Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive203

WP:HAR-WP:CIV

User:Gene_PooleWP:COI

[1] [2] [3] [4]- [5] [6] [7]

[8] -[9]- -[10]- -[11]- Blatant violation of WP:COI [12] --Doktor Who 10:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)--Doktor Who 04:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything specifically wrong with those comments? Yuser31415 20:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Attacking my person and not my editions is not something that I would expect from someone with higher education.-WP:COI-[13]--Dr. Who 20:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, we have a policy against using famous people's names - are you the real Doctor Who? Please fax a copy of the Tardis to Wikimedia Foundation to arrive not later than last Thursday. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop archiving! in re RunedChozo

ref: I'm being harassed by "The Epopt"
ref: RunedChozo Blocked

I returned less than 24 hours after posting a comment, see above (permlink), and the discussion has already been archived. That's a problem. I consider myself fairly active and I come to Wikipedia at least once a day, so to have a discussion I started, archived before I got a chance to come back and see what people said in response to my complaint is completely unacceptable.

Even worse, I didn't get a response to my complaint. Please consider this my opening a complaint on this board. I'd like a response from the people involved in the incident, and a comment on what will happen.

I don't know much about RunedChozo's past behavoir. But, after reading everything on this page I am under the impression, and correct me if I'm wrong, that most warnings and notices on user space can be removed, and that's effictively, the response that RunedChozo got here--except that while people here were SAYING that, there were also reverting his edits to his user page to keep warning there and protecting his userpage so that he couldn't edit it. Those are some pretty conflicting signals to send.

If in fact users are not allowed to take warnings off there user spaces, then all administrators had to do, was make that clear to RunedChozo here. They didn't need to go and revert edits on his userspace--they could have waited for him to and if he didn't move from there, and they didn't need to protect his userspace. These actions were hostile and provoctive, especially since that wasn't the information he was being given here. Administrators knew that there was something going on here, they came from this incident report and went to his userpage and took action, and did so without leaving clarifiying messages as to policy. There were a lot of messages about the user, and the user's behavoir on several other issues, but nothing about what the user actually brought up.

This user's user page and discussion page are still blocked, and the sockpuppet warning the user was trying to get removed is still on the userpage. These discussions have been archived riduclously quickly and I haven't gotten a response to any of my concerns. I'd like to know exactly what the policy is about the removal of warnings on userpages and I'd like a response about the action take on the userpage that was provocative and contradictory to the messages that the user was getting here. I'd also like to know what administrators plan to do about the locked status of the userpages and the sockpuppet warning on the userpage, and why all of these discussions have been archived so quickly.

Please do NOT prematurely archive this discussion. As I stated at the beginning, consider this comment my filing an incident report in response to what I consider the overall gross mishandling of this situation and I'd like a reasonable opportunity to respond. Everyone else, please don't turn this into another fight over whether or not RunedChozo is or is not a ______. Thank you. Miss Mondegreen 03:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that archiving is done automatically by a bot when no discussion has taken place for 24 hours, correct? Issues on this board aren't meant to drag out for weeks and weeks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The last two "archives" done on sections concerning RunedChozo were done by editors, not bots. --Onorem 03:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't catch that because only two bot-archived incidents were linked up at the top. But my below point still stands on solid ground :) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this is not the place for a formal "incident report". As you can see if you'll read the header, this is not the Wikipedia complaints department and this page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I linked to RunedChozo's initial complaint, the discussion on whether or not to ban him, and, in my first paragraph I linked to my own discussion that was still on this page, but that had been closed by administrators. (There's an in page link and a permanent link there, because I knew it would soon be archived). The discussion on whether or not to ban RunedChozo, as well as my own discussion were both archived early by administrators. My comment was created because I didn't get to comment on the ban, and my comment was closed to discussion not 24 hours after I'd posted it, without giving me an opportunity to comment again. It also had degenerated into basic squabbling and finger pointing and was ridiculously off-topic.

The reason I posted again here was two-fold. One was that this whole long thing has stemmed from RunedChozo's first incident report here. I was not commenting on that--I did not really get an opportunity to because the discussion had moved onto his ban, and that discussion was closed rapidly. But I and others still had concerns that we wanted to express there and so we opened up new comments here. We would never have had to do this and we wouldn't be having an issue now of where do I post if administrators hadn't terminated discussions far too early.

The other reason that I posted here is that I'm not the only person involved in, or concerned with this, and I knew that the people who were, were watching this page and the previous discussions. Some of them also posted their own comments in their own sections after something earlier got terminiated prematurely and they didn't get to comment, or reply to a comment. If administrators strongly believe that halfway through an issue it should be moved to a different forum, that's fine; tell me where post and I will. And I'll provide a link here to let the people involved in and following this issue know where it is being taken up. I also want to thank everyone who did post here for not turning this into another fight. I got to come here and read nice succint opinions and get new informations and know where everyone stood and it was really refreshing. Thanks. Miss Mondegreen 22:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I reread the information you directed me to and I'm really confused where I should go. I don't have an issue with content that doesn't require administrative assitance, I require administrative assitance. And I don't really need dispute resolution either. I don't need an Rfc, and I don't need mediation, particularly as the people involved are on the arbitration commitee.

There was an incident, and just because it involves administrators doesn't mean that they themselves can't fix it. First, MY discussion was archived prematurely, and second, no where on here does it say that I have to be directly involved in something to report it. I saw an administrator insult someone and then add a banner to his userpage after he came here to request that administrators let him not have the banner, when apparantly policy is that the banner shouldn't be forced, and I saw a lot of other abysmal behavoir, and I can see a person with an indef block and a locked page so they can't say that they want to come back, and the banner still forced up there, and I want to report this. Please don't tell me to go somewhere to report "an issue with content that doesn't require administrative assistance" or to get dispute resolution. I can't have a dispute if no administrator will answer me, and I'm not having a dispute--I want to report an incident and get someone to do something about it. That is what this board is for. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   23:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The actual count of permablocked users is three...

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but, I am concerned that neither RunedChozo nor Miss Mondegreen have received direct answers. RunedChozo did not handle the situation well, and perhaps this user has been disruptive in the past, however, I believe this user came here with a legitimate concern and was provoked into crossing the line. RunedChozo was perhaps not the best editor to try and make this point, but the question still has not been adequately answered. So, I will ask one more time: Must a user leave a Sockpuppet Master warning up after they have returned from their block? Yes or No?--DSRH | talk 16:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC) I am obviously not going to get a direct answer to my question so it is withdrawn. C'est la vie.--DSRH | talk 04:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I also share this view. I don't have an opinion on the block because that is for sysops to decide on, but the user did come with a complaint and I was hoping that it would have been looked into first. If he had spammed, then he would be stupid to come here with a report which could well incriminate himself. If he had not, then this was the correct place to come to. Unfortunately, due to his past behaviour, the discussion got nowhere - and now he has one more excuse to complain. x42bn6 Talk 16:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I supported the indef, having a sockpuppet notice forced on one's userpage like a brand is harassment, plain and simple, and should not be tolerated. - Merzbow 06:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And when one of the same admins who did the branding is the one who made the indefblock, using the excuse that he'd managed to provoke the user into saying some bad things on their own user page?

The same admin who blocked PSPMario indefinitely has now locked and redirected his talk page to the user page, removing the unblock request in the process. How much more out-of-process adminpower abuse will there be in this case?

Nonsense. It is not improper to do such. The user is a blatant sockpuppet per both contributions and checkuser, and has been blocked accordingly and properly. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks cannot request unblocking (hence the word: indefinite). x42bn6 Talk 01:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they can request unblocking, but this specific block on the RunedChozo sock is non-negotiable. Indefinite, not permanent. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The fake block and fraudulent RFCU claiming PSPMario is a sockpuppet was never investigated, as is part of the entire thread here. But whatever, coverups are coverups, and this is obviously one going on. Admins aren't supposed to do what Mimsy Porpington did, and his claim of "trolling" in his summary for his reason to lock the page is a clear lie.

Then again, for pointing out when an admin abuses his power, there will likely be a block coming and they'll remove this comment to hide their abuse further. After all, that's what an abusive, incestuous, cronyist setup does.

Then again, you have resorted to nonsensical ranting instead of civil discussion. You have now frivolously accused us of conspiracy plots instead of admitting your own mistakes. But let's follow WP:DFTT, shall we? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's see: Three users are indefinitely blocked based on what is likely a falsified CU report, multiple threads here have been deliberately "closed" or "archived" early as documented by Miss Mondegreen above, and nobody is giving an answer, satisfactory or not, to questions raised. That you are so blind as to continually try to defend the obvious wrongdoings AND obvious coverup is amazing. If anyone's a "troll" here, it's you.

Talk all you like. But I'm more inclined to trust the CheckUser more than your words. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You're more inclined to trust a tool that lists uncertain results, and people who don't give a user-by-user result but instead just drop blanket condemnation? I don't. I think it's being abused, and that it was abusive in this case. I think you're showing your own hand, trying to protect someone for some ulterior motive; perhaps you think it'll make you more likely to get elected to arbitration committee or something if you can show how you can abuse people and stand up for those who abuse power. Perhaps you're just a troll. In either case, you're wrong.

I trust CheckUser more because those reaching a result on CheckUser are accountable and responsible for their judgments, unlike your words with no backbone. And conspiracy accusations are the telltale signs of users that are deservingly blocked, in case you didn't know. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"because those reaching a result on CheckUser are accountable and responsible for their judgments" - which is why users can't even see their own results, why results aren't listed name-by-name but all at once, and why there is no provision for appealing that it be doublechecked? You're setting up a real laugh riot here.

As for the "conspiracy accusations", I'm calling it like I see it. When something fishy is going on, something fishy is going on, so why don't you just go trout.

