrees with en masse, without accompanying it with a litany of rascist taunts. FearÉIREANN^(caint) 12:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Appears to have been warned. --InShaneee 01:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

User Leifern admits to having "no knowledge of it." Nevertheless, he pushes radical theory (July 6, 2006)

This user - Leifern - is a proven vandal in Wikipedia. Until he stops His ill-fated tactics - which clearly fight against Wikipedia's guidelines - his methods shall be used against himself, unless the administrators intervene.

Among his most recent foul play, the user Leifern has provably participated in pushing false information and improper tactics in relation to the wikipedia's Kven article, including pushing a splitting of that article, which attempt has now led to a new informational war in the Kven related articles - unnecessarily, as recently a much welcomed consensus had already been reached.

Advocating a mindless blocking of an innocent contributor for the Kven article is also going to backfire against Mr. Leifern, unless he makes a clear effort to correct things, or unless someone else comes for his rescue now.

Administrators, - please - do the right thing now: unblock the user Art Dominique immediately! That blocking has not been given any valid reason, only a false accusation of sockpuppetry. Remember, not guilty, unless proven guilty!

On behalf of the entire Wikipedia community - Stopping your vandalism 15:00, 06 July 2006 (UTC)

I refactored the above but when I hit 'Save page' someone had removed it. That may well have been the right thing to do and I won't object if it's removed again, but here's a more readable version if anyone wants it. Haukur 12:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What tool did you use to fix the capslock? Heh, the ultimate snub - asking how someone fixed their capslocked rant. --mboverload@ 12:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft Word - Format - Change case - Sentence case, and then some manual fixes. Haukur 12:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• mboverload gives Haukurth a hug* --mboverload@ 01:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• From what I can tell Art Dominique isn't blocked at all. Anyway, regardless of Leifern's actions, someone should warn this user to not threaten to break policies in retaliation of someone else doing so. That is completely unacceptable. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I would invite anyone to visit the Kven and Kven (historical) pages. I have never advocated any point of view at all, only proposed that two related but distinct topics (the contemporary minority in Norway vs. the historical population of Kvenland) be separated into each their own article. This because the historical Kvens is a very contentious topic, for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me. I've been careful to maintain every single word about the historical Kvens in the new article. --Leifern 13:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The user initiating this discussion (Stopping your vandalism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) has already, under earlier usernames, been the object of a a requests for comment and a request for checkuser. He (or she) uses multiple socks simultaneously to edit the same or related articles. There are a couple of dozen earlier usernames belonging to this user. The latest incarnations (all used over the last few days) appear to be:

• WhatHaveWeHere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Pravda10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Stepanov1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Hjalmar Berg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Maj-Britt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Stopping your vandalism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Göteborg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

It would actually be very useful if someone could run a quick checkuser on these names. up+land 21:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Everyking

Recently I've been having discussions with user:Everyking at Talk:Ashlee_Simpson#Magazine_covers and Talk:Pieces_of_Me#Excess_detail about what I feel is excess detail in articles related to Ashlee Simpson. I know the history of these Ashlee Simpson articles and I don't want the situation to escalate like it did before, so I've been focussing my comments on the content of the articles, but Everyking's behaviour towards me has been very unsettling. He has become rather uncivil, both on those talk pages and at my RFA (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Extraordinary Machine), and I'd previously told him about this [6] but he doesn't seem to have listened; see also Talk:Invisible (Jaded Era song). I proposed that we invite users from outside the Simpson-related disputes to comment, but he seems uninterested.

Now I feel I have to say something here because of his most recent edits: he's started commenting on messages I write to other users [7], editing articles I've contributed to recently [8] [9] and now he's performing wholesale reverts of my edits to These Boots Are Made for Walkin' (Jessica Simpson song) [10] [11], He refuses to explain why he did so and doesn't seem to care that he is undoing useful changes I made to the article [12]. I want to resolve these disputes with him, but I'm finding it extremely difficult dealing with his behaviour, which I feel is unacceptable. Extraordinary Machine 13:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, because I don't see Everyking using any of his admin tools against you. The only admin-related stuff I see would be his commenting on your RFA, and commenting on you being a new admin and pushing your weight around. Even though he's made these comments, he hasn't actually used any admin tools against you. Perhaps you should use the dispute resolution process. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd advice trying to make smaller edits at a time. For example your edits to These_Boots_Are_Made_for_Walkin'_(Jessica_Simpson_song) radically shrink down and rewrite the article, rather predictably causing James to do a wholesale revert. Haukur 13:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Extraordinary Machine, it's difficult to discuss this here, as Everyking himself is banned from posting on ANI. It's not clear to me from your post if any of your admin actions are involved in the comments Everyking's been writing to you and other users, but if there's anything beyond a pure content dispute, I think you'd better take it to the ArbCom rather than ANI, because of his ANI ban. There's no obvious place to post it on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 or WP:RFAR, I know. Perhaps at the "Requests for clarification" on WP:RFAR? I won't discuss any of it here myself, just supply these bare facts: per Everyking 3, Everyking is prohibited from commenting on other administrators' actions[13] and is required to familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it.[14]. Bishonen | talk 15:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC).

Ooops, I missed this link, sorry. That's a violation of the Everyking 3 injunction right there. Take it to the ArbCom. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC).

The injunction says: "Everyking is prohibited from making comments on non-editorial actions taken by other administrators other than on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration." (emphasis added by me). Haukur 16:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Still, the point is that if EM feels he is having a problem with Everyking (and can not work it out personally), it should probably be posted to the request for clarification section of WP:RFAR for the arbs to sort out. Thatcher131 17:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No one's going to like what I'm about to say, but it seems to me that a content RFC would be the "wider community input" on the articles. My suggestion would be that each of the sides (and I wish it weren't down to sides, but it really has been EK vs. World in a lot of this) state a view as clearly as possible and then get community input on an RFC. My view on the monomania is well known enough, but I have a lot of sympathy for EK and the way folks have mobbed him, too. Geogre 18:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC) (Even I don't like what I said.)

Repeating the mantra: "Everyking is prohibited from making comments on non-editorial actions taken by other administrators other than on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration." Go ask for mediation from the cabal or from the com...thingy. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 18:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, Everyking has a history of .. stuff relating to Ashlee Simpson articles. It might be a good idea to see if anything was ever decided relating to that. --Improv 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that content disputes aren't supposed to be listed here; it's the incivility and following me across pages that I was most troubled by, but I didn't know that this page was specifically for leaving a complaint about an admin's sysop tool-related edits rather than their general editing behaviour. So sorry about that, and I only mentioned the Simpson dispute to provide some background; I didn't mention it with the intent of parachuting in admins familiar with the history of these articles.

I didn't know about that RFAr, but although it says "Everyking is obligated to familiarize himself before commenting" (which I don't feel he did in this case) it doesn't say he can't comment about an admin's actions on their talk page. In fact, I probably would have written the message he was criticising me for if I wasn't an admin, though I do feel his intent was to antagonise me by commenting on it in the way he did. Also, he hasn't reverted at These Boots Are Made for Walkin' (Jessica Simpson song) again.

As for a content RFC for the Simpson pages...well, I listed the Ashlee Simpson dispute at WP:RFC/ART, but nobody commented. Again, I know this page isn't for content disputes, so maybe this discussion should continue elsewhere. Extraordinary Machine 19:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Dang, I was afraid you were going to say that. See, there are certain users who have exhausted community patience even though they're not people anyone wants to block, so no one wants to get involved, because it's a bad time guaranteed for all. I know that the oldsters who remember the Ashlee ... kerfuffle?... just hope to never speak of it again, and the youngsters probably don't understand the whole background and therefore give bland and obvious advice. I suppose it is up to behavior RFC, if a content one has failed. It's too bad. Geogre 12:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ordinarily, if an editor was being difficult, you would first try a user conduct request for comment. In this case, since he has apparently been before the arbitration committee 3 times, it seems (to me anyway) that you should take it to them, and if they want you to try an RFC first they will tell you. Arbcom doesn't deal with content so in your request to them, be sure to focus on how his conduct has been a problem. Thatcher131 20:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I wasn't sure about filing a user conduct RFC, because there doesn't appear to be anybody very involved in this situation that would certify it. Extraordinary Machine 11:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a netherworld situation. On the one hand, the issue is behavior about his interest, but, on the other, it is fairly obviously due to a somewhat excessive interest that the actions are taken, so ArbCom will have a hard time accepting and avoiding making a content ruling or a ruling on a person's excessive desires for writing about a particular subject. On the other hand, a conduct RFC would need involved parties, and there aren't many (because of the bad memories, maybe, and because the people who wanted to provoke Everyking have stopped). Geogre 17:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Scarbor

Scarbor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log): I just blocked him indefinitely as a vandalism/troll-only account. Probably not controversial, but review is welcome. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Endorse, in spite of the fact that you and Scarbor are BFF. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Continuing his Torchwood vandalism again? Yes, I support the block. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • He must work for TTI, then, because, if you report about Torchwood, you get taken away in a straightjacket Will (message me!) 16:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

RFAs closed as well. Will (message me!) 16:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I'd endorse the block as well. Could perhaps be a sock of Bling-chav ? (who he also nominated for adminship, and who's user page he edited). I've protected his user page to prevent against future abuse. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

deeply inappropriate question?

I tried to post this at the RFA talk page but was autoblocked for using AOL - move it if you want.

Essjay removed my RFA question [15] from many RFAa although many answered it and no one else complained. I dont want to be blocked so I will obey Essjay and not ask it again. Do you think it is OK if I use this AOL autoblocking question instead?