Problem is, the only thing fishy about this is your own rampant sockpuppetry. And I'm calling it as I see it. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You could always stop lying, but perhaps that's too hard for you to do. Multiple users, not just me, are seeing what's going on and can see the abuses clear as day. The fact that you're so deluded that you can't realize the abuses have been exposed is amazing, you must really be sucking down the kool-aid pretty hard.

Multiple? I see one, maybe two. Since when is two "multiple"? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Try reading all the threads that your abusive buddies tried to hide by "closing" and "archiving" far prematurely. And lay off the kool-aid, it's bad for your health.

The fact that you won't even address the concerns, but spend your time attacking me for bringing it up instead? You're showing how trollish you are. Shooting the messenger is an age-old tactic used by those who know they're in the wrong but are too drunk on power to care.

More farcical analogies. If I'm shooting the messenger, then User:Miss Mondegreen would have been blocked long ago. Problem is, I'm not just shooting the messenger; apparently, the messenger is also the recalcitrant disrupter. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems likely enough. I've given the IP a 48-hour block to stoke the fire some more. Mackensen (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, abusing your power is a really good way to show that you act in good faith. That makes TWO "admins" who abused their power now to try to silence any criticism of their behavior.

"Go trout"? JuJube 02:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's an expression we Brits sometimes use...

Let me leave a final comment on this matter. The most important fact is that RunedChozo has lied throughout the above thread and engaged in numerous falsehoods and distortions. He used several sockpuppets and was blocked accordingly. I've reviewed the evidence myself and there's really no question about it. As to whether a user is required to wander around with a scarlet letter prominently displayed; where the user has not been blocked permanently CheckUser has traditionally left this matter to the judgment of the wide community to be determined on a case by case basis. There is no hard and fast rule nor should there be. He's right, though: administrators do have an odd habit of "silencing" banned users by blocking them. Mackensen (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Block review on Big Boss 0

I've blocked Big Boss 0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours for what I believe to be continuous disruption. It began with a lot of fair use images being used in user space (see his upload log). There became more issues like using Wikipedia as a free webhost. And now recently it's been a terrible obsession with Ockenbock (talk · contribs) who's been attacking me. Big Boss 0 is convinced he can bring the sockpuppets down. This was slightly annoying on Wikipedia, but now he's spread his war to Uncyclopedia (see the contributions here, here, and here). Big Boss 0 doesn't realize that doing that only caused Ockenbock to come at me (and Big Boss 0) with more attacks. There also appear to be a bunch of issues today regarding the appropriateness of his user page and user subpages. All this combined into a 48 hour cooling off block.

What does everyone feel of the appropriateness of this block? Too long? Just right? Not enough? Not needed? Feeedback would be appreciated, Metros232 04:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I endorse your block, but don't you feel this message would be more appropriate on AN? Yuser31415 04:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, endorse, but it might be better to bring it to an univolved admin via WP:AN or this board if it reoccurs. Proto ► 12:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Community Ban of Miss Mondegreen

This user is engaging in trolling and personal attacks on this page. They are also acting delusional. We can not afford to waste our time, dealing with ranting. I am proposing a Six Month Community Ban of this user. Geo. Talk to me 07:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Bans go to WP:CN for now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, though, I can't find any evidence that you've actually tried to communicate with this user. --InShaneee 17:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Arizona

User:Schwnj removed my post on Talk:Arizona! Could somebody look into this? - Patricknoddy 13:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Randomly posting a blue map serves no purpose please be more descriptive in your messages. Nareklm 13:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the map because (a) it served no purpose (b) gave no context (c) upon investigating the poster's other contributions, when asked why he was posing maps everywhere, he replied that he didn't want his images orphaned. As a result, I concluded that the post was akin to spam and removed it. I'm not in the habit of editing discussion pages, but I thought it was justified in this case. -Nick^talk 17:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

LSD

This article is undergoing extensive vandalism at the moment. Not sure why but could I ask for a few extra eyes on it to watch for any further vandalism? --Spartaz 13:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out. Nareklm 13:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried keeping an eye on it, but the colors were too intense—it was freakin' me out. I semi-protected the page for a day...see if that helps.  :-D —Doug Bell ^talk 16:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Always keeping an eye of this important article. I'd unprotect it after a day or so as well. I believe this article is watched by many wikipedians and most of the time vandalism is dealt w/ very quickly. So no big deals here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It was only that I had to go back over around 4 or 5 vandalism "reverts" to get back to yesterday's correct last saved version that made me post this. Thanks to all for backing up on this. --Spartaz 17:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Gonial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Cause for concern? This user appears to be a sockpuppet making POINTed removals of gallery links and images from articles. Based upon an edit conflict on the La Défense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article (review the history) it seems pretty obvious that this user is a sockpuppet of user JulienD3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (who's also impersonating User:Gonioul). Thanks. (→Netscott) 14:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What links do you want me to post!?Charlie Gets It 15:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I confirm Netscott analysis, this is clearly JulienD3 which was reverted by several users for only adding links to his gallery.

Please note he vandalised MF 2000 and deleted my question to Wikipedia talk:Good articles

Gonioul 15:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional note: I had requested this user to stop their pointed removals (as a likely sock) but this user continued to edit in the same manner even after my message. (→Netscott) 15:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing continued libel on Paul Staines

This is also on WP:AN, not sure if it was the wrong place (see there at the top for details/info on libel threats from article's subject). Someone should *urgently* protect Paul Staines - User:Pogsurf is repeatedly adding libellous content back to the page. This user is the same user that added libels anonymously (as User:62.136.238.65). I have reverted a few times, but he is very rude and abusive (see his contributions), so his attacks are likely to continue. Can someone revert whatever his latest edits are, if applicable at the time, and protect the page. Also the libels need to be purged from wikipedia. Nssdfdsfds 17:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you found the correct place to discuss this.--Pogsurf 17:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

IP revert-warring, tendentious edits

83.19.173.202 (talk · contribs) is revert-warring and making tendentious edits on Republic of China and People's Republic of China. I'm not sure he's a sock of permabanned Devout Christian (talk · contribs), but he's just as bad. --Ideogram 17:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Warned. He is about to violate 3RR. --Ideogram 17:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Evasion or unblock request

See [14]. Zoe is currently unavailable and I’m not sure what that is, so I’d appreciate it if somebody who knows that editor handled it. Background information at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive176#Somemoron_using_sock. —xyzzy_n 17:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

blocked editor User:Serafin

Serafin has been evading his block, and has been continuing his disruptive editting. He was blocked on 19 January for 1 month, but since then has made ~100 edits see here, most of which have been personal attacks and none of which have been useful contributions. if you will read Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Serafin you will see how problematic he has been. He has been banned from both Polish and German wikipedias (sometimes known as Aserafin, Bserafin, Cserafin), further indication that his actions are not likely to contribute anything to the English wikipedia. if that wasn't enough of a smoking gun, I would like to direct you to a talk that took place between him and another polish-speaking editor, User_talk:Philip_Gronowski. Much of the discussion is in Polish, but Philip was kind enough to translate it for me here. the most incriminating part is where he states You can rest assured that I will be doing everything to close as many articles as I can. This was commented soon after the all the articles he had been editting were protected, and he had been blocked for a month. Can someone please block all his sockpuppets to allow the normal editors with good intentions to continue on wikipedia. and if he uses another anon IP, perhaps semi-protect the pages he has been seen to frequent.

--Jadger 00:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe no one cares. I mean, the case couldn't be more obvious:

Blocked users must not evade their block. If a user does, the block of this user should restart, restart with an increase in time, or made indefinite.

User:Serafin did not only edit a couple of times during his block. He has been spending the whole month in which he was supposed to be blocked editing articles and talk pages, including edit warring if he faces opposition.

He mainly edited with the IP 131.104.218.46. And surprisingly, he has never made a secret of the fact that this is one of his IPs (see for example this). He used new accounts, like User:Erudra and User:Snieg, to edit pages that were semi-protected at the time. And indeed, he has never made a real secret of his sockpuppets, either - these had the names of his proven sockpuppets in the German Wikipedia after in November 2006 his main account in the German Wikipedia - de:User:Aserafin - was blocked indefinitely. He didn't get his ends in the German Wikipedia that way, but he's pulling the same on the English Wikipedia and apparently with success.

Serafin's month of being "blocked" is over in an hour and he still hasn't been blocked again. Why does he enjoy some kind of immunity while others have to wait patiently if they have a time out? Sciurinæ 20:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Big Boss 2

Could someone indefblock this account? It says it's a sock of User:Big Boss 0, but Big Boss 0 stated it wasn't his [15] Thanks! — Moe 02:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

He's already under a 48hr block. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt. Yuser31415 04:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What benefit of the doubt? If someone is claiming to be somebody else, and that other person says they're not them, why shouldn't they be blocked indefinitely? Corvus cornix 19:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about misbehaving bot User:VoABOT II

I have a concern about bot User:VoABOT II because I got a message from it saying I added a link in the "flash flood" article showing a video of a flash flood. I don't ever remember adding a video link ever. Since I'm new, did I unknowingly add a video link or is this bot misbehaving? -Weather333 (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, it was definitely the user after you who added the link [16]. That's odd. Mackensen (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) It would appear that User:Rf1smith added the link, as shown in the diff that VoABOT II left you. Did you leave a note on User talk:Voice of All? I think that's who you need to tell. Leebo⁸⁶ 19:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Seems it was the user after you, User:Rf1smith, who added the footage. Possibly the bot is malfunctioning. I'll let the author know. Thanks for the report. Shimeru 19:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The bot was turnef off by prodego. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

3 Blocks, one of them one week long, and he still doesnt get it....

I'm talking about User:LSLM. His blocks: [17] , [18] , [19]. The reasons for all of them included personal attacks.