1. Is it better to let off nine guilty criminals than to incorrectly incarcerate one innocent person?

Hort Graz 16:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not just say what you mean? "Is it better to block an AOL IP temporarily to stop a vandal, if it may affect several potential AOL Wikipedia contributors?" Administrators aren't soldiers in Iraq, nor criminal judges. KWH 16:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that your RfA edits would be a lot less likely to be removed if you were to abandon the the real-world allegory and ask directly about AOL users or autoblocking. Jkelly 16:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. --Lord Deskana (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Glad they were removed. Your questions add confusion where we are looking for clarity. RFA is already a stressful process. Your questions make more so. FloNight ^talk 17:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

From the way you post this, I get the impression that you still have no idea why Essjay removed your question. I guess the point is that the question is either completely irrelevant, if the two situations (blocks and shooting in a war) are incomparable, or very distasteful and over the top if they imply that you consider the two situations comparable. As suggested above, just ask what you want to know in terms of the actual situation that you want to know about (AOL blocks). I can understand your frustrations with those autoblocks, but let's keep things in perspective here. --JoanneB 21:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Essjay. I was uncomfortable with the question but felt a pressure to answer all the questions. --mboverload@ 01:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Question marked optional, RFA not close, you never hesitate to speak your mind. I would believe it from others but from you I dont believe your comment here. How you deal with questions is part of how we judge you. Hort Graz 08:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't share your interpretation of optional. I'm not comfortable with unanswered questions on RfA. --mboverload@ 10:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

User:71.125.96.208

I'm not entirely certain if this should go here or on the reporting vandalism page or not, but this user has made continued vandalism on the articles for Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, my user page, and violated WP:NPA on my talk page. MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 16:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If the vandalism has been reverted, you're pretty much done, really. If you check blocking policy, it'll show that IP blocks are to be capped at 24 hours (under "Expiry times and application"). Sadly, if you're going to try to work to remove vandalism, the best thing to do is to grow a very thick skin. If I only had a dollar for every time they left a note or vandalized my userpage... :) ~Kylu (u|t) 17:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

True enough. I've dealt with vandalism before, but this one is just a bit annoying, and no one's ever gone on PA before against me. I probably jumped the gun on this one. MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 17:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wear it as a badge of honor; when they start attacking you directly, you know you're doing something right. Welcome to the club. :) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 18:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hee hee. Thanks! :-) MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 18:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:ImaGhost

Ima Ghost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has today added {{NPOV}} to some 50 articles. Aside from some edits to his or her user page, these are Ima Ghost's only contributions. None of these NPOV tags is accompanied by an explanation on the associated talk page. I have requested clarification at User talk:Ima Ghost, and the user claims to be combatting "media bias". However, looking at the articles tagged, I think anyone would be hard-pressed to find any "bias". See, for example, Kylie Belling and Grigory Ugryumov. Has anyone encountered this user before (perhaps as an anon)? Does this warrant any action? — BrianSmithson 18:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the tags and left a note on their talk page. Naconkantari 18:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Trolling and sockpuppetry on Muhammad Iqbal

Hi - I request administrative action against 66.25.124.237 (talk · contribs) and his sockpuppet user:Gufran), who has over one week, been constantly violating WP:NPA, WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL, and been making edits violating WP:NPOV and WP:CITE on Muhammad Iqbal - he has been revert warring while attempting to dodge WP:3RR.

The content issue is whether Iqbal, the spiritual founder of Pakistan should be described as Indian despite the fact that he never lived in Pakistan. Unlike the civil and technical discussion pursued here[16] and here[17], this anon IP user has constantly attacked me, people who've disagreed with him, and has revert warred, thus classifying (IMO) as a WP:TROLL.

Relevant Diffs:[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29]

Warnings:[30],[31],[32],[33]

POV edits to Islam in India, showing that this user is trying to prove a WP:POINT:[34]

Evidence of sockpuppetry as Gufran (talk · contribs):[35] The same exact edit that 66.25.124.237 kept fighting about is made on this user's first edit to Wikipedia. Gufran was created to dodge a 24-hr 3RR block imposed by user:Ragib.

I don't want to engage in revert wars, nor put up with more personal attacks. Please let me know if I'm doing something wrong, but this is my belief that this anon user is a troll, now using a sockpuppet. This Fire Burns.....Always 18:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree the evidence points to a troll using User:Gufran as a sockpuppet. I'll warn User:Gufran about this. If the editor repeats the edits then it will be reasonable for one of us to block him for a bit.--Alabamaboy 19:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Is a firmer action possible? This user has been acting as a troll and POV-pusher over many days. Obviously he's just waiting out his 24-hr block. This Fire Burns.....Always 19:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The anon 66.25.124.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has definitely been troling there. After I gave him a 3RR warning, he claimed that he is "forced to revert", and then did his 5+th revert, for which I gave him a 24 hour 3RR block.

The article in question is an FA, and I think this trolling should be handled. Perhaps a checkuser can be done on Gufran (talk · contribs) to check for sockpuppetry, and if found to be true, longer blocks should be given. --Ragib 20:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Gufran has only one contribution after the 3RR block on the IP address, and I also noted recommendations on the IP's talk page that he should register. Not very sporting to tell someone to register and then accuse him of being a sockpuppet. I politely advised him that if he is that IP editor, he should sit out the rest of the 24 hour block. I suggest waiting a bit to see if he will observe this or not. Thatcher131 20:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That request to register was made amidst a barrage of warnings and revert-warring. Please note that the anon IP did not register until after he was blocked over 3RR. Being a WP:TROLL ain't very sporting, either. This Fire Burns.....Always 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the IP was blocked at 07:00 and Gufran has only one edit since then. If he starts up again before 07:00 tomorrow you will certainly have a stronger case. Thatcher131 20:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm only too happy to wait. I'm only wanting to emphasize that this fellow has done a lot more than just sockpuppeting, so a firm response is necessary if the violations continue. This Fire Burns.....Always 20:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see[36] - user:Essjay found Gufran and the anon IP unrelated. This Fire Burns.....Always 06:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Abdeikweli

Recently an account name abdeikweli but typed AbdeIkweli with a capitalized i instead of l for abdel was created. This person vandalized several pages including the Abdelkweli-Charlesknight incident. It could be the action of an isolated person. take care. Abdelkweli 19:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That actually sounds like the work of the Doppleganger vandal. Everyone with a lowercase "l", be careful. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Swell. Anyone care to pre-emptively block the following: User:IIywrch, User:Ilywrch, & User:lIywrch? -- llywrch 23:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

CSD backlog

Just want you admins to know that there's quite a nasty backlog over at CAT:CSD. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Log cleared. JDoorjam Talk 01:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment, User:Dyslexic agnostic and User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow

I'm looking at Dyslexic agnostic (talk · contribs)'s recent contributions and believe that he is harrassing User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow. I have just advised him of this belief, and noted that he should act within the bounds of his parole, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic. I'm concerned since Harrassment is not tolerated. [37], [38], [39] and [40], are examples. Also, T-Man has attempted to document this at User talk:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow/Vandalism & Harassment although it was blanked by Dyslexic agnostic, with a legal threat in the first edit summary, [41]. I just blocked DA for a personal attack against T-Man in this edit, is it right to block him again for something somewhat dated now? I'd ask that his comments to T-Man in this edit be looked at, I find myself troubled that he attempted to broach a deal with T-Man in which he could revert changes to wikis I created, which I believe means articles, and is counter to WP:OWN. Also see this edit, where he notes to T-Man that I do monitor your edits. I also appreciate there are two sides to this dispute, and that T-Man is another troublesome user, but even so, he is under moderation and this level of harrassment isn't fair, is it? Two wrongs have never made a right, yes? Hiding Talk 21:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. --InShaneee 22:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Salman01

I recently blocked Salman01 (talk · contribs) for 3RR (edit warring in an article). This is the user that secretly nominated himself for adminship recently. I think his removal of any message he doesn't like (no matter how polite) is getting out of hand. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-06 22:01Z

This individual unfortunately is getting off on the wrong foot. I issued a {{canvass}} warning myself about internal spamming relative to him notifying en masse a group of folks about his RfA that he removed but I didn't give him a hard time and insist that the warning remain because I saw his act as an honest mistake. Hopefully he'll get the message about 3RR and not get into any more trouble. (→) 23:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Never trust anyone named after a fish--152.163.100.65 05:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• He's not named after a salmon. It sounds more like he's named after Salman Rushdie or something. Anyway, someone who notifies people en masse, isn't all that secretive about his nomination in my opinion. Anyway, nominations by people like this commonly fail. Leave a note about this post and I'm not worrying anymore. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, Salman tends to be a very common Muslim name - see Salman Khan and Salman Butt.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

User:TruthbringerToronto

User:TruthbringerToronto has on numerous occassions as of late taken perfectly legitimate speedy deletion candidates and prodded them instead: [42] [43] [44] are a few examples. I've told the user to try using the hangon tag [45] to which s/he responded that hangon isn't effective [46].

In addition to this prod v. CSD dispute, the user has also userfied numerous doomed articles. I can understand ones like this User:Pmannin2 (note this was just copy and pasted by Truthbringer which s/he now understands violates GFDL so now s/he moves them instead of simple copy and pastes. But I can't understand userfying articles like User:Kim_722, User:Notlm4life, User:Yarra_Tax, [47], User:Ajpowers, among numerous others. Userfying what seems like an autobiography is one thing, but userfying doomed articles, especially those that appear to be vandalism (like the Ajpowers example), just doesn't make sense.

I've already been through this with him/her on the user pages of myself and the user, but this was to no avail. Can anyone offer any advice and perhaps try to talk to the user about policies? Metros232 04:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The first 2 links are very borderline so I agree with the prod there, I deleted the third article as nn-band A7, the userfing everything thing is very worriesome though. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much the fact it's being done...it's the fact that it's being done out of process that concerns me. We have the hangon tag for a reason. We also have a check & balance system in place already. If the administrator who is patrolling speedy deletions at the time feels it could possibly be a prod instead, they'll switch it to that. I don't think that it is appropriate for this user to change speedy deletes to prods just in case someone might want to edit it in the next five days. We have deletion review if a user feels a deletion of an article is out of process. Metros232 04:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The userfication bit looks like an attempted runaround end-run of the article speedy-deletion policies. User pages are supposed to be for actual editors, not some sort Wikipedian substitute for MySpace, so they don't belong. And, since some of them were created by TruthbringerToronto cutting-and-pasting the text of the doomed articles, they're immediately in violation of the GFDL, to boot. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

...AND it looks like, based on this fresh edit, User:TruthbringerToronto still hasn't figured out the GFDL thing. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I've been trying to clean up, but it doesn't look like TruthbringerToronto doesn't understand what an encyclopedia is, based on his reaction to my un-userfying Kiera Halliday), a stub describing someone's puppy:

User:Calton moved the puppy biography User:K84lfc back to Kiera Halliday where it will inevitably be deleted with the comment "Revert inappropriate userfication". I had originally userfied the article, but User:Calton disapproved. I noticed that you had commented on the article at User talk:K84lfc. [48]

Oh, for Pete's sake! "It's not so much the fact it's being done...it's the fact that it's being done out of process that concerns me. We have the hangon tag for a reason. We also have a check & balance system in place already. If the administrator who is patrolling speedy deletions at the time feels it could possibly be a prod instead, they'll switch it to that." This is— and there is a nicer way to say it, but it does not, alas, spring to mind— pure, unadorned bollocks. Removing speedy tags for an article that any user other than the article's original author feels is not a speedy is perfectly appropriate. We have {{hangon}} for a reason, but that reason has been repeatedly obscured by people who make idiotic comments like Metros232's quoted. Lookit, if you feel like saying the sorts of things that Metros232 says in this section, stay the hell away from speedy deletions, because you cannot be trusted to do the Right Thing and therefore do not belong there. Aargh! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain to me, then, why it is appropriate to change something to a {{prod}} instead of the speedy delete tag in the manner s/he is doing? To change something that's listed as speedy deletion as a non-notable biography to a prod tag that says "nn-biography". What does that mean? "You're right, it's non-notable, so we'll wait 5 days to delete it as non-notable". If TruthBringer was removing the tags in order to say "no, you're wrong, this subject is notable and here's why" that's one thing and I would have absolutely no problem with someone removing a speedy delete tag I was wrong on, but to just simply say it's non-notable is inappropriate. Metros232 14:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here goes. Ready?

• Notability is not a speedy deletion criterion!
• TruthbringerToronto is trying to Do The Right Thing By Those Who Tag Articles Inappropriately by changing to {{PROD}}, so that the delete-it-delete-it-delete-it-waaaah brigade still get their precious deletion, but an inappropriate speedy is not committed.
• Notability is not a speedy deletion criterion!
• {{hangon}} exists only so that the original author of an article can object to a speedy tag inappropriately applied. That is the sole extent of its scope. The rest of us don't need to use it, and should not be told to use it.
• Notability is not a speedy deletion criterion!
• Administrators do not have special status. You should not be reverting a non-admin action and telling the person concerned, "only admins may make that decision", that's terrible behaviour. We are not the only ones who can remove an improper speedy tag.
• Notability is not a speedy deletion criterion!
• Someone removing a speedy tag is not saying "this is not deletable", and shouldn't be expected to be saying such a thing. What they're saying is "hey, this is not a speedy candidate, maybe we should think about it for a little bit in case someone actually cares about this article."

We do a pretty good job of making sure we don't accidentally delete too much rubbish. I'm baffled as to why people insist on ruining that by insisting we follow ridiculous policies that don't exist except as the Chinese Whispers-sponsored folly of their own imaginations. And then complain on AN/I when people don't pay these silly notions sufficient heed! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A7:Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead.

{{db-bio}}, {{db-band}}, {{db-club}}, {{db-group}} : CSD A7 - non-notable biography / vanity about a person or persons that does not assert the notability of the subject.

From the WP:CSD page. I don't see where your point that notability isn't a criteria for speedy deletion comes from. I see where you're coming from on a lot of your points, and I'm sorry it appears that I won't be on your Christmas card list this year, but I don't think that the articles I tag are inappropriately tagged. It's not like I see a band page, say "Oh, I've never heard them on the radio before, DELETE." I know some users do, yes, but please don't lump me in with that category, I think that I research and try to find independent sources and other coverage that is necessary. Metros232 15:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I did indeed lump you into that category, and I apologise if you don't belong. Please understand that saying things to the effect of, "Only an admin may remove speedy tags, non-admins must use {{hangon}}, no matter how stupid the speedy is," instantly sticks you into the "utter morons" category until you prove otherwise. Of course, if you can promise never to say something like that again (and not to drool on the carpet), there might be a way back into my Christmas card list after all...

As for notability, please read the CSD again. Pay particular attention to certain words that start with the letter 'a', end with the letter 't', and have a number of other fine letters (namely an 's', an 'e', and an 'r') in between. If I write an article that says "Metros232 is a popular author with many pubished books to his name", then that cannot be speedied under A7. AfD may reveal that Metros232 being "popular" means "his mother loves him", and "published books" means "vanity press", but you can't say "despite this asseriton, he's non-notable" and speedy him. The subject of an article need not be immediately obvious as notable in the sense we use on AfD to avoid being speedied: there just has to be an assertion of notability. And we set the bar very, very low. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a very true statement you make about the assertion aspect. Take a look at this article for example Guillaume_Buckley. It is quite obviously a hoax, but that doesn't fall under CSD G1 as patent nonsense. And while the person who is the subject of the article is clearly not notable in reality, his article says he is, so we must go based on that. Such a double-edged sword sometimes. Metros232 15:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Guillaume Buckley is hardly the poster child for the view that people should think before they insist on an article being speedy deleted. It's a case of an article so blatantly detrimental to Wikipedia that we can, using Common Sense™, get rid of the bastard with a clear conscience. It's not Policy Says X or Policy Says Y that dictates our decision on whether to speedy, PROD, or AfD an article. The best example might be an article about a band. "Me and Skazz just put a band together. People would probably like us, if we could just get a gig." is an obvious speedy; there's no assertion of notability there. A decent article, but the subject fails WP:MUSIC and you really doubt we should have an article, well, that's AfD material. In-between it gets a bit trickier, but {{prod}} is there to ease the strain on those who just can't face the idea of nominating a bad article for AfD. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And not to drool on the carpet...I maintain my drooling to just on the furniture, is that okay or should I work on that too? :) Metros232 15:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As with many things in life, it depends. Is the furniture of high quality? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability is not a speedy deletion criterion. However Lack of notability assertion is. AS in everything, add some common sense. -- Drini 19:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a trite saying, I know. But when someone is saying "how can something I think is non-notable not be speedied, when the bloke who removes the tag is happy to prod it?", then it's quite appropriate. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Sulpicius

This person deleted 7 of my category additions without giving any reasons[49][50][51][52][53][54][55]. These are conservative groups by definition and this user removed without any reason many of my recent changes. Isn't this in violation of some rules? C56C 05:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a content disagreement; that is not the purpose of this noticeboard. I have responded at your Talk page. —Centrx→talk • 06:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OS 0 1 2

I am shocked you deleted a page that once you requested cleaning up! I protest this action and wish to have a discussion regarding this page for entry OS 0 1 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56 robust (talk • contribs) 08:12, 7 July 2006

We did already. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OS 0 1 2. Please sign your name by putting ~~~~ at the end of your posts. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

User removing comments on article pages due to "foul language:

User:Vesther is removing comments on article talk pages due to them containing what he sees as "foul language" - in one case, the word "shit" [56] which is, at least here, about as far from profane as possible, and again for the word "crap" [57] (see above...).

His justification is that "little children" or "minors" might see it. Now, if the article space is not censored for the protection of minors, why should the article talk space be? He stated: "I can't allow young children to see it, others might be offended by it.", which is definately an attempt to censor for the protection of minors.

His warnings to those that use language that offends him also seems to suggest that its Wikipedia policy to remove comments containing "foul language" [58]. Considering its policy to, at worst, refactor personal attacks rather than remove the entire comment containing them, this is also miles off the mark again.

I see this as vandalism, if slightly strange vandalism. Can an admin take him to one side and reiterate WP:NOT to him? --Kiand 14:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not vandalism if done in good faith; nevertheless, I've left another note on the user's talk page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with RadioKirk (if I'd got in a little quicker, I'd be able to say he agrees with me; alas, it was not to be). Vesther (talk · contribs)'s concern is touching, and in another context I'd applaud his attempts — but removing otherwise fine comments because they happen to contain certain words is not appropriate behaviour on Wikipedia. This is not, in any way, shape, or form, vandalism, and it's long past time we stopped making these "if you squint a bit, you know, and read between the lines, maybe after looking at it in ultraviolet, the policy might just stretch to allow me to use the word 'vandalism' one more time"-type comments. Vesther needs to understand what is and is not an appropriate way to Clean Up Wikipedia (RadioKirk has left a good message there), and also how he can better redirect his energy. Labelling him a "vandal" is not going to help here. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm now involved in this, so I'll take no futher action with this editor, but now I, fuddlemark and Theresa Knott have all "insulted" this editor by "carrying out Kiand's request". Vesther is now removing from his talk page everything that is "insulting" after making it clear that "Once they insulted me, they strike out. I hate them for the rest of my life, and I will never under any circumstance accept any of their apologies whatsoever." There is no longer anything Wikipedic about this editor. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

He's upset, obviously doesn't take well to be chastised or even advised, and acts a bit childishly. However, all he is doing is removing our comments from his own talk page. All the time he limits himself to doing that, let's leave him be. i don't care if he hates me. If he goes back to removing/altering people's comments elsewhere, them that is a different matter. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem, though, is, upset for what? His threshold for "insult" is, at least for the moment, so low that his ability to work together with anyone in the spirit of a Wiki is severely compromised. I have no problem with a leash at this point, but it's going to have to be a very short one, lest he encounter someone less forgiving than you or I... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

SqueakBox

SqueakBox is placed on personal attack parole as can be found here. However, he has recently posted this insultingmessage by which he says that User:Hagiographer must be a sock puppet of mine as his English messages are written in poor Spanish just like those by me. As I explained in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas/Evidence, SqueakBox has frequently criticized unpleasently my English as I am a native speaker of Spanish. Zapatancas 15:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you Hagiographer? i believe you are and urge the arbcom to investigate and do a check user test as if he is Hagiographer he clearly is breaking the arbcom final decision. I am not editing the Zapatero articles and nor should he be. Calling my post insulting is breaking his no attack parole. I am certainly not attacking either Zapatancas or Hagiographer but by describing my question and conclusions as insulting he is again engaged in attacking me, SqueakBox 16:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Squeakbox, you have to ask the Arbcom yourself. Try posting a brief polite notice at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification. I don't see anything that really qualifies as a personal attack here but I'm not sensitized to the situation. You should probably post your request and then go play frisbee with your dogs. If I knew what Zap did to relax I would make a similar suggestion to him. Thatcher131 16:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum to "Here is my attack"