Yet, he continues. His personal attacks since his last block:

• "...FOR GOD'S SAKE, THIS IS A MESSAGE FOR ADMINISTRATORS. LOOK AT BOTH MEMBER'S CONTRIBUTIONS. THEY ARE USING WIKI AS A POLITICAL PLATFORM OF THE MOST EXTREME RACIST AND NAZI PROPAGANDA...." [20]

• This is the 3rd or 4th section he has made to "warn" people about my edits, usually with thinly veiled insults: [21]

• [22]

• Actually just reading Talk:White_people might be easier.

• His other personal attack section Talk:White_people/Archive_8#Watch_out_for_some_users_like_Lukas

• He seems to call anyone whom he doesnt agree with "pest of Nazis that are infesting Wiki" whom "Never in" his "entire life" has he "sat at the same table with disgusting Nazis". See: Talk:Prehistoric_settlement_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland#Another_User

• More: [23], [24]

• What's more funny is that he was the one making racial attacks, saying: ""People have also called the white race Stupid Whitey or Honky. Also the word Cracker" [25], [26]

• Lots of attacks on Americans, just see white page talk and archives, here's an example: "...I have said more than once that some (only some I want to leave this clear) Americans, Australians, etc.. think themselves whiter and more European than the European themselves. It may be just because they live in countries that have an intensive history of bigotry and they cannot swallow easily that they are increasingly becoming non-White nations (in my opinion much more interesting for that, but they obviously see it differently). Just travel to any US city. The country is no more "white" than some South American countries, and I could bet my right hand that Uruguay and Argentina are right now "whiter" than the US by all means. It does not matter what their statistics say or how their media want to present them on TV or in the movies. Anyone who knows the country well knows it. Their position is probably one way to steam off their growing inferiority complex(because of their view on white and non-white people). It must piss them off that some South American or even Muslim countries like Turkey are by all means whiter than their countries and nations. It is sad. They may deserve some understanding. A shoulder to cry on. So they come here with their risible arguments: But these are considered white and those not by my uncle! It sounds like a desperate cry to claim their "whiteness" or their "Europeanness" or God knows what....." [27]

• Besides personal attacks, he is highly disruptive, his bans range from vandalism to violation of 3RR rule and he recently caused the White people article to be fully protected again: [28] Lukas19 01:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• He claims to be leaving Wiki, but many users leave Wiki and then return. User:Wobble had also left Wikipedia after extensive personal attacks and was back before a week. Please do not let some editors to distrupt Wikipedia and other editors without any consequence. Lukas19 01:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Vandalized talk page: [29]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lukas19 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Problem

A user (Bbrcadu) just blanked a page. I warned him, but does anything else need done? This is my first time warning about this type of vandalism. Zbl 01:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, treat it like any other vandalism. There is a specific series of warnings for deleting content if you wish to use them:
{{uw-delete1}}, {{uw-delete2}}, {{uw-delete3}}
In fact I see you didn't use a warning template at all, you might want to check out WP:UTM for specific ('official') warnings you can use on vandals' talkpages. WjBscribe 01:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Go along with what WjBscribe said, for serious content removal cases like blanking articles, you can use {{uw-delete4im}} instead. If he ignores final warning, report to WP:AIV. That's how to do it. PeaceNT 02:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait a sec. The page wasn't blank, but it lost over 10,000 char. See Mudchute DLR station‎ The article looks fine though, but the edit summary says, "blanked the page." What the heck? Zbl 22:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Catalan problems

Maurice27 (talk · contribs) seems to be going on a one-man show against Catalonia articles. S/he has breached 3RR on a number of occasions and seems unwilling to abide by WP:AGF in his/her edits, dispite warnings. I would really like to have another admin look at this case, which is also concerns WP:NOT. If there are no takers, I will have to go to ArbCom, which doesn't really seem like the best solution. Physchim62 (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom is premature. Please try all the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I have warned him and another user he was edit-warring with in the past. Regards, --Asterion^talk 22:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Has there been a 3RR vio since the warning on 10 February? If so, then report it to WP:AN3. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Maharishi International Publications Department

This was very recently the introduction to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi : "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is the founder of Transcendental Meditation. He is widely regarded as the foremost scientist in the field of consciousness, and is considered to be the greatest teacher in the world today." You read it here first. A new user, Maharishi International Publications Department (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has begun to edit, and staunchly revert, the MMY article. The user has been welcomed (rather surprisingly, I thought), and has duly received NPOV warnings on his/her page, but me, I'm thinking just the account name is enough for an indefblock. Surely? There's an RFC/Username going on, but do we need one? Especially since the user seems as unaware of the function and purpose of Wikipedia as the account name suggests. Would somebody like to write to them and explain? Of course it's not the first such case. Do we perhaps even have a suitable template? I've reverted and sprotected the article for now. Bishonen | talk 22:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

User name is indefblocked per WP:U.  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  22:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Nkras, the sequel?

An anon user has been targeting several pages associated with the LGBT project, on the basis that "WP:LGBT is an agency for pushing a political POV." (see example diff). The anon has used several IP addresses, all from the same city and ISP:

• 71.34.20.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.34.19.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 63.228.54.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

It is suspected that this anon user is User:Nkras, who is editing anonymously to avoid an indef block. Could we get a checkuser on Nkras and compare it with the anons? If this is Nkras, is there a next step that a regular editor such as myself can take, or does this need to be taken care of by admins? Justin Eiler 05:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There are more than just these IPs. I will round up a full list of them and submit them to checkuser, hopefully within the hour. Also, if we have not already done so, I propose a community ban on the individual behind the Nkras account, as he has made repeated threats of meatpuppetry on Talk:Marriage and seems to view his indef block as simply an opportunity to take up new styles of trolling. — coelacan talk — 06:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And has now taken up the cudgel aginst WP:GS because he claims that they are trying to "sanitize" Wikipedia. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm not sure if CheckUser is necessary. It says it's only for non-obvious cases, but all of these are clearly Nkras. I've just added the IPs to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nkras instead, for anyone who needs them. The threats of meatpuppetry that got 63.228.46.229 blocked along with the disruption at WT:LGBT, should result in a community ban. — coelacan talk — 08:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And I just noticed that this is now handled at WP:CN so I'll take it there. — coelacan talk — 08:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe some admins who are feeling left out will want to go to Wikipedia:Community noticeboard and join the party! Nkras is having aball there, evading his blocks and laughing at the entire community. Great fun, for those who enjoy anarchy. Jeffpw 00:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Spambots (was: External links....)

(spam removed) The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tanjaharlock1 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Tanjaharlock1 seems to have contributed nothing but spam to Wikipedia; I've given a level-3 warning. It's kind of ironic that they're attempting to spam on some of the most watched pages in Wikipedia (George W. Bush talk, an RFA subpage, and AN/I); I would have thought placing spam on AN/I would be one of the best ways to make admins aware that you were spamming! (By the way, all external links are nofollowed nowadays, so spamming won't help a search engine rank any more.) --ais523 11:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Also see Special:Contributions/Robinrossam (currently on AIV); it's possible that they're both spambots. --ais523 11:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And if we're keeping a list in this section, Normancliffe has only added links and created one of the pages, a talk page to a nonexistant page, that Robinrossam added her spam to shortly after. --Onorem 11:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Normancliffe claims to be a spambot in the edit summary. They're all clearly vandal-only accounts (and should probably be blocked), but something doesn't seem quite right about this. They're changing their behaviour sufficiently that I'm wondering whether they're bots or not after all, or merely someone pretending to be a spambot. The pages that they're hitting are the /w/index.php? sort (sometimes), and things like AN/I, CSD talk, and an admin's talk page; maybe it's a human pretending to be a spambot because they want to cause an autoblock on their own IP? --ais523 13:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:WPSPAM is a good place to report this kind of thing. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Racism on Talk:World War II

User:Haber persists in using racist insults (specifically, referring to French people as "frogs") on Talk:World War II ([30]), repeating the behaviour [31] despite being asked to stop politely [32]and then more firmly (but still civilly) [33]. The second incident was compounded by a personal attack as part of Haber's generally flippant and dismissive response- [34]. I don't see any need or justification for such language here on Wikipedia, and I'd appreciate it if someone would take a look. Badgerpatrol 21:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Warned. Please let me know if he carries on. Proto ► 23:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Badgerpatrol 01:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Moe Epsilon

Can someone have a chat to Moe Epsilon abpout editing oter people's user pages? I have done nothing to him to warrant his vandelisim. Thanks. WackadooXanadu 00:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What edits are you talking about? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

They're in the userpage History, J. Smith. Sorry, no, WackadooXanadu. Those are appropriate edits by Moe. I have removed your claim that Moe vandalised your page, because it's a personal attack and is not true. I think you must have misunderstood what he was doing. Please don't revert my removal. Bishonen | talk 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

I hate coming to AN/I to find a thread called "Moe Epsilon", third time this has happened I believe :( — Moe 01:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Recently added to the instructions atop this page: "Also, as a courtesy, please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed." Moe's comment reminds us we should make sure that's happening. Newyorkbrad 01:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nick Palumbo

I have a strong feeling that the one main contributor is either Palumbo himself or someone working for him. There are two actual users (one being the IP User:204.62.68.23, the other being an actual registered user named User:S noone) but the unregistered IP has referred to himself as S noone a couple of times, and being that their edits are strikingly similar I have reason to believe that they are the same editor.

Anyway, prior to my edits the entire article read like a publicity fluff piece rather than an encyclopedia's article; the article at that time can be seen here. Palumbo is basically an amateur fake snuff film director who is very controversial in the extreme amount of violence and the use of actual children in his films. None of his controversies were present, instead there were uncited claims that he founded the "Splat Pack" that later become Hostel and Saw; "Palumbo is considered to be a founding member of the Splat Pack due to the graphic violence and extreme misanthropy found within Murder-Set-Pieces." So far, no one has ever verified this besides claims from Palumbo himself; for example, Eli Roth or Rob Zombie have never said that Palumbo influenced them. Some examples of the more 'fluff'ier edits read "It seemed everyone involved with the film were ashamed with their involvement and hoped that it would simply go away. Everyone that is except for Nick Palumbo. This was his dream, and he was not going to let it go down without a fight." and "This was as gentle as a droplet of rain compared to the maelstrom to come with his next slasher film." and so forth. It just read like a really bad press piece.

I tried adding some sourced criticism. Nick Palumbo often spams the boards and is pretty much reviled. I added this, as well as a reference to a board which he frequented with subsequent reactions, and the anon ip removed it. I also made reference to the fact that Palumbo often twists negative reviews to his own being, citing quotes that he often uses in his promo pieces in comparision to the finished review; "Nick Palumbo often posts clips from reviews on his films, sometimes changing the material of the quote to suit his own purposes. For example, on his site he quotes the New York Post as saying, "The disturbing "Murder-Set-Pieces" is a highly stylized exploration of the mind of a serial killer, a gory, bloodsoaked snuff film, reveling in its own shock value as women are stabbed, strangled, raped and mutilated in every conceivable — and a few inconceivable — ways" when in reality the quote went "Aspires to be a highly stylized exploration of the mind of a serial killer, but it's nothing more than a gory, bloodsoaked snuff film, reveling in its own shock value." He's attempted to remove that a number of times as well.

Another point of controversy was Palumbo using a real infant in one of his scenes, in which a bloody toddler is crying and clutching her real life mom, who was a corpse in this scene in the film. I added that "Critics have pointed out that, unlike other scenes in the film in which the actors and actresses knew they were in a fictional film, the toddler was very frightened and confused and had no idea of knowing what was real and what was not." This has been brought to light numerous times in numerous reviews as an example of Palumbo going too far with his 'art'. This was reverted as well, only this time the anon IP wrote to me "Cyberghostface, stop adding non factual things to the entry. Your input is not needed. IE. The baby's state of mind is unknown to anyone including a poster who writes biographies for fictional characters like Worm man on the X-Files.", a reference to my Flukeman article.

So I have a feeling that this is going to keep on continuing unless something is done about it.--CyberGhostface 02:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see some edits from a week ago, but nothing more recent, have I missed something or are they editing different articles ? -- Heligoland 02:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would remove your edits too. They blatantly fail WP:BLP (claiming he used toddlers in a slasher film with no source?), except for that one reference to a forum (which is of rather questionable importance, and it doesn't really show what you're saying). -Amarkov moo! 02:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there is that Rotten Tomatoes reference, but that does not say what you put in the article. -Amarkov moo! 02:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Is THIS a decent source that shows he used toddlers?![35][36][37][38]--CyberGhostface 02:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the New York Times bit...he constantly throws around the edited version whenever shilling his film out on the internet, and the Rotten Tomatoes link has the full excerpt.--CyberGhostface 02:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a link to one of his many attempts to advertise his film. He posts the edited version of the New York Times review. This, along with the REAL review on Rotten Tomatoes, should be more than enough to show that he deliberately edits reviews.--CyberGhostface 02:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you've provided sources now. I admit that they look pretty good. It really would have been better if you used them in the first place, though. -Amarkov moo! 02:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I should have cited my facts before I brought them here. Sorry for any trouble I caused, and thanks for your help on this.--CyberGhostface 02:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Registering

Hi. I just registered an account and my brother showed me this page so I can ask, what is the deal with the "typing the word in the secret box" thing all about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hallibrah (talk • contribs).

Answered on user's talk page. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Disturbing Stuff going on at White people

I recently saw a 'shouting' post about stuff at White people. I thought it was just some oversensitive or anti-White user complaining. But I posted something at White people, and got a very disturbing response [39]:

It is OR to use those pictures as examples of white people unless reliable sources explicitly indicate that the pictured people are indeed white. The Behnam 20:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Nordic man is the most exemplary specimen of the white race who passes all definitions of white. As early as 1914, Madison Grant considered the Nordic to be the "white man par excellence".The Passing of the Great Race Modern anthropologist Arthur Kemp also realizes that the Nordic has retained racial purity over the Southern European who has miscegenated with the Arabic stock.white people Even dictionary definitions claim that a white person is a light colored person.dictionary definition of white The Nordic people as a whole are the lightest people on the planet.skin color charts Today, Hispanics in the US and Southern Europeans in Australia are not seen as white people, but Nordics are always seen as white people. Every conception of white people agrees that the Nordic is white. The Spaniard and the Italian cannot stand up to such test; they are the questionable ones.--^DarkTea 22:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, you still can't put things together like that. Just because so-and-so says Nordic peoples are "exemplary" whites, and you believe these people to be Nordics, doesn't mean you can advance (on WP) that these people are whites. The source itself must say that those people are whites. The Behnam 00:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that I would have to verify that he was a real Nordic by citation? If I understand your argument correctly, then there can't be any exemplary pictures classified by a Wikipedian; they would have to be classified by an outside source. If it really comes down to a strict citation, I feel we would have to include Arthur Kemp's Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean grayscale pictures found here.white people--^DarkTea 03:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Miscegenation? White man par excellence? It just keeps getting creepier. I'm seeing geniune Nazi views now, with division of white people into Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean. Also his main source is some sort of white supremacist site.

What should I do? The Behnam 00:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that you can't have a picture of someone on this article because there's no source explicitly stating that the person is white (are you going to next ask for a source explicitly stating the picture is of that person?) seems WP:POINTy. Even though he's stating potentially disturbing racialist views (he hasn't claimed that any race is superior or inferior to any other though), you seem a bit disingenuous too from these comments - can you explain in more detail how this debate started? --Random832(tc) 03:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just reading the article, and I didn't understand how the editors chose who the pictured whites are, it seemed kind of arbitrary. Then I realized that it doesn't make sense to choose randomly, since there are no sources indicating that those people are white. In any case, the reason I came here is because of the racist views that he apparently holds and uses in editing the page. He is associating the supposed "excellence" of the "Nordic" race to "purity." He describes some groups as "miscegenations," which usually carries a negative connotation. Adherence to the Nordic-Alpine-Mediterranean model is essentially racism, for the system considers (1) white people best (2)Nordic best white people (3)then Mediterranean (3) last Alpine. Also, the fact that he is using a white supremacist source (just read around that site it is very obviously a white supremacist site) as an authority is disturbing. I may have to clear out the article of all information taken from such a biased and unreliable source that is displayed as authoritative fact. The Behnam 03:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser attention needed

If any users with Checkuser access are online, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trebor Rowntree, Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Trebor Rowntree, and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Trebor Rowntree. Newyorkbrad 03:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Has now been addressed by Dmcdevit, thanks. Newyorkbrad 04:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Unprintable characters

Wasn't account creation with unprintable characters shut down by the devs? I've found several accounts which have a lot less (or no) visible characters. Seeing as this computer can play up, are the visible characters boxes just for me or is it for everyone.

• Eheta (User:えへた)
• Saotemo (User:さおても)
• Nerusairu (User:ネルサイル)
• User:縮殴侵
• Susumu aratame (User:奨改)
• Runununereyoeta (User:るぬぬねれよえた)
• Tonahachihese (User:となはちへせ)
• Kohoteniwokoruo (User:コホテニヲコルコ)
• Hoote (User:ほおて)
• Kuhehataechira (User:クヘハタエチラ)
• Ofuhorutorawi (User:おふほるとらゐ)

-- Mgm|^(talk) 12:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see them. I am guessing they are chinese or something similar. Viridae^Talk 12:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see them, they're definitely Oriental characters. I will not betray my ignorance by guessing authoratively whether they are Chinese, Cantonese, Japanese, Klingon or whatever. Proto ► 12:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see them ... two look Chinese ... the rest I don't recognize. I strongly suggest installing all of the language packs ... it makes life easier when you may potentially come in contact with names that use other character sets. As for policy, WP:UN at one time completely forbade names with non-Latin characters (now, it is just suggested) and once single signon happens, enwiki won't have any control over that anyway. --BigDT 12:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Two Chinese, the rest Japanese. x42bn6 Talk 14:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed... and for those curious, the fourth and fifth ones down are the Chinese ones, with the others being Japanese, as stated above. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the fourth and fifth ones are Chinese, but Japanese kanji are borrowed from written Chinese, so they're essentially the same thing. The others are Japanese hiragana, though there may be some Japanese katakana present too. A Japanese text set should cover them all. Leebo⁸⁶ 21:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Foreign characters have to be allowed to support the upcoming Single User Login, since many wiki users natively operate in other texts. Once SUL goes live, there will be literally tens of thousands of such names imported on to Wikipedia. So in short, foreign scripts in usernames are something we just have to learn to deal with it. Also, per foundation direction (and as noted above) one should not be blocking such users, though they are strongly encouraged to add a latin version of their name to their sig. Dragons flight 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as the link to the user name is clickable, we'll just have to live with it. □□□□□ 21:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone give me the link to the foundation direction allowing non-Latin character usernames? I might need it for future reference. ----²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• MediaWiki only disallows usernames that mix character sets. That's why, for example, I can't have the username "Tiтохd", as it is half in Latin, and the other half in Cyrillic. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• It would be a good idea to suggest to users with non-Latin usernames that they provide a transliteration of their names with Latin characters by editing their Preferences, as a "patch" to accomodate those who might be unable to read their usernames, which can just appear as a row of small squares otherwise (as they do on my screen). Tyrenius 23:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That's what WP:USERNAME is actually saying right now. I'm not sure though whether that will still work under single login. Will signatures be something that a user can set separately for each project? If not, such a policy would in effect mean for us in en-wiki to be dictating Latin-only signatures to all the other wikipedias. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • IIRC, all preferences will be locale-specific. Just login/password are the same. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• FYI, lines 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, and 11 are Hiragana, lines 3, 8, and 10 are katakana, and the rest are Kanji. Cla68 07:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • And they're all transliterated—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Restoring banned user Nkras' edits in userspace?