Well, I hace confessed to vandalizing for the past several months, and for permanently scarring my reputation. I want to state now that Tex's contention that I haven't left is entirely false, I only came back on the 23rd to voice my opinion against RobChurch, and his RfA. Well, my attack: I am sorry for being the CIyde vandal and for my attacks on John Reid. I am sorry that I came here, stressing myself, and others out. To further emphasize this, I did create an account with the intention of it being constructive after a three month long meltdown. Hopefully, I will be able to edit constructively, and I am sorry for all the trouble I cause. Yes, people reform, and to be honest, the point of the vandalism was to attract attention to what I see as incivility, and the reasons several of my friends have left here. But vandalism is vandalism, so I better quit before I get in trouble. I am sorry I was ever apart of the project. I DONT want to be a Brian Chase. But, at least I did edit here constructively for a year and three months before I went haywire.εγκυκλοπαίδεια*14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: It is my wish to make it clear that I want to return to the encyclopedia, and I am asking that my block may be lifted so I can continue my work here. I sincerely apologize for my actions.εγκυκλοπαίδεια*16:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who originally gave Encyclopedist the indefinite block, and I did so only because, at the time, he asked for that. He has now been blocked for almost two months. On the talk page of the MyApology account I have just asked him to apologize for his past vandalisms and commit to not doing any more vandalisms in the future. If he does these, I am willing to remove my block. He would be under close scrutiny, and would be known to admins as an previous vandal. But in his non-vandal time he was a valuable contributer, and I think it would be worthwile to have him back. However, when this possibility was mentioned before, there were some strong opinions made against his return, so I wanted to give a chance here for someone to again argue against this action before I took it. - TexasAndroid 16:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Can it be known that I did apologize: and do again: I am very sorry. .εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Endose unblock. Highly valuable contributor, even if he did go a bit postal back then. - FrancisTyers · 17:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be willing to give him a second chance, but only a very brief one, if he returns to his bad behavior, then reblock immediately. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I will make it very clear to him that he is effectively on a last chance. He has promised not to vandalize again, and if he breaks that promise, it's over for him. - TexasAndroid 17:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Like TexasAndroid correctly points out, I take his obvious love for the project and will to recognize his past mistakes, combined with his previous extensive efforts, as a sign that at least granting a probation time can only be for the best in his case. If the community wishes to give Encyclopedist another chance, and if it may serve to reassure his behavior, I personally wish to offer myself as his mentor. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 17:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I am also willing to give him another chance, since I think he's an amazing contributor, as long as he doesn't let his occasional anger get the better of him. On the strength of contributions like this one [59] -- the first draft of this large article -- we need people like Encyclopedist. Antandrus (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Unblock seems reasonable, continuing with his original account is at least honest as to the problems and issues he has faced in the past. --pgk^(talk) 17:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. It might be worth trying to steer clear of the situation which led to the original problems. Perhaps Phaedriel could investigate what these were before starting the mentoring rôle. Stephen B Streater 18:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I just unblocked the account, giving user one last chance, me and another user should mentor him. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems good. To be frank, I was extremely surprised when I heard about the vandalism. I knew he'd gone through some WikiStress but it was still extremely surprising. Welcome back, Encyclopedist. I hope you can return to being the excellent contributor that you were before. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, welcome back, I support another chance for V. Molotov / Encyclopedist. After all he could just have registered a new account without our knowledge anyway. Prodego ^talk 18:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I was personally disgusted to see him submit a self-nomination for adminship less than 2 hours after being unbanned by Jaranda. This exceeds my (admittedly limited) ability to assume good faith, so I closed it as patent disruption and per WP:SNOW at a tally of five neys. — Jul. 7, '06 [20:11] <freak|talk>

I'd give him a bit of time and space to adjust to life here again. Let his mentors work their magic. Kindness is the greatest wisdom. Stephen B Streater 20:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

please investigate vandal administrator KillerChihuahua

The following pertinent and highly researched links keep getting removed by birdmessenger. I have been blocked a few times by a rougue administrator that vandalizes by the alias: KillerChihuahua

• www.catholic-jhb.org.za/articles/prayers.html List of Catholic Prayers
• www.chabad.org/article.asp?AID=39909 Prayer in Judaism
• www.bahaiprayers.org/ Bahá'í prayers - a list of prayers from the Bahá'í faith.
• www.sacredspace.ie Sacred Space a daily prayer site by the Irish Jesuits, using the Ignatian tradition, a branch of Catholic spirituality dating from the sixteenth century
• www.tlpn.org Live Prayer Network - The largest prayer system on the net, in minutes add live prayer to your site
• www.epray.org Prayer Software - Get prayer, prayer for others and have it sent to any mobile device
• www.liveprayer.com Live Prayer with Bill Keller Live Prayer with Bill Keller

Someone please investigate KillerChihuahua's history in reference to the prayer page.Spicynugget 16:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you should have posted this at the bottom instead of placing it on the middle of the page. Second, KillerChihuahua has not blocked you at any time, from what can be observed on your block log; you have been blocked for disruption and 3RR by other admins. Checking your contributions and your talk page, it is easy to see that you have been repeatedly warned not to include commercial links at a number of pages, Prayer being one of them. Considering these circumstances, reversion of changes made by you both under this account and several IP addresses to "avoid" breach of 3RR after being warned in several occasions, consitutes no vandalism whatsoever. I sincerely suggest you to engage in discussion and listen to reasons expressed to you both at your Talk page and those of the articles where you have posted the afforementioned commercial links. Regards, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 16:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Complaint is duplicated here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#please_investigate_administrator_KillerChihuahua. --kingboyk 16:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Admin noticeboard:

You have never been blocked by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), unless it has been under a different account or IP. Jkelly 16:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen a rouge chihuahua. I've only ever seen sorrel ones. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, Phaedriel, that's very good advice, but first of all: Spicynugget, nobody's going to take you seriously if you use phrasing like "rougue administrator that vandalizes by the alias: KillerChihuahua." It's spelled rouge, for one thing. HTH. Bishonen | talk 17:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC).

• KC has blocked a number of IP addresses as suspected socks of Spicynugget [60] evading blocks for 3RR and IP sockpuppetry. Thatcher131 17:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a very rouge Chihuahua, Malbar. I walk softly and carry a big chew toy! KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So by "I have been blocked a few times by a rougue administrator" Spicynugget refers to his/her unacknowledged socks being blocked..? LOL, that's a new one. I suggest a good long block for this abusive "contributor". Seriously...! [/me wanders off shaking head and repeating "vandalizes by the alias: KillerChihuahua" under breath.] Happy birthday, Puppy! Bishonen | talk 17:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC).

from every situation I have ever had to deal with KillerChihuahua he has been a well behaved, model administrator, this person is obviously upset that his sock puppetry accounts were blocked. Batman2005 18:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking for popular support.

Hello, as you can see, I’ve just registered here in Wikipedia. I would like to get approval for an idea I would like to carry out. I see there are a lot of conflicts here on Wikipedia (editwaring, vandals, reverts, etc.). I would like to act as sort of a lawyer for users involved in conflicts, and speak on their behalf, so they can contribute more without getting bogged down by “small things.” I wouldn’t contribute to content myself, in order to avoid conflicts, and I would try to stay neutral on issues until someone asks me for consultation or representation. What do you think? Wiki Laywer 17:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a pleasure to hear from people who want to help the project but please know that such a concept tends to be rather frowned up. ;-) (→) 17:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, This wouldn’t be like formal cases or strict interpretation of Wiki Policy. More or less, consultation and assistance, or meditation of disputes. Wiki Laywer 17:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well we've got just the place for folks like yourself, check out Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for possible avenues that you could take towards such goals. Also have a peek over at third opinon. Just out of curiosity... how did you locate WP:ANI?... this is not a typical first stop for new users. (→) 17:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll check them out. By the way, I not new, I just started a new account for this puorpose ;) Wiki Laywer 18:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I see, well the line, "Hello, as you can see, I’ve just registered here in Wikipedia." inclines others (like myself) to think otherwise. If you have another account be sure that you use them both in accord with Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Take it easy. (→) 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I see User:Samuel Blanning has advised you relative to your username (and it's clear he had the same impression I did about your "newness"). I'd follow all of his advice if I were you. (→) 18:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, it's pedantic Wiki lawyering which is discouraged, not Wiki laywering ;-) Stephen B Streater 18:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Netscott, there are avenues, such as the mediation committee, the mediation cabal, esperanza, etc. where advocacy and/or mediation would be welcome. People will be more open to your help after you have established an account in good standing with good edits to a variety of areas (articles, user talk, village pump, articles for deletion, etc) and no problems (such as uncivil behavior). Thatcher131 18:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In concurrence with everyone I would like to say this: You are all JERKS. I come here, try to help out, and all you do is give me putdowns and make fun of me (I have a bad name, helping others is looked down upon, etc.). I suggest you all have a look at yourselves a your hearts. You NEED to be more welcoming to newcomers like me. GOT IT??? Wiki Laywer 19:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:ANI troll? (→Netscott) 19:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

NO NO Netscott is WP:ANI MUSLEM DUMBASS. Wiki Laywer 19:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There we go, definitely our "friend"! :-) (→Netscott) 19:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinitely, as someone would have had to eventually anyway for the username. Not 100% convinced it's the 'ANI troll'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

First post here and then all of that afterwards? Fits the M.O. i.m.h.o. (→Netscott) 19:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, my thought too, just after I saved my post above. His old tricks don't work anymore, so why not try something new? Thatcher131 19:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Self-professed nonnewcommer got indefblocked.... -- Drini 19:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Because some people demand we 'assume good faith' :P --InShaneee 22:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

About a month ago, there was an IP who committed vandalism for about a week on and off, then came out and said he was really an admin on an alternate account, and did the vandalism as part of an experiment. It turned out he was really a troll starting trouble with the Admin elections. It ended up a big issue. I say you check user them. Grasstoper 19:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Either way, if he has problems with the people on ANI, he'll have some real problems sorting out some of the more hostile areas. Stephen B Streater 20:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the VANDAL referenced by Grasstoper. I have reformed my ways and now I am contributing positively under the username Nookdog. Please don’t confuse me with Wiki Laywer. Thanks. 216.164.203.90 23:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre personal attacks inserted into Gary Weiss

New user WordBomb, in his very first edits on Wikipedia, inserted a libelous attack on the subject of the article and myself in Gary Weiss (see [61]). I deleted the offensive materials, placed a warning on Wordbomb's user page, and the user re-inserted the scurillous, and libelous to Weiss, personal attack [62]. WordBomb also inserted a lengthy section making unsubstantiated, unsourced claims against Weiss concerning a libel suit. WordBomb repeatedly reverted this unsourced derogatory information, after it was pointed out by myself and another editor that unsourced derogatory information cannot be inserted into articles about living persons.