Rbj has now restored edits to his talk a couple of times which were made by Nkras [40] [41]. Nkras was community banned for disruption and threats, and since then has been using anonymous socks to continue his behavior. I really don't want to edit war in someone's userspace, but I also don't believe that it's appropriate to leave these comments. In addition to being from a banned user, most, if not all, of the restored comments are threatening and inflammatory. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already repeatedly asked Rbj not to do precisely this.[42] [43] [44] He's been restoring meatpuppetry threats by Nkras on talk:marriage, too. Nishkid talked to him about it.[45] I don't understand what point he's trying to make, but he's effectively taking responsibility for Nkras's legal threats now. — coelacan talk — 04:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If Rbj wants to "take ownership" of the comments then Rbj takes ownership of the consequences thereof. Rbj is blocked indefinitely whilst legal threats are outstanding. --bainer (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Undergarment article

The user Duke53 has made it his personal mission to add non-notable photographs to anything related to LDS articles. The most recent (that I know of) is a section in Undergarments. The photograph that he added, and insists on keeping in there, is not notable and should be removed. On top of that, I question his "neutral" point of view on the article, as his editing history is very heavy with LDS articles (and adding his garment image any chance he gets). Is there anything that can be done about this? Phefner 05:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you want Dispute Resolution, because you don't have a problem that requires admin intervention. I would suggest you simply drop it, though, because Mormon temple garments are a topic of significant interest (particularly to non-Mormons who may be interested in using Wikipedia to learn more about the religion) and the photograph is certainly not "non-notable" by any stretch. — coelacan talk — 06:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a content dispute not a case requiring administrator intervention. Cla68 06:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Avienus' abusive sockpuppetry

I'm placing this here because an independent CheckUser uncovered a bunch of abusive sockpuppets being used for reverting in tandem and for carrying on multiple nationalist edit wars on various new accounts to escape detection. The following users are confirmed to be the same person:

• Avienus (talk · contribs)
• Domitius (talk · contribs)
• LieutenantBoom (talk · contribs)
• Dirak (talk · contribs)
• Noli turbare circulos meos (talk · contribs)
• Thulium (talk · contribs)

Can an administrator please take a look? Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 06:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a user who has long had a weird tendency to switch account names very often. I've never been able to find out exactly why he does it, but he is otherwise a trusted wikipedian in good standing. Fellow editors in the areas he works in know him well enough that they usually recognise him easily in each new incarnation, so in most cases there's really no issue of abusive sockpuppetry. I'd have expected that he'd be clever enough not to let his various incarnations cross paths in illegitimate ways; I'll have to check whether he did with any of these. But we should ask him to stick to a single stable account in the future. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust Denier Vandalized Holocaust Article !

Please ban this Holocaust Denier, user Dasreich12.

He replaced Holocaust page with words "IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!", see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=109488779&oldid=109488698 . This is disgusting example of vandalism and continued disgusting Holocaust denial.

I am pissed off, so I will let you deal with this user. Thanks. Bosniak 08:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I had reverted one of that editor's other vandalism edits and was keeping an eye on them and saw that they were banned by an admin 1 minute after the edit on The Holocaust, at 05:26, 20 February 2007. Thanks. --EarthPerson 08:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it is taken care of.[46]--MONGO 08:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive and POV-pushing edits by Bridge & Tunnel

Bridge & Tunnel has been making disruptive edits to several articles (Colby College, Frank R. Wallace, Integrated Management Associates, List of University of Iowa people, Yasuhiko Kimura), where these edits try to push the POV of Neo-Tech. When told that his sources are unreliable and his edits are against Wikipedia policy and guidelines, he simply brushed off people's explanations with a generic "That doesn't make any sense". See Talk:Frank R. Wallace#Notability? and Special:Contributions/Bridge & Tunnel.

Please block this user, at least temporarily. Thank you. Bi 11:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A Semi-protected article that "isn't"

Just a quick observation. The Great Depression article has a semi-protect padlock on it. But, somehow, an anon IP just vandalized it twice. The semi-protect is either not functioning or expired...obviously. Especialy since a very noble and trustworthy anon IP (me) just picked it off the recent changes list and had to revert it. Just thought you'd like to know. Have a nice day! 156.34.216.15 01:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The protection had expired. I removed the {{sprotected2}} padlock template. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a problem with expiring protections. The template doesn't automatically get removed. Would a bot to remove the templates from expired protected pages be workable? Corvus cornix 19:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly sounds like a good idea. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message about this at WP:BOTREQ. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Andrew Chumbley " post.

Its to report a poster who is making unfounded allegations against me. The poster Lulubyrd asserts that i have "vandalised" posts pertaining to the Children of Artemis thread and the Lon Milo DuQuette thread has well. I have not engaged in vandalism of any sort. I had removed the accusations but Lulubyrd seems to have an axe to grind. I would appreciate some moderation/mediation on this matter. Thanks.--Redblossom 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I can't see any record of Lulubyrd ever editing your talk page. Diffs? —Dark•Shikari^[T] 22:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dark Shikari. What it is is that Lulubyrd has made an accusation in the discussion section of the Chumbley post. The accusation "suggests" that i am repsonsible for "vandalism" on the Children of Artemis post and the Lon Milo Duquette post. I have nothing whatsoever to do with this so called vandalism. The Ip adresses are recorded anyway. So i deleted the accusation but the poster Lulubyrd insists on keeping this in, to the detriment of the post. I would appreciate a ruling/deletion eitherway on this.Its in the discussion section under the sub thread "Tedious attention Seeking Stuff"--Redblossom 14:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-07 Singapore Airlines

I am little concerned by developments in this case. I have taken a break from discussing this topic because of attempts to bait me into attacking the other users by Vsion and Huaiwei. These 2 users have engaged in the discussion, but have failed to provide any good reason for not accepting the edits suggested. Recently, Vsion gave an example of Huaiwei's previous editting style [47], which coupled with his latest hint of some geo-political reason behind his refusal to accept the compromise suggested, seem to suggest that Vsion and Huaiwei are the recognised owners of the page and that I should back off. Since in effect Vsion's argument is that the edits are unacceptable because they go against whatever political reason said user is hinting that he/she holds with Huaiwei. In effect, the argument is that the edits are unacceptable because they would make the article NPOV.

• In summary, I would like as many editors and admins to have a look at the argument and make comment, because the current protracted non-discussion is a waste of time when invested users can so adversely affect the collegial atmosphere of the wiki. I would also like to know what action can or should be taken, because I still think the proposed edits should be made.--Shakujo 02:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I find Shakujo's comment unnecesarily inflammataory and goes against principles of assuming good faith in others. Constant accusations of "article ownership", "colluded attempts to attack others", even "political edits" are unsupported, unfounded, unjustified, and completely unhelpful to mediation efforts. May I voice my concern over what appears to be individuals who take it upon themselves to "test the waters" and insist on initiating certain actions in articles just to see for themselves if the purported "article owners" are indeed as obstinate as allerged by others.--Huaiwei 15:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Technical Anomalies of the Third Kind

I'm having some peculiar technical difficulties, namely, it appears that when I'm logged in, I'm not logged entirely. That is to say, when I try to edit September 11 attacks (article/talk page) I'm suddenly logged out. Really not sure what the cause of this, but it is puzzling… Could someone kindly look into this, since I cannot log to the mentioned talk page at all. Thank you. Lovelight 05:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank goodness it isn't just in my head. You can do the CTRL-refresh trick in firefox to reload the page and it will recognize your login on whatever page is giving you fits. No idea what is causing it. Kuru ^talk 05:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, been noticing that as well... other than an appearance of being logged out I've not been affected. (→Netscott) 05:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the newer revisions to the software introduced a bug. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 12:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive IP user

125.164.184.109 has been doing some annoying edits that need to be fixed and has been adding Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate sound to various animals and insects (including to others such as Wile E. Coyote, who never does such a thing) and other animals that exist in real life. This IP user has already been blocked earlier today for wrongfully changing another category that is in use to another name that doesn't exist. I request that a bot revert some of this disruptive user's edits. And might I also add that I have tagged it as a sockpuppet of another IP user that has added some unconstructive edits in the past. Perhaps another soft block and another warning to this user should be added. Also, don't forget to have a bot revert all of his/hers unconstructive edits. Just leave some of the one's that appear constructive as they are. Power level (Dragon Ball) 07:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone here that can help out? This disruptive user even created fake categories... Power level (Dragon Ball) 08:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The IP was blocked by El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 12:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Armenians

User VCinema keeps on removing a name from the list because he dislikes him he has removed it more than 10 times these past weeks simply because he dislikes the musician. [48], the user has been warned but keeps on going any solutions or suggestions also users have tried to talk to him doesn't work. Artaxiad 10:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I indef-blocked VCinema on the basis of his contribs, which include a lot of edit-warring, page-blanking, and this insult. I see few productive edits and no willingness to try to conform to our policies. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Maverick423 (talk · contribs) and fair-use images in userspace

This user, Maverick423 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has continually reverted removals of fair-use images from his userpage, claiming that I've "vandalised" his page by doing so. He's also charged on User talk:Hurricanehink that this only started after he "joined [our] project", whcih seems to imply we're targetting him. Some admin help would be appreciated. – Chacor 14:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: this little rant seems to suggest he's quitting Wikipedia because we're not allowing him fair-use images in userspace. In my own opinion, we don't need people like this on the project, since they could easily get the Foundation sued. RightToVanish? – Chacor 15:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • We apparently "got on [his nerves"]. – Chacor 15:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • While the situation appears to be stable at the moment, and if he is leaving temporarily or for good that may be part of why. But I have added a note to his user page pointing him to an alternative for the anime images at least. We'll see how things develope from here. - TexasAndroid 15:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Accumulating evidence for off-Wiki vendetta