Wordbomb also placed an improper vandalism warning on another user who properly removed unsourced derogatory materials from Weiss article [63]. This new user has posted on only this one article and obviously is here to pursue some kind of agenda concerning Weiss, and not to make good faith contributions to the project. User should be indefinitely blocked. --Mantanmoreland 21:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm going to block indefinitely, and if it's some kind of mistake, he can explain and be unblocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Please note that WordBomb did not read your block notice too carefully, as he just posted on his user page a vicious, libelous accusation against Weiss, me and another user.[64] I guess that resolves the issue of whether this was an innocent mistake or not. I think the indefinite block should apply to his user page as well, given his latest behavior.--Mantanmoreland 22:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this user has re-emerged as what must surely the most obvious sockpuppet in the history of Wikipedia. [65] I request that this sockpuppet ID "FloydBarbour" be indefinitely blocked and that this IP be blocked as well.--Mantanmoreland 13:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

block for a first timer

Hi, I have a 'block' placed on me. Is this because I am a first time editor? All I did was correct the birthdate of "Michael Bergin". His actual birthdate is posted in his bio on his website. The link is:

http://www.mbergin.com/components.php?file=page_info.php&comp=articles&aID=1

I'd like to understand what I did wrong, please.

Thank you, Jennifer djsaad|at|aol]dot]com — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLa (talk • contribs)

You may have been caught in an AOL autoblock having nothing to do with you or your editing. Jkelly 21:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

We are VERY sorry this happened Jennifer. Anyway, I hope an admin would reverse the block. --mboverload@ 21:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The account that posted here is not blocked, and we have no way of knowing what IP AOL will next assign to this user. Jkelly 21:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, from what I have seen sometimes the user uses the same IP for a long time, or gets a new one all the time. Since she came here to complain, I assumed it was one of the people who keep their IP for awhile. Is that just me? --mboverload@ 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

AOL proxy block. Tonight, I have been blocked now four times since signing on. Each time, the block was aimed at a named account, but the collateral damage rates are getting incredibly high. Geogre 03:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

User:F.O.E.

This user has been uncivil towards many people so far. Notably IP addresses whether or not they vandalize or not. This user engages in incivil comments, removal of warnings from his talk page, WP:BITEs every IP he sees, and makes votes at WP:RFA in violation of WP:POINT. Can someone talk to this editor. I think someone tried to explain the rules to him before, but I guess they were disregarded because it was an IP address. — The King of Kings 22:20 July 07 '06

Given the number of comments at User talk:F.O.E. just from today, I suggest that it should not be hard to find two editors willing to endorse an user-conduct RfC. Jkelly 22:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I will start an RFC now unless someone disagrees. — The King of Kings 23:12 July 07 '06

Sorry

I really fu*ked up. Wingmanattack 23:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, we all make mistakes :) 216.164.203.90 23:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure lets go with that. :-D — The King of Kings 23:15 July 07 '06

Simon Hackett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (putting this here because WP:RFP is sprotected)

Out of control vandalism, please protect/sprotect--152.163.100.65 23:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

One word (acronymn) AOL :) Nookdog 23:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Block :15 at a time, folks. Do not reach for a range block for longer than that. It's aggravating as hell, but the stakes are high (I'm now up to three blocks this editing session, myself). Geogre 03:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• um, this has nothing to do with an AOL vandal, a plain old regular vandal kept targeting the same article, I requested sprotection, luckily since WP:RFP is itself sprotected, the only place I could take the request was right here--205.188.116.65 04:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please help resolve an edit dispute at the Oprah board?

I'm sure Harro5 is a good and competent administrator but he's suddenly been monitoring the Oprah board and has been deleting many of the nice Oprah pics Cardriver and I have uploaded. Instead of explaining why the photos I uploaded are unacceptable, he prefers to just call me a sockpuppet, a troll, a vandal, and tell me I'll be blocked. The current intro photo of Oprah is not very good and kind of undignified to her more elderly fans. In addition it has no source information. I uploaded a colorful dignified intro photo of Oprah with her dogs and Harro5 removed it, calling it junk in his edit summary. He sent me a message warning me not to upload unsourced photos, but the photo he prefers his unsourced as are most of these promotional celebrity photos in wikipedia articles. I'm trying really hard to improve the look of the article and learn the standards of wikipedia so I don't understand why Harro5 feels one unsourced image is valid, while a more clear colorful and dignified one is not.Zorklift 23:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the image I wish to use in the intro is this one: Image:Oprah with dogs.jpg But administrator Harro5 tells me its unsourced keeps reinserting this one Image:Oprah.PNG which is also unsourced and much less dignified. It doesn't make any sense and it's very confusing for us new users who are trying desperately to learn the standards of wikipedia.Zorklift 23:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The image you want to use looks like it was cut from a magazine (since there are remains of some words on it that look like a magazine cover). If this is the case, it's a copyrighted work and can't be used under fair use to illustrate the Oprah article, but only an article about the magazine it is the cover for. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

All that needs saying. Harro5 00:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. But the image Harro5 is using is from Oprah's 20 year DVD collection which is not only not the subject of the article, but mentioned nowhere in the article. We're also having a dispute over images from Letterman. As usual mine is considered unsourced, but the existing image is equally unsourced. I would very much like to expirement with more images but he has threatened to block me if I do so. I feel a neutral administrator should do blockings, not one who is embroiled in an edit war. ThanksZorklift 00:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

My feeling on the matter is just get rid of ALL of the photos from this article and start anew. We got the image undeletion, we got Oprah's website. Except for the first pic, which is used in the infobox, none have sources. But the first pic was altered and cropped, and going by Zoe's response, that infobox pic should go. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've proposed a solution to the images problem here with a list of images to keep or to delete from the article. Please look and comment. Thanks. Harro5 05:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

God damn it, this really pisses me off.

All of AOL is blocked by some administrator asshole, and I have to go to https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Main_Page to edit, but I hate it because it's fucking slow and for every single page asks me if I want to display nonsecure items.--172.195.244.34 23:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be writing through AOL right now? Nookdog 00:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that the SSL certificate for Wikipedia was obtained from "CAcert", which is a new and not widely recognized certificate authority. --John Nagle 00:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, we apologize if you were part of the collateral damage caused by an AOL vandal that we needed to stop, but we hope you'll address your anger where it belongs and assume good faith on our part. RadioKirk 00:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm, gee, I wonder which fellow admin didn't appreciate the joke... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Erasure: Germany National Football Team

Dear Guys, User:Matthead has recently deleted an entire section from Talk:Germany national football team. I wondered whether the erasure of any part of the talk page, regardless of the quality of the comments, is considered vandalism? I can't find any policy document on this point. I wanted some advice before I reverted the talk page and asked User:Matthead for an explanation. --die Baumfabrik 00:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Usually, asking (nicely) for the explanation is the first step. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

User:SPUI possibly violating newest probation

User:SPUI has violated several tennants of his newest probation on Category talk:Ontario provincial highways. Specifically he's violating points 2.1 and 7 of the probation which deal with controversial highway edits being prohibited and civility respectively. Please review said probation here. All parties should have to adhere to this equally. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Point 7 is a warning, not probation. That being said, there is incivility there to the point where some may consider it disruption of the article. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 01:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of Warning Templates By Merzbow

Merzbow has repeatedly added an unwarranted 'personal attack' warning template on my talk page User_talk:His_excellency. He is neither an admin, nor has his addition of the template been founded on any consensus. He has not explained why content he considers to be violations of WP:NPA are indeed violations. This is an abuse of the function of the template, in my opinion, and I removed them accordingly. When I remove it, he adds it back on, and in addition warns that the removal of his judgement amounts to 'vandalism. I have a long standing dispute with him on several articles, and I know that he has been consulting other users on getting me blocked permenantly on Wikipedia.I personally find his work on Islam-related pages to be POV-motivated, and I believe his actions in regards to myself is a result of his desire to promote a POV. On his talk page, it is apparent that he's issued similar warnings, followed with accusations of vandalism for removing his warnings. He has also dismissed other good-faith edits as 'vandalism' in edit summaries. I believe his intention is to intimidate editors with views different than his own. I request an admin to take a look at this and suggest a course of action. He has repeatedly spoken in favor of blocking me on previous occasions. The fact that he is exploiting WP rules as a means of intimidating users, with the probable intention of using such unfounded claims of violation to appeal to an admin who would affect a block (this has been done before) itself suggests some measure should be taken against such a motivated attack. His Excellency... 00:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

H.E. has just come back from a week-long block (reduced to indefinite) for numerous personal attacks, which was the latest in a long string of blocks under that username and his previous username for the same thing. In the day and a half since, he has resumed his uncivil and confrontative behavior with two brand-new personal attacks (one against me) that I feel clearly fall within WP:NPA: [66] and [67], plus a near-personal attack on 'some editors' of the Dhimmi page (and it's obvious to whom he his referring): [68].

I then warned him as appropriate on his talk page for the two attacks. He removed the warning, and I properly warned him for vandalism with wr3 and wr4, both of which he removed, accusing me of harrassment on my talk page. H.E. should have been on his best behavior after coming off his block, which narrowly escaped being indefinite. Instead, he has returned to his old behavior. Hasn't community patience with this user finally been exhausted? - Merzbow 00:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually a careful look at past blocks would reveal ALOT of debate on the credibility of the blocks. Personal attacks that weren't personal attacks, 3RRs that werent 3RRs. Merzbow's contributions to the Islam-related pages have been extremely POV-biased, and he's suggested already a desire to 'nuke' sections that I have newly added. Needless to say, there's an obvious content dispute that spans across several pages, most notably Dhimmi and Criticisms of Islam. In the past, blocks have been placed that have later been debated, where the majority felt the accusations were unfounded. Sometimes, as a result, blocks were reduced, and sometimes removed. Merzbow is clearly settings things up to appeal for another block, and almost certainly some trigger-happy admin would respond by affecting such a block. That is why I am bringing this here now. I am critical of Merzbow's contributions here, and I am vocal in that criticism. Criticism of a user's contribution is not in of itself a 'personal attack'. The use of templates and talk page warnings to intimidate a user IS however an attack, and I would like to see this matter addressed. This is lawyering, baiting, and malevolent opportunism. His Excellency... 00:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed User:Merzbow's diffs and while H.E.'s words are heated I see no personal attacks there. (→Netscott) 01:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. His words were clearly personal attacks. To Hypnosadist: "If anything, it seems I and 'my children' need to work here to teach you a thing or two, particularly on the topic of intellectual honesty, which you're demonstrating here you know nothing about." To me: "I'm merely suggesting that a level amount of skepticism be directed at all entries, regardless of who inserts them. I've been familiar with your work long enough to know not to bother directing the same suggestion to you." Guys, this is not a newbie we're talking about here. This is a user with a long and storied history of incivility, disruption, and personal attacks who has been blocked numerous times. It has been a day and a half since his last block. How much longer do the editors who are expected to work with him need to put up with this? - Merzbow 01:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Those comments are about conduct. Nowhere is H.E. saying you're a jerk, or you're this or you're that. There is a difference. The only thing that is perhaps borderline is the civility question but even here I don't see a particular level of incivility that merits any sort of warning or admin action. (→Netscott) 01:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

To put things in context, allow me to post the content I was responding to:

"H.E. let me answer your last point first as to why there is endemic bias to the western view on wikipedia, The West Built it!, thats the answer, a guy called Jimbo(what an american name!) started this project. Based on HTML which was created at CERN and given free to you so that you and your children learn more and be better off. Built on a model of working not even thought about before the existance of the open source movement in the late 80's, that being the Bazar model. This project and the entire west stand on the shoulders of something called the industrial revolution that was brought about by the new thoughts that britons were the first to think, or at least not be burnt at the stake for thinking then acting on them." His Excellency... 01:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are clearly wrong here. He said that Hypnosadist "intellectual honesty, which you're demonstrating here you know nothing about". That is CLEARLY a personal statement accusing Hypnosadist of being intellectually dishonest. To me: "I've been familiar with your work long enough to know not to bother directing the same suggestion to you", accusing me of being congenitally incapable of taking suggestions. - Merzbow 01:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And I leave the hysterical tone and accusations leveled by H.E. in this AN/I and recents edits to various talk pages to speak for themselves. - Merzbow 01:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you kindly review my user page? There's a little part about insulting my edit(s)/argument(s)/view(s)... the logic there is the same as here. (→Netscott) 01:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. You are unhappy that somebody is disagreeing with you in a civil manner? - Merzbow 01:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

See, Merzbow, the issue is not at least as obvious as you thought and this is a good reason you shouldn't have use harsh advanced warnings. --Aminz 01:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I can verify that this user has a history of personal attacks (under this and other usernames, most recently in fashions such as this), and should probably be warned for his comments in this thread if nothing else. --InShaneee 01:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had discussions with you on your interpretation of the phrase 'personal attack'. I honestly do not believe you know what a personal attack is. You've blocked me before and warned me before, and you've been quick to issue warnings, even with others failed to see what you considered 'personal attacks'. This is suggestive that in the case of at least one of your warnings, your warning wasn't a product of an action on my part, but that you desired to issue a 'final warning' and that you went about fishing for a justification for it. As your warning was erased by another admin, you apparently picked up a small fish in this instance. His Excellency... 01:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I assure you that making personal attacks to prove that you don't make personal attacks won't get you far. --InShaneee 17:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the comments. The comments are not explicit personal attacks, but tend to be understood as personal attacks. They don't "establish" the personal attacks on the part of H.E. But anyhow, they are not constructive of course and harm the community and should be refained. I also agree with H.E. that Merzbow's use of those "harsh" warning templates was very inappropriate. --Aminz 01:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You'd think it didn't need saying that opinions don't acquire any miraculous virtue or special immunity against removal by being expressed in the form of a template, and yet I seem to spend a lot of my time lately saying it. Too many people have got the idea that if only they use a template, they're free to harass users by endlessly reverting their talkpages and threatening them. Planting warning templates frivolously and then triumpantly accusing the person who removes them of "vandalism" is misuse of process. Bishonen | talk 01:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC).

I suggest an admin take appropriate measures against Merzbow in regards to using these tactics as a means of silencing editors with whom he has a POV dispute. Relevant information on this matter can be found on: User_talk:Merzbow, User_talk:Aminz, and yours truly: User_talk:His_excellency. Edit summaries and past warnings are also noteworthy. On User talk:Salman01, I believe the use of this same tactic of unfounded/unsupported warnings were also used. His Excellency... 01:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am totally agree with His Excellency, I have tried explaining that the reason I am deleting some of the comments from my talk page is because I want to keep my talk page as short (I just want current articles and issues to be on my talk page) as possible but Merzbow keeps on interfering my talk page and putting tags on my talk page. He blamed me for doing something, which he has also done in the past, but he was not punished for doing it because he is an administrator. I believe that Merzbow should be warned and other administrators should learn a lesson from Merzbow’s case. They can’t misuse their powers. Thank You--Salman 01:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that you've been warned by admins not to do this and yet continued to do it anyways. - Merzbow 01:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And Merzbow you forgot that you made the same mistake remember, and you were not warned or blocked, but i was warned and blocked from editing. I don't understand why administrators block wikipedians from editing at wikipedia for 24hrs and during that time they say things about him that are not true, and the wikipedians who is accused can not even defend himself since he can not reply to those accusations. Administrators power should be limited they should tell someone who is above them before they can block someone from editing. And even if they block someone from editing then they should not post those comments until the 24 hrs ban goes by.--Salman 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow is not an admin! lol --Aminz 01:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank You for correcting me brother Aminz. Well I thought he was one, but if he isn’t an administrator then he should be posting those unnecessary tags on my talk page and he should tell an administrator about the problem he has with my edits. Then the administrator should come to me to hear my side of the story. He can not put unnecessary tags on my page if he is not an administrator. Wikipedians shouldn’t be allowed to go around and put tags on other wikipedians talk pages if they don’t like their edits. I mean I am a wikipedian I shouldn’t be going around to others wikipedians talk pages and placing tags if I disagree with their edits and/or their performance at wikipedia. I just don’t understand why isn’t its okay if I want to make my talk page shorter by deleting unnecessary and old comments. I only like to keep comments about current article that I am working on, I feel comfortable that way. But according to Merzbow is cannot delete any comments from my talk page because it helps other wikipedians decide how am I as an editor. Let me tell Merzbow that if other wikipedians want to find out how I am as an editor then they can always go to the history page of my talk page and find out from there. I just want those tags removed from my talk page and wikipedia should have some strict policies regarding administrators as well as other wikipedians. For more details see my talk page [[69]]--Salman 01:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And admins aren't the only ones who can place warnings. In fact, before one can register a vandal or personal attack complaint on AN, one must have issued those warnings first. How somebody can criticize me for following the required process before registering these complaints is beyond me. - Merzbow 01:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it? Then I recommend a read of the pages Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, Abuse of process, and Vexatious litigation. Please note also that it's not open season on an editor simply because he has recently returned from a (controversial) block. Bishonen | talk 01:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC).

You're hardly unbiased in this discussion, having saved H.E. from indefinite blocks twice. - Merzbow 02:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

By now, I think it fair to observe that Bishonen has acted as H.E.'s dedicated enabler and champion on Wikipedia.Timothy Usher 08:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, should we also note you have been stalking Bishonen and harassing her on her talk page? That your edits have been deleted by other admins and that you have been threatened with blocks for continuing this behavior? If you take issue with Bishonen's actions, address the actions, not her. So far you have failed to do that. Same goes for you, Merzbow. This ANI is about you, you should probably defend yourself instead of taking pot shots at others. You are obliged to assume that her descisions are founded in her evaluation of the circumstances, evaluations and conclusions which she has an obligation as an admin to make for herself. It's amazing how people who've made a sport out of reporting 'personal attacks', seem so unaware of they're committing them. His Excellency... 17:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel the need to defend Bishonen here. And mind you, my block is the one Bishonen shortened. I have absolutely no problem with one of my decisions being changed or shortened. I usually figure that admins checking up on each other is one of the best checks we have against unlimited power on Wikipedia.

Did I necessarily agree with the shortening? Not really. But I don't feel that it showed "bias" on Bishonen's part. I think that's the main thing that irks me about how people treat admins here. There's an assumption out there that when we make a decision, that we're "taking sides". Because Bishonen shortened the block, then somehow Bishonen has taken his excellency's "side". It's like when I've blocked one party in an edit war and not other parties. I've been told that I'm taking their "side". "Side" has nothing to do with it. Upholding policy is. I've had differences with Bishonen recently. But she is a good admin. I would much rather see an admin be too lenient than too harsh. And as I said, she isn't showing bias here. She just felt like the block was too harsh. Period. Reading more into that action shows the bias of the person making the comment more than any perceived bias that the admin might have. She's just doing her job as an admin. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't allege "bias" - what would be the point? But Bishonen undid both his indef blocks, not just this one, and has consistently popped up to defend him whatever the issue at hand. She did not just stumble across it - her association with H.E. stems from the FairNBalanced dispute, where she argued for a summary permanent ban, with no warning, of a user with no block log - for uploading a photo of a farm animal labelled "God" into his user space. I opposed this proposed permaban, at which point H.E. jumped in under his new username and starting attacking me. When H.E. was subsequently indef blocked for the first time, Bishonen sprung to his defense and suggested his conduct ought be viewed in light of the FairNBalanced discussion - the logical connection between which was never quite explained, beyond saying that H.E. might feel "besieged as a Muslim editor." Since then, she's acted as his patron on Wikipedia. Now she and H.E. are accusing me of "stalking" her - never mind that I've never even seen her username beyond this specific series of incidents.Timothy Usher 00:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell -- and it's difficult to tell, since as always you are levelling accusations without bothering with niceties like diffs -- this description of things is almost entirely wrong. You didn't allege "bias" but Merzbow did and your response to that [70] clearly was intended to support the allegation. You claim Bishonen undid both his indef blocks but a simple look at the block log disproves that. I didn't follow the FnB thing closely, but your description doesn't match my recollections -- diffs? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I always? I used to be pretty handy with diffs when I had the time to sink into it. When it becomes clear that nothing comes of it anyhow, it's a less appealing use of one's time. Suppose I produce diffs supporting every word of every sentence I'd written: what then? What difference would it make? Despite this observation, I may do so, but it'll have to wait a bit.Timothy Usher 02:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Are ad hominem attacks on me all the two of you have at this point, Merzbow and Timothy Usher? No logic, no argument, no, you know, response to what I say, just "you're arguing for HE, but you argued for HE before, haha!" is your whole case? Shrug. I'm done, I won't follow you into that pit of illogic. Bishonen | talk 12:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC).