A couple of talk show hosts recently began a campaign of tendentious editing and POV pushing in global warming related articles. I quickly began to suspect that they were not contributing in good faith but were provoking editors in order to get material for their talk show. (I kept these thoughts to myself in the spirit of WP:AGF.) And sure enough, they're now asking others for "evidence" to add to their talk show blog. WP:POINT would appear relevant as well. At what point does something like this cross the line? Raymond Arritt 16:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I raised the issue of these editors once before see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive198#Personal_attacks. I think the actions particularly naming editors on another site is absolutely prohibited by Wikipedia:Harassment. There are a series of aggressive comments on talk pages and personal attacks to go with it. They are adding nothing, wasting a lot of time and creating a bad atmosphere. --BozMo talk 18:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

young editor with personal info

I previously left a note about a young editor here last week and watchlisted the page and anon blanked the page saying My son is only 8 and I don't want him putting personal info on the website. Please help me delete this ASAP. User:Cometstyles reverted this blanking as vandalism. Can someone please look into this under the assumption this kid is 8 and his parents are simply struggling to make this request properly?--BirgitteSB 17:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Also please look into his deleted edits mentioned on his talk page and see if there is anything that might need to be considered part of an oversight request. I have no idea what the pages were before deletion.--BirgitteSB 17:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted and recreated the user page to make the personal info unrecoverable for non-sysops. I will look at the other edits. --BozMo talk 17:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/ you. Indeed, the IP in question never vandalized wikipedia. I tried to email the account owner but it is not configurated. I'd leave the page blanked until further notice. This post is enough for now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No other edit seems to reveal personal info. I think this is ok now. --BozMo talk 17:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mucoid plaque

This article survived an AfD, unfortunately, because people felt it was necessary to expose this health fraud on Wikipedia. Nonetheless one editor, Heelop, keeps removing any reference this fabricated concept is not supported by the medical community. Despite the fact he can't provide any article from a medical journal[49][50] he removes the disclaimer from the article that it is not described in medical literature.[51]

His actions are not only in violation of policy, but since his only contribution to Wikipedia consists of removing sceptical passages from this article[52] I am inclined to think he has a more than superficial interest in maintaining the article as advertisment. Could some uninvolved admin look into this and see if or what action is possible. (RfC? Block?).Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have blocked Heelop for disruption. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone feels like looking at the article, it needs serious cleanup. I tidied the lead a bit but it is still overtly polemical. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Is there any fringe medical topic so utterly ridiculous and unfounded that someone won't go to the mat to push it on Wikipedia? MastCell 01:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

On present evidence? No takers. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Jacob Peters IP sock

I have blocked 69.110.129.127 (talk · contribs) for one week because it appears to me to be an obvious sock of banned User:Jacob Peters. In addition to the modus operandi matching Jacob Peters exactly (pro-communist POV, dismissing opposing sources as unreliable), the IP is similar to those he has used in the past (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacob Peters). I post this here so others can review my actions and because I am told Jacob Peters often uses open proxies. Someone who understands this better may want tot check and see if this is one. Heimstern Läufer 01:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone's gotta take him to rehab. :) What does he have against wikipedia? Axiomm 22:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

He's a spectre haunting Wikipedia, trying to subvert its bourgeois complacency and replace it with a revolutionary social consciousness. Sockpuppets of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your latest open proxy. Although for an admirer of Soviet jurisprudence, Peters complains an awful lot about the unfairness of Wikipedia's judicial system. To paraphrase the immortal Walter Sobchak, "Fair?!? Who's the f**kin' Stalinist here?" MastCell 22:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that there is an article Jacob Peters that is a redirect to Yakov Peters. Should it stand? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 12:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes... "Jacob Peters" is a legitimate Anglicization of Yakov Peters, a Latvian Soviet secret policeman whom Stalin called "the last of the romantic revolutionary warriors". Undoubtedly this is where User:Jacob Peters got his username, but the redirect should stand. Ironically enough, the real Yakov/Jacob Peters was purged by Stalin in the late 1930's and arrested and executed by the NKVD (although I'm sure our own revisionist Jacob Peters would explain away the fate of his namesake, since we all know Stalin wouldn't hurt a fly). So a ban from Wikipedia, by comparison, is a relatively benign fate. Plus, the real Yakov Peters was posthumously rehabilitated in the 1980's, so there's still hope for his namesake. MastCell 18:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking revert of move

User:Huaiwei made a null edit to block revert to his undiscussed move of Macao Light Transit System [53]. While there is no official policy or guideline, he insists the spelling of Macau/o must be standardised across entire Wikipedia. Is blocking revert of move ever allowed on Wikipedia? (Cf. an an earlier AN/I discussion in which the same wikipedians were involved.) — Instantnood 07:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As per User_talk:SchmuckyTheCat#Macau.2Fo, it has been long established by community concensus that the spelling of Macau should be "u", and for consistency sake, should be standardised across wikipedia. Is it not something of my own design, as Instantnood allerges (all subcategories in Category:Macau has similarly been standardised and renamed accordingly through community concensus many months back). Instantnood has consistently attempted to ignore concensus by reverting the Macau article and made similar changes elsewhere. His blatant disregard for community concensus is clearly a cause for concern as well.--Huaiwei 07:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate why and in what way did those discussions constitute a community consensus? (If I read correctly the first and second links, which are in fact pointing at the same thing, affected only the title of the Macau article.) In what way are the titles of categories comparable to titles and contents of articles in the main namespace? And why should official names of institutions like the Monetary Authority of Macao [54] be affected? — Instantnood 08:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, names of institutions and structures are left untouched as of now, if you did not realise, so I doubt there is a need to explain the latter. As for the former, I do not think I should be explaining the existance of community concensus when all evidence points to this fact. Consistency across article titles, contents of articles and categories (Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_24#Macau_categories) need no explaination, because the only explaination is consistency. You were personally involved in many of these discussions, and I am sure you are aware that the issue of consistency has been constantly raised. Yet you chose to deny this, and you chose to feign ignorance as an excuse to continue your reverting exercise.--Huaiwei 08:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You had been applying your rule to proper names until your drive was halted. In what way did I deny anything or did I feign ignorance, while I actually asked " In what way are the titles of categories comparable to titles and contents of articles in the main namespace? "? And afterall, AN/I is not for content dispute. This thread was started to address your edit that blocked revert to an undiscussed move. — Instantnood 08:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly like to see some evidence in your first comment. Your continued claims on the non-existance of community concensus is evidence enough, including your attempt to disassociate titles of categories, titles of articles, and content. Just as you claim I am blocking your page move, you are abusing this page to impose a block so that you can continue to revert war, which also makes your gulty of WP:3RR immediately as you are clearly gaming the 3RR rules.--Huaiwei 08:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I invited you [55] to elaborate on in what way did the three threads of discussions you mentioned (you quoted four links at user talk:SchmuckyTheCat#Macau.2Fo, in which the first and second are pointing at the same thing) constitute community consensus and should be applied undiscriminatively to all entries across Wikipedia. You then jump to your conclusion that I claimed the "non-existence" of whatever sort of consensus. Could you please focus your response to addressing your blocking of revert to undiscussed move? — Instantnood 09:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see a need to explain to any user who persists in disregarding community concensus. If you form a different opinion form the above, you are most welcome to elaborate on this in support of your behavior, instead of constantly expecting the other member to explain his actions. Unless, of course, you realised you have nothing to support your actions in the first place.--Huaiwei 00:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that our naming conventions specifically provide:

• "The current title of a page is not intended to imply that either the title name is preferred or the alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles. The article title should also not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another."
  

and a big part of the problem here is that this is not being respected. Gene Nygaard 12:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei insists that consistency has to be maintained throughout Wikipedia (and he also claimed there's policy against linking to redirect). He has yet to produce any reference to any Wikipedia guideline or policy, however. — Instantnood 13:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If one may refer back to the specfic policy, it clearly states that this provision applies "where editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name". This has hardly been true for the case of Macau/o, where every single name request change has ended up with a preference for Macau. This is strong concensus. The majority of wikipedians has adhered to this, resulting in the majority of articles being spelt with the "u". Only a handful of wikipedians, chiefly Instantnood and a few of his sympahisers persist in using the "o".

It is untrue to argue that there are no guidelines pertaining to spelling consistency in geographic names, which Macau is one. Naming conventions (geographic names) specifically states that The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in title should be used consistently throughout the article. When combined with previous RFR [56], and CFR [57], this means that collectively, the spelling of "Macau" should be applied in all instances of article names and category names, and should be consistently used within the articles themselves.

It is clear from the above that I act based on exiting conventions and the result of community concensus. So I would be quite amused if Instantnood's anti-community behavior is actually vindicated. I certainly hope this is not going to set a negative preceedent for all other similar cases here.--Huaiwei 00:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole "Macau"/"Macao" and "PRC"/"Mainland China" stuff has, frankly, gone on too long. It gets resolved in one forum (or does not, as the case may be), and then simply spills over into another, either immediately or after a brief "lull". It's especially vexing that this is now affecting template-populated categories, like {{China-geo-stub}}, since each one of these reverts then shoves about 1000 articles onto the job queue. These naming and categorisation issues need to get wider input, get consensus one way or the other on an actual convention of one sort and another, and remove the excuse of "lack of guideline" from poor behaviour on both sides. Alai 20:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've put a request for Instantnood to be on 0RR at ArbCom for his part in this behavior and the rest of his hundred reverts over the last day. 2½ years of this edit war is enough. There isn't any excuse for Huaiwei to pre-emptively change the spelling of Macao, either. 2 previous ArbCom cases mean both sides here know better, but 'nood is by far worse.