What! "take appropriate measures against Merzbow"! I thought H.E. is the one who is accused. H.E.'s comments were definitely harming the community and discouraging good editors like Merzbow, but Merzbow just lost his cool a bit and posted "harsh" warning templates that was very inappropriate. But just a reminder solves the whole issue. --Aminz 01:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, look at the title of this entry. I filed it. My accusation is that Merzbow is using the NPA warning template and subsequent Vandalism warning templates as measures of threat and intimidation. I do not know what the policy is on actions such as these, but the evidence of bad faith in these actions are clear. The accusation was a false one, and the warnings were acts of vandalism on my talk page, entered in bad faith. His Excellency... 01:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

'In addition to that, my response which makes up the second alleged 'personal attack' was to a user's statement that suggested Wikipedia was MEANT to be biased because it was invented in the West, as a gift so that people like myself and my children can 'learn'. For me to take issue with THAT statement amounts to something 'harming the community and discouraging good editors like Merzbow"? I believe you an I may have very different views here as to what benefits the WP community. His Excellency... 01:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again harsh comments beget harsh comments. (→Netscott) 01:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I need to run now, but hope this conflict is peacefully closed by when I come back. :P. Uncle Merzbow, my scary-admin {icon of devil} , I wish you didn't have raised this issue after I removed it. --Aminz 01:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

First i would like to say that i know nothing about any templates. Second i now know that H.E. misunderstood what i had said in my answer to him. I did not meen that was MEANT to be biased as a propaganda tool to indoctrinate his kids, i meant that as wikipedia is mostly made by white /male /geek /westerner's (delette as appropriate) it concentrates on the interests of those groups. I'm still pissed by his later comments though!Hypnosadist 02:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that the parties involved here, who have more than proven themselves entrenched in long-term conflict by now, take their issues to Requests for arbitration. It says right up at the top of this page that admins are not referees, and it is a fact that long threaded arguments like this are inappropriate on this noticeboard. If H.E. is half the malfeasant his opponents assert, a favorable ArbCom outcome should be assured for them. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I just might, as soon as other involved parties return from break. I would suggest that everyone who shares his POV on articles consider whether in the long run they are doing Wikipedia a favor by giving him the benefit of the doubt. Consider carefully that you're not the one that, by all previous behavior, is going to be subject to months of additional incivility and possible personal attacks, and hysterical rants about his opponents' incurable POV bias. Has he apologized at all for any of his behavior in the past? - Merzbow 04:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a little comment here. I have no opinion on this matter but...you don't have to be an admin to warn someone. That's another myth that seems to have taken hold. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe your comment is a little too little. Clearly what's being discussed here is more than just a warning. It's the use of a warning, based on obviously bad-faith mischaracterizations, and subsequent threats of blocks with the intent to threaten and intimidate, and then affect a block by appealing to a trigger-happy admin (of which we have an abundance of). It's a trick that's been used before. His Excellency... 04:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone tell me how a description of a fellow editor as 'intellectually dishonest' doesn't count as a personal attack or at LEAST a good-faith interpretation as one and I'll admit the warning was unjustified. Oh, I forget, his attack was justified because he was 'provoked'. (Not to mention the other attack wasn't). Anyways, see you in ArbComm, I suppose. Grapes is right that neither of us are going to get what we want here. - Merzbow 05:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend Arbcom. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems that half of the effort around here goes towards a handful of persistent problem users - in this case, one that had already been indef blocked twice. What a waste of time.Timothy Usher 00:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain something to you for the fifth time or so. It is ArbCom's job around here to deliberate upon how best to deal with those some allege to be "persistent problem users". It is only when there is complete and unambiguous agreement that community-based bans should be made. It is obvious that such agreement does not exist here. Those who would have HE banned are wasting our time by not opening an ArbCom request. I am not giving you this advice to try to get you to go away or to brush you off. I have participated in the ArbCom process several times and have found it to be effective at identifying and sanctioning disruptive or problematic editors. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Dollarfifty is vandal and manipulates the outcome of voting

UserDollarfifty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeats vandal reverts in Tsushima Basin and unilaterally changed the outcome of the vote at Talk:Tsushima Basin. I beleive he should be blocked for a while.--Questionfromjapan 01:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Addition;I suppose that his/her behavior is a sort of vandalism such as "Changing people's comments" or "Talk page vandalism".

S/He has already changed the outcome of voting three times even after alert. Now, I did final alert on His/her talk page. If S/he violates the final alert, I would like to report it on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.--Questionfromjapan 11:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Page move vandalism

Some of the pages that were reverted aren't going to the correct page and are creating circular redirects or linking to the correct article with the vandal's name. Most of these can't be reverted by normal users and the list is too extensive to list here. For all the moves see here. Yanksox 01:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Strike this everything looks fine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanksox (talk • contribs)

I'm under attack by AOL vandal

Hello, my User page is under attack by an AOL vandal. The vandal wants to insert a claim that Texas Tech University is a "flagship" university, which has a defined meaning in Texas and is not a matter of opinion. There is consensus on the article talk page that it is not a flagship university. His beef with me is that I reverted him/her on Texas Tech University and then blocked him/her for vandalism and personal attacks. He is now in violation of WP:3RR on Texas Tech University, and has begun vandalizing my user page. I have to step out for a while, so I am requesting assistance with reverting these two pages. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 01:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• They have now spread their vandalism to my school University of Texas at Austin, which *is* defined as a flagship by the state. They may appear next at other Texas schools. Johntex\^talk 01:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've got your page "watched" Johntex... as far as the article on your University above I see Tawkerbot4's working overtime. :-) (→Netscott) 01:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed a bunch of personal attacks, blackmail, and threats of the sort "if you don't blah blah I will make everything a hundred times worse for you!!" from both your talk page and the Talk:Texas Tech University page. If others would also keep an eye on this as well it would be helpful. Antandrus (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm watching the pages for now. Naconkantari 03:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels

The latest page moves, which targetted me, were as far as I can see reversed when I got a message on my talk page from a User:Spahbod, who happened to blame me for the page moves. He has virtually no contributions and is blocked for now. Agree/disagree? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand what Spahbod did to be blocked, but it is clear he is a sockpuppet of some user. He has only 4 edits and they were to: (1) blank his talk page (2) blank his user page (3) join a wikiproject (3) message you about a page move. This is not the behavior of a new user. Johntex\^talk 05:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think he's WoW, trolling. To put this in context, see WoW's edits [71] Additionally, there's no unblock request yet. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Something related to note here: I've recently been checkusering WOW accounts to discover sleeper accounts used by the same user, and I've noticed that many of them make what seem to be legit contributions (some even report their own previous WOW actions) and then go on a WOW spree. Not much that can be done in most cases, but if you notice anyone who has a borderline WOW username asking for an unblock, have that in mind. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Omicronpersei8 (talk · contribs)

This over-zealous RCP member unblanked my talk page (a talkpage for a dynamic IP adress) twice. He probably didn't check what he did and restored {helpme} and {unblock} templates, bringing me a warning for misuse of {helpme}. I have only been blocked for one hour for not knowing the guidelines about straw polls, and there were no warnings on the talk page (before Omicronpersei8 restored it with the {helpme} tag). This IP is shared on a router by several individuals and it is a dynamic IP, i.e. can change after the next router reset, I don't find comments hanging on the talkpage appropriate. I have archived the contents of the talk page now (however I find this redundant because the information could be found in history). Please advise this over-zealous user not to change my talkpage again. 85.70.5.66 06:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)_{resolved 85.70.5.66 07:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)}

Don't worry, I won't. The re-adding of the aforementioned tags was my absent-minded fault. I also felt the reversions were cover-ups, but I guess that's something I should, decidedly, be less zealous about. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Omicronpersei8 is actually being noble. Omi asked for advice at the Village Pump to which I responded, and I believe the actions taken were based on my advice. To the best of my knowledge Omicronpersei8's hasn't actually violated any policy, or even guideline. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

User:64.12.116.134 and Same-sex marriage

User:64.12.116.134 has repeatedly introduced biased (and mostly nonsensical) material into the Same-sex marriage article. I've just hit three reverts, and I'm going to bed, but someone might want to take a look and maybe semi-protect the article temporarily. Unfortunately it's an AOL IP. Opabinia regalis 07:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why stop after hitting three reverts? If the edits are vandalism, there's nothing wrong with reverting 'til doomsday (as one Wikipedian once infamously said); if the edits are not, then how did you manage to get to three in less than twenty-four hours? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't quite vandalism, just stupidity. More importantly, it was three-thirty in the morning. At any rate, someone else took over till he stopped. Opabinia regalis 16:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Afrobean attack page

This page has been speedied twice as an attack page, but has just been recreated with the same content. This page may need temporary protection against re-creation, to save speedying it again in the future. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 13:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've delted it again, and protected it from recreation. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 14:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I just protected the talk page from recreation as well. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Neoballmon (talk · contribs)

This petition (permalink) against yours truly doesn't strike me as appropriate content for a user page. Third party intervention appreciated. The "invasions to our privacy" probably refers to my vandalism warnings to this user who tests how far he can go goofing around, adding nonsense, and playing dumb. Femto 15:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have left a message on each of your talk pages. --bainer (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It never stops, does it...

In the continuing Sunholm saga, the individual responsible for the debacle (see above) as well as quite a bit of WOW and Communisim vandalism, among other things, is continuing to use the talk pages of his/her various accounts to cause disruption with the {{unblock}} template. Just a heads up for anyone who checks the category; there are a lot that you might not recognize. Most of the original Sunholm blocks were done by Theresa Knott with WOW in the reason. Additionally, I've done several checkuser blocks of suspected socks; if you have any reason to suspect they may have been errors, see me and I can offer more information. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 15:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've been hit by more than enough autoblocks with the words "..on Wheels" in them to know that occasionally WoW and WiC vandals sometimes come from sharedips, is this taken into consideration when enforcing checkuser blocks?--152.163.100.65 22:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. And this is not an AOL-type situation, and it's not a dynamic IP. This user has been on the same IP, doing the same thing, for a month now. He's abused every trick he can think of to disrupt the site, and the next step will be contacting the ISP. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

About the use of Template:Unblockabuse and protecting talk pages

I've cut this into a separate heading, because it doesn't have anything to do with the dispute discussed above. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

While it serves a valid purpose I'm not a big fan of this template and protecting talk pages of blocked users because I've seen it used to enforce questionable blocks without impartial review in the past. Maybe we can come up with an alternate process to discourage both that and the continuing use of 'unblock' in obvious cases. Perhaps requiring that any protecting of a blocked user's talk page needs to be listed in a central location until the block/protection expires - for review that the block and protection are legitimate. In theory this should be happening on the list of protected pages already, but it generally doesn't. Perhaps just a matter of firming up the instructions? --CBD 19:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll note that until as recently as about a year ago, blocked users couldn't edit anywhere on Wikipedia, period. Blocked editors had to use the mailing list, IRC, or email to the blocking (or another) admin. The sky didn't fall, and blocks still got discussed. In other words, in our worst-case scenario here (protecting the talk page of a blocked editor) all those other avenues are still open, and those options represented the only choices for blocked editors until quite recently.