FYI, existing consensus for the Macao spelling issue is for article title preferences and category names only. The preference is: 1. actual spelling, 2. the u spelling. Inline text is treated like any other spelling difference (Commonwealth vs American, etc) where either could be correct but generally should be consistent with the title or other text. SchmuckyTheCat 01:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems almost overkill to have Yet Another Arbcom Case over this; I'd have hoped that this could have been resolved via community-supported action, if necessary with reference to the previous Arbcom outcome. YAAC seems likely to give us a none-too-speedy, and probably fairy heavy-handed resolution of the whole business. However, I suppose that die is now cast. Alai 01:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have said repeatedly a heavy-handed result isn't desirable. I've proposed a creative solution that would stop the revert warring but allow continued editing and input. The only community supported action that the last ArbCom case would end up with is a complete ban which nobody wants. SchmuckyTheCat 18:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

off wiki calls for systemic meatpuppetry

it has become apparent that Arrow740 (talk · contribs) has been attempting to recruit meatpuppets on off-wiki fora such as faithfreedom.org, a website known for espousing extreme anti-Muslim views. here are some examples of these posts under the pseudonym "Google=Wikipedia":[58][59][60][61][62][63]

from here

"Well here's something you guys can do. Spend 5-10 minutes a day on revert-warring, i.e. go to Islam articles and revert them back to the most anti-Islam one you see there. If you do this a few times you'll know which users to revert back to. If there's an edit war going on you can really help that way."

"... It's a really, really small group of people! There is a group of 5 to 10 hardcore Muslim apologists who are constantly slanting the articles toward pro-Islam! This is so dangerous. When people use google they're going to be reading what a handful of Muslim apologists have to say about the subject. There are some people fighting for good but we really need some help.

Become a wikipedian and join us in the fight!"

from here:

"... There can be no formal organization there to promote a particular point of view. We could organize things from here."

"If you really care about stopping the spread of Islam you'll work on wikipedia."

"We get articles of theirs deleted all the time. Ali Sina is covered well in the article about FaithFreedom, which we were able to keep because it's received coverage from some notable sources. Ali Sina links there. Wikipedia is fair, but it requires work and dedication. Isn't getting the word out about Islam worth it? The only reason this matters is because, as my name says, Google=Wikipedia. YOU can help shape what google has to say about Islam and you're not doing it."

"We need to find historians (Islamic studies people would be best, but any trained historian will do some good) that say bad things about Islam and Muhammad and quote them in articles. "

"I would tell you my username but one of the Muslims might try to use my advertising over here to get me blocked."

from here

"OK so we know that wikipedia can be a battleground. Here's something easy (and fun) you can do to help...

...Help the good guys and hurt the bad guys by simply reverting to the last version by a good guy. Check back every few minutes, you can use three reverts per 24 hour period, after that you will get a temporary block.

Here are the lists:

Good guys (in alphabetical order): Arrow740 Beit Or Hypnosadist Karl Meier Merzbow Proabivouac Sefringle Str1977

Bad: ALM scientist Aminz Bless sins Itaqallah Kirbytime Nielswik Striver Strothra Truthspreader"

the quotes speak for themselves, more can be seen upon further analysis of the threads. evidence proving beyond doubt that the user involved in this is User:Arrow740 is as follows:

• "Google=Wikipedia" was a main participant in a dispute on Muhammad's slaves as can be deduced from this post: [64]. he says:"Muslims got the lists censored because they claimed it needed context and that their Arabic wasn't good enough" - this is a reference to the discussion between myself and Arrow740 on my talk page and on the article talk page. in particular, "'they claimed it needed context and that their Arabic wasn't good enough" refers to my comments here.
• Arrow740 shows interest in and awareness of the Faith Freedom International forums, on which Google=Wikipedia posted. [65] Arrow also significantly participates on the Faith Freedom article.[66]
• "Google=Wikipedia" lists a number of articles he wishes for FFI participants to blind revert on (Jan 25), naming the "good guys" and the "bad guys" (as quoted above). incidentally, these are almost all of the articles on which Arrow740 has been involved in substantial disputes, many times heavily edit warring. here are a selection of diffs provided:
  • Dhimmi:[67][68][69]
  • Robert Spencer:[70][71][72]
  • Islam and slavery:[73][74][75]
  • Women in Islam:[76][77]
  • Islamist terrorism:[78][79][80]
  • Criticism of Muhammad:[81]
  • Criticism of the Qur'an:[82][83][84]
  • Criticism of Islam:[85][86][87]
  • Muhammad's slaves:[88][89][90]
  • Muhammad and the Jews:[91][92]
  • Banu Qurayza:[93][94]
  • Banu Qaynuqa:[95][96][97]
  • Banu Nadir:[98][99]
  • Constitution of Medina:[100][101]
  • Faith Freedom International:[102][103][104]
  • The relation between Islam and science:[105][106][107]
  • Aisha:[108]
  • Jihad:[109]
  • Islam and antisemitism:[110][111]
    • the most significant point here is that on a number of these articles, there have been an extremely low number of editors ever involved in them. for example, on Constitution of Medina, the activity on the article remained rather low until mid-Jan when Arrow740 made a series of objectionable edits, and that was the start of the first actual dispute on that article. as so few people were involved (and as the articles are hardly visited), or even aware of the dispute (i.e. pretty much only myself and Arrow), highlighting such an article in an off-wiki appeal becomes extremely significant. exactly the same applies to Muhammad and the Jews, where controversy only ever started during mid-Jan when Arrow740 started editing the article. the same also applies to Muhammad's slaves.
    • furthermore, the posts on FFI seem to have been made during the same period when Arrow740 was warring across several of the above articles (mid to late January), as many of the diffs provided above are similarly from around that time.
• "Google=Wikipedia" describes eminent historian Montgomery Watt as "a stupid Christian minister who wrote that Muhammad was divinely inspired",[112] which correlates with the antagonism displayed against him by Arrow740. some sample diffs, among others: [113][114]. in particular, the statement: "who wrote that Muhammad was divinely inspired" corresponds with this sarcastic comment: "God exists and Muhammad was his prophet. Watt says it, you cannot deny it!"
• "Google=Wikipedia" reveals extensive knowledge over the newly formed Criticism of Islam taskforce (of which he is a member): "Of course I know about it. The task force is for anyone who wants to improve articles discussing criticism of Islam. You see how vague that is. There can be no official group whose stated purpose is to promote an anti-Islam point of view." , and also states his frustration over how the group isn't active enough "Where do you get your information about this? The group serves no purpose. It's founder hasn't contributed in over a week. I assure you that I am already fully participating in the struggle to make wikipedia tell the truth about Islam.",[115] a group to which Arrow has been one of the very few contributors. the quote also shows that Google=Wikipedia has been active and actively in disputes for a while, as can be seen by Arrow740's contribs during Jan (and this month in fact). the last point is also exemplified by the quote "Don't bother to do anything myself? As a matter of fact I spend tons of time on wikipedia almost every day doing exactly what I'm asking you to do." (i.e. extensive edit warring, as demonstrated in the diffs above)
• "Google=Wikipedia" holds an extremely reverential opinion of Robert Spencer, whilst understanding that he is not good enough for citation on wikipedia "In the history articles you need to quote historians, not (great) guys like Spencer. In the criticism articles you can quote the critics." this opinion stems from the numerous disputes Arrow has been involved in regarding Spencer (i.e. Talk:Criticism_of_Islam#Robert_Spencer, Talk:Dhimmi#al-Hibri). the last sentence of that extract corresponds with: [116][117][118]
• "Google=Wikipedia" indicates that he has communicated in the past with relatively new user User:Matt57 - "Our paths have crossed a few times"[119], as has Arrow740 [120] [121]
• "Google=Wikipedia" states "Ali Sina is covered well in the article about FaithFreedom, which we were able to keep because it's received coverage from some notable sources. Ali Sina links there. ", indicating he was aware of the relevant AfD's related to Ali Sina (AfD, DRV) and Faith Freedom International, the last of which Arrow740 was a key participant.
• such behaviour is not out of character, as Arrow was recently found to be votestacking in an AfD.[122][123][124][125]. he is also known for recruiting like-minded editors on-wiki to enforce changes on articles, example diffs[126][127][128][129][130] among many of this nature. considering the above, it is reasonable to consider that privately contacting numerous editors sharing his viewpoint may have been similarly inappropriate:[131][132][133][134]

i would appreciate administrators' opinions and any appropriate intervention. thank you.ITAQALLAH 18:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am confused as to what difference there is between groups like this being organized and what looks to be a very organized group of editors that work together with Itaqallah who take an opposing point of view, and why Itaqallah and his friends are not also called meatpuppets? And if so is this not something that should be addressed with relation to both of them? It looks like Itaqallah and Arrow740 from the link to each of their contributions have long histories around each other and that this may be just the latest attack from one to the other. I will be open and admit that I find many of Itaqallah's edits to be less than helpful or possibly factually incorrect after reviewing the various pages he links to that he himself has edited on repeatedly.

Also, wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, is it not? If there is a serious bias problem going on, it seems one acceptable solution should be to invite people to come in and fix the offending articles. When Itaqallah links to a page that I think means there is a debate on when an article might be deleted, and says Arrow was "vote stacking" by inviting people to view it, I am unsure of whether there is any difference between Arrow sending messages on here and what would happen if people sent messages to each other privately or on another forum somewhere. There are comments on that page that if I am reading them correctly indicate Itaqallah may have been doing this.