I'd say that in general we should discourage (but not bar) admins from protecting the talk pages of editors that they have blocked. I'm also curious to know if anyone has examined the use of {{unblockabuse}} in a systematic way, to determine if there really is a problem here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs to create a category, perhaps something like Category:Protected from unblock requests - so that admins can quickly scan where the template is being used and determine if its use in each case is proper. FCYTravis 00:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. pschemp | talk 02:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

JzG Continues to Accuse me of an Having an "Agenda"

JzG has repeatedly accused me (and three others) of having an agenda, but provides no evidence to back his claim. Here is the latest example. Do I have any recourse here? He has been acting this way towards us, who don't share his view on the way that PRT should be presented, despite the fact that he has provided no verifiable evidence to support his position and we have provided many sources. I'm looking for advice as to how to proceed here, since no amount of discussion with JzG will convince him that we don't have ulterior motives. It's going on four months now of endless circular debate. A Transportation Enthusiast 17:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Though, in the same sentence he says that he has an agenda as well. This seems to be a content dispute. JDoorjam Talk 18:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The name A Transportation Enthusiast might be partly to blame. (You may also know that Transportation has a different meaning in England). I'll start looking at the content and see what I come up with. Stephen B Streater 22:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly does "transportation" mean in England? I was not aware until this very moment that my username might be offensive.

Furthermore, I don't appreciate the incivility of this edit comment. I had made a set of good faith edits, one to summarize a wordy point, another to add a point with cited source, and JzG responded with this harsh revert. Now, I realize that these debates can get frustrating, but there's no reason for the harshness of this response. This is just one more example of the long history of hostility by JzG, towards anyone who happens to disagree with him on these pages. A Transportation Enthusiast 22:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that it's a meaning in current use, but in the 1600s, 1700s, and early 1800s, "transportation" meant the exiling of petty criminals from England to colonies such as the Americas or Australia. --Carnildo 23:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

TrevorMay

TervorMay has vandalized at least two pages (Fernand Petzl and Jason Ellison) recently by inserting a photo of someone other than the subject. When the photos are removed, TrevorMay responds by placing a "User is gay" tag on that user's personal page, amongst other things. See TrevorMay's talk and contrib pages for the history. What is the appropriate action to take? Ian mckenzie 18:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Incidents like this response on TrevorMay's talk page makes it hard to Assume Good Faith. I was about to post a warning, but Mgm beat me to it. -- llywrch 19:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've posted warning and asked him to read the welcome message. If he continues with personal attacks or vandalous edits, I support a temp block to get his attention. -Mgm|^(talk) 19:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Cacophony removal of warning notices

Cacophony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently removed his warning notices with the edit summary: removing unwarrented comments from jerk. This is explicitly prohibited.

The 3 notices were about repeated removal of CfD templates during discussion from categories that he'd created. This is explicitly vandalism at Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism Avoidant vandalism.

He also added a recent note to my Talk with the edit summary: because he is a prick.

He has been here almost 2 years, since 2004-08-20, but writes and behaves like a newbie.

Please block for the remaining time on the CfD for these categories, 6 days.

--William Allen Simpson 20:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you please explain what the conflict was about rather than quote policies? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. What reasons did Cacaphony give for removing the CfD templates, were the templates appropriate CfD candidates? That kind of thing. It's only if a user's actions are blatant, indubitable vandalism that you should post warnings on his/her page. Don't post them as part of a dispute with another user. Bishonen | talk 22:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC).

Actually, Wikipedia is a bureaucracy, with several layers of administration, and your citation does not say otherwise. We rely on these "administrators" to enforce policy, and the policy in this case is extremely clear.

1. The "conflict":
   1. This user created several categories (I'll just list one example), with names that do not conform to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) policy, and
   2. moved all the entries from the existing correctly named categories without going through the CfD process for renaming categories (see contributions), and
   3. page blanked the old categories.
2. They were properly nominated for deletion by ProveIt.
3. The tags were reverted without explanation by Cacophony.
4. This was noted on the CfD page, and restored by Musicpvm.
5. As a non-involved party dealing with CfD, I properly posted warning on the user talk page.
6. Rinse and repeat (several times).
7. As for not posting warnings as part of a dispute, please note the cited policy assumes dispute: Avoidant vandalism -- "Removing ... tags in order to conceal or avoid entries to risk deletion."
8. Likewise, WP:CIVIL clearly violated in the edit summaries.

Please promptly administer the only penalty available at this time.

--William Allen Simpson 22:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I rather doubt anybody is going to block an obviously good-faith user who made a mistake and then got riled-up by a formalistic use of vandalism templates. Please try to approach users more diplomatically. I suggest you move on now. If you must have a policy basis for it, see WP:CIV: please focus on editing articles rather than "triumphing" over the "enemy". Bishonen | talk 23:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC).

You are correct, I made a mistake. I don't appreciate the way that the mistake was pointed out to me. William didn't assume good faith and responded to me with vandalism templates rather than informing me of the proper way to handle the situation. I've been around for 2 years and 3,000+ edits and would have appreciated civility instead of threatening to block me due to my mistaken understanding of categorization changes. It is time to get over it and focus our energy on improving Wikipedia. Cacophony 00:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Complaint against someone who thinks I act like a kid

However...: Theresa Knott thinks that I act like a kid, but I DO NOT ACT LIKE A KID. I consider the fact that she called me a kid a personal attack. — The Evil in Everyone (U * T/R * CTD) 21:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes you did I am afraid. I'm sorry if you feel it was a personal attack, but there you go. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You are being very uncivil, Thesresa. Wikipedia has a policy against uncivilness which could result in a block for the person being uncivil. ForestH2 | + | √+ | √ | √- | - 21:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I just found out that Vesther is being more uncivil that Thesera knott. ForestH2 | + | √+ | √ | √- | - 21:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, Paranoid, umm..., user-crap?

FROM TALK PAGE: All talk regarding about me and my edits should be directed here. The only things I ask for you is to keep all discussions as clean as you can, and that you don't spam, flame, commit personal attacks, engage in some "persona/user crapping", ruin the reputation of Wikipedia users, leave unsigned commentaries, troll, or any other detrimental activities.

From deleted messages Once they insulted me, they strike out. I hate them for the rest of my life, and I will never under any circumstance accept any of their apologies whatsoever. — The Evil in Everyone (U * T/R * CTD) 23:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it very disturbing that the user bars any messages that hurt his reputation from his talk page. Your behaviour and beliefs are childish. Hating someone for the rest of your life? I'm not going to mention which grade I last heard that in. His definition of "insult" is anything that hurts his feelings. --mboverload@ 21:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

See also the conversation further up in this page [72] Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

From his userpage: Most unpleasant: Conversations that are from the bottom of one's-self heart (because it eventually becomes a verbal fight, even worse), boy-girl relationships, anyone who attempt to ask me whether or not I'm Korean (because I had to run away from one guy who tried to ask me that question and I had to have others protect me from that guy) I'm just going to stop now. --mboverload@ 21:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This user clearly brings some baggage and imposes it upon anyone who would attempt to work with him; hence my comment above that this user is not and may never be capable of Wikipedic collaboration. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he just doesn't understand the spirit of the wiki (trying to be AGF as much as I can). I hope he will respond here. If he wants to continue to work with everyone I think we would all like that, just with a different attitude. Wikipedia is about working together and accepting critisism from other users to better yourself.

Vesther, would you be willing to talk with us in a constructive manner? I forgive and forget quickly, as many other users do should you wish to stay and help us out. --mboverload@ 22:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest you read over the entire history of this user's talk page (including edit summaries)? His reaction to being "reported" here was (paraphrased) "WAH! He reported me, you didn't stand up for me, me, and only me, I hate you I hate you I hate you all!" I don't see a way to deal with a person like that except to not deal with him at all. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Radiokirk i think you are right, i really do but I don't feel ocmfortable about blocking someone who is at the the moment only mildly disruptive and is making good edits in the article space. However sooner or later he is going to meet a more fragile editor and all hell may break loose. I dunno. It's a difficult one. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I see no need for a block (until, as you say, all hell breaks loose); I don't see a need to feed him either. Perhaps a few of us should watch his talk page? ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Huaiwei (talk · contribs)

The above-mentioned user has returned to editing after a self-imposed wikibreak. His contribs may need to be monitored - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3 for background information. Kimchi.sg 22:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Republika Srpska

So far in last 5 days we had 3 users who have violated 3RR, 1 of which was banned for 8hrs. 2 users have vandalized the page by removing the POV tag and they continue to bully and sabotaged all attempts to reach a valid compromise. See more at [73] --Dado 22:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Another PoolGuy sockpuppetry

LowerLegKnittedGarmentMarionette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 68.39.174.238 22:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I believe the only thing that can stop him now is a block of his IP (or IP range) - which would probably require CheckUser to figure out. 00:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"You are blocked because...."

V Z andal is going to DOS you back to the stoneage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), ahhhhh, autoblock nightmere, please help--205.188.116.65 02:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Huhzorz? --mboverload@ 03:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

not so sure what to do with this

I'm not a registered user or anything, so it really doesn't affect me at all, but I have noticed that some people have gone a bit crazy with the username blocks, and all though I won't name names at the moment, it does seem like some pretty harmless usernames are being blocked, mostly without reason--205.188.116.65 06:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Give us a list of the blocked names that you feel should not be blocked. There is no need to worry about naming names, you won't get anyone in trouble. This is a place for admins to review each others actions, we can't do that if we don't know the details. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal info again...

User:Around between 20:00 and 22:00 EST's sole contribution: A missed GEB PA vandalism. 68.39.174.238 07:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)