I do not know all the right terms to describe it but I hope I have made my points and questions clear.— Preceding unsigned comment added by One Elephant went out to play... (talk • contribs)

Tsk tsk tsk. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't spend much time on Islam related articles, but based on the fact that this individual, whomever he or she may be, is outright asking people to POV revert war, I consider that trolling for disruption and personally I would suggest taking a fairly hard line against it. Despite how One Elephant went out to play... (talk · contribs) is trying to portray this, this was not a request for "people to come in and fix the offending articles". This is absolutely a call for individuals to show up here and create a problem complete with instructions on how to game the 3RR system.--Isotope23 19:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A déja vu. It reminds me of this back on October 2005. Shees! 18 months later? It is so clear that it consists of a systematic behaviour. Whenever someone would need help they would just go to Faithfreedom.org and gather supporters. I am not sure who is behind this but this should be fixed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It is very clear to me that it is "Arrow740". First of all, he must be in the list of "good" guys "Arrow740,Beit Or, Hypnosadist, Karl Meier, Merzbow, Proabivouac, Sefringle, Str1977". Well, I have had interaction with all of these editors and I can say with certainty that it can be only Arrow740. His editing style is unique. For example please compare "Become a wikipedian and join us in the fight!" from FFI website with this comment of Arrow here "By the way, a co-religionist of yours is being attacked. See Robert Spencer."[135] --Aminz 21:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Aminz and I have an acrimonious relationship, and his "example" is obviously wrong. In fact I never use such gushy language as "Become a wikipedian and join us in the fight!" Arrow740 21:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Aminz must have an exceptionally good ear for language, since I cannot spot any common patterns in the two phrases above, no matter how hard I try. Beit Or 21:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Asking others to come and fix an attacked article. And of course, Arrow would be a little bit less free outside wikipedia. --Aminz 22:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

With the standard of proof set so low, one can conjure up "evidence" against any editor. Beit Or 22:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, among the "good" guys "Arrow740,Beit Or, Hypnosadist, Karl Meier, Merzbow, Proabivouac, Sefringle, Str1977", only Arrow740 has edited all the articles named by "G=W" in FFI website. In fact, this user is supposed to be very active: From FFI post:"As a matter of fact I spend tons of time on wikipedia almost every day doing exactly what I'm asking you to do. All it takes is perseverance. Some of the worst Muslim editors have been banned in the last few months. It all works out. Right now we have the upper hand and I think we might be close to critical mass over there. If you have a good secondary source (i.e. a book by a historian) then there's nothing they can do. If it's a website then they can get it censored. But in the "Criticism of" articles, the standard is different, and you can put in as much Spencer, Ibn Warraq, and Bat Ye'or as you want. "--Aminz 23:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

i don't see how the evidence presented could have been "conjured", Beit Or. i don't appreciate musings implying that it has. ITAQALLAH 23:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, that is false. Itaqallah in his zeal for the truth only copied articles I had edited, if only once. Please read my response. Arrow740 23:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

those on which you did edit less on seemed to be lower down on your priority list. i have already explained why the other two articles you listed would be typically so. ITAQALLAH 23:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrow is also involved in some of these articles only recently (the FFI comments are not very recent). --Aminz 23:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

absolutely. many of the articles Arrow listed below were ones where he has only recently become "heavily involved", or likely was not "heavily involved" in when appealing on FFI. ITAQALLAH 23:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• in response to the comment below that it could be any other wikipedian sharing Arrows view ("there is no reason to think it's me as opposed to another wikipedian who shares my views")
  • a) what kind of wikipedian would relate a dispute, in detail, which he wasn't even involved in?[136] b) there aren't many other editors who insult Watt as you have. on-wiki, you called him "senile." off-wiki, you called him "stupid." in fact i don't believe i've ever seen an editor insult Watt like that. c) there aren't many other editors (almost none, in fact) who have knowledge of such articles like Constitution of Medina that they'd list it among the articles they're inviting puppets to, especially when they're revert warring at that exact same time. d) there aren't many other editors who are actually aware of the FFI forum as you were[137]. e)yes, as you boast below, you are "one of the most active", which is exactly what G=W boasts. i could go on and on... ITAQALLAH 21:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's true. In fact, Arrow is the only editor here who insults Watt and holds a greatly postivie view of "Robert Spencer". --Aminz 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind you people, there is some difference between a POV and the 'ill will'. The users like Arrow740 can not be covered under the shelter of the justification of 'POV'. We are here for the betterment of human beings and not to sell the evil systematic campaigns. The most important point to note is that, its not so easy and frequent to identify a hidden employee of FFI in wikipedia. Once it is identified then it is the most right moment to take the extreme action to uproot such venoms. There are many Atheist, Muslim, Christains as well as other editors who are supporiting to take action and not loose the chance. Any learnt scholar knows where do the authors like Rober Spencer come from. Just look at the typical talking and allegation style of Rober Spencer, But alas people take that uncredible filth as a POV. In fact, it is not necessary to put some filth in every truth to make it look miserable, sometimes you have to tell the real truth no matter you like it or not and you cant hide under the umbrella of POV.VirtualEye 06:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I may have more to say in a bit, but for now: I'd like to totally disassociate myself from any list of "good" and "bad" editors. Being not a part of any army, I deeply resent any attempt to recruit me into one against my will, and feel even worse for those editors labelled here as "bad," whose edits meatpuppets are to blindly revert. Would-be meatpuppets, if you are reading this, do not follow me around and revert to my versions, for you should only bring me into disrepute as a leader of meatpuppets.Proabivouac 10:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to the pre-emptive response to my response

a)Anyone. b)I am not as restrained on WP as I should be, but there can be no doubt that every anti-Islam editor shares my feelings about Watt, our FFI poster included. I personally find Esposito to be even more objectionable. c)Obviously, the fact that articles were listed (on FFI but not mentioned here by you) in which I am not involved but others are proves your argument to be hollow. d)Anyone who uses a search engine about Islam comes across that site and others like it eventually, including, apparently, you. e)There are a few editors as active as me. Every such person no doubt does it for a reason. Arrow740 21:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

a)not likely in the least, especially when they list other articles which are similarly visited very little b) your ridiculing of Watt on FFI matches your comments on wiki at around the same time. c) as i said, it is totally understandable why you'd be aware of Islam in China and Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent. with the first, there was an edit war raging between Proabivouac and an IP during mid Jan when you posted. with the second, you're an "anti-Islam", Indian editor. such an article would be of prime interest to you, non? ITAQALLAH 21:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Response

That person is not me. I am not active in many of those articles and am active in many articles that are not on that list (which User:Itaqallah did not copy in full, see below). The person posting there could have been any of the other wikipedia editors with an anti-Islam POV. I am one of the most active members of that group, and it seems likely anyone undertaking such an endeavor would see what articles I have been working on, and would have seen User:Itaqallah's talk page where he and I have what he is characterizing as private conversations. I am by no means the most active editor with my POV at

• Women in Islam
• Islamist terrorism
• Criticism of Muhammad
• Criticism of Islam
• Muhammad and the Jews
• Faith Freedom International
• Aisha I believe I've edited this one once,
• Islam and antisemitism same here.

Itaqallah neglected to include here the full list he linked to, conveniently leaving out two articles I don't believe I've ever contributed to: Islam in China and Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent. The purported list also does not include articles that I am heavily involved in, such as

• Battle of Khaybar
• Islam at which itaqallah tried unsuccessfully to get me blocked on a spurious charge of 3rr violation
• Bat Ye'or another critic like Robert Spencer, but I am even more involved at her article
• Ma malakat aymanukum
• Ma malakat aymanukum and sex in the last two I am the only principle editor with my POV
• Reforms under Islam (610-661)
• Muhammad as a diplomat which I have been involved in since I began wikipedia and which I am trying to get deleted by participating in the discussion at its AfD,
• Prisoners of war in Islam
• Islam and modernity where I have been substantially involved in nasty edit wars.

In short, this poster to Faith Freedom International is not me, there is no reason to think it's me as opposed to another wikipedian who shares my views, and it could easily have been User:Itaqallah himself setting me up. I wouldn't put it past him as he's had it in for me for months, and has obliquely threatened to take an action of this kind against me before, in User:Proabivouac's now deleted RfC. Arrow740 19:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• this response is a non-sequitur. why don't you try addressing the actual evidences? please re-read my report, i said "almost all articles listed." it is entirely reasonable to assume you'd list other articles that you were aware of but had not participated upon . the other articles you list: maybe you didn't list them in the FFI thread because you weren't revert warring in them at the time? in response to new user "elephant" and yourself, indeed we have a history. i have a "history" with numerous other editors, yet they haven't been meatpuppeteering as you have. i "obliquely threatened" an RfC, so i don't know what "an action of this kind" refers to. dismissing it as a "set-up" is ridiculous, and you know too well that that's your only line of defense. ITAQALLAH 20:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have proven that none of your arguments are convincing, rightly so because it wasn't me who posted those things. Arrow740 20:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

your only retort until now has been to bluntly accuse me of fabrication, or to 'respond' to the evidences with comments that are not actually responses. ITAQALLAH 20:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to report me based on this suspicion as well? I'm sure you could find an appropriate noticeboard somewhere. Arrow740 20:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And why don't you file a checkuser request for me and User:One Elephant went out to play...? He's new, it must be me in disguise, right? Arrow740 21:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, there's a simpler way to prove or unprove ITAQALLAH's allegations. I'd be tempted to email the moderators of FFI and ask them for your IP address, then ask for a checkuser to be filed on you and ask them to release your IP address. If they match, it's not my problem. Yuser31415 21:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt users involved in the whole Arab-Jew-history of Islam quagmire are stupid enough to solicit meatpuppets. The "proof" against Arrow is quite flawed and nothing links arrow to the meat-caller.Bakaman 21:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuser, that might work but please remember that the FFI website is a propaganda website against Islam. If that editor also contacts the director and tells him the story, he *might* give us some random IP. But it of course worth trying. --Aminz 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A possibility of impersonation should not be discounted, too. Beit Or 21:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In this case, we will have the IP. It seems to me to be very unlikely, e.g. see this comment on FFI: "If you google something, you get the wikipedia article. Please become a wikipedian, find good sources for information about Islam, and put it into wikipedia. If anyone has "sword of the prophet," please quote extensively from it and put it into the Muhammad and Islam articles. Also the "Criticism of Islam," "Criticism of Muhammad," and "Criticism of the Quran" articles don't say much about Muhammad's violence. Can someone put Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, Ibn Warraq and any other notable critic into those articles?! There is a little Spencer in the Criticism of the Quran article. Please do this!! There's nothing more effective you can do than to make wikipedia tell the truth about Islam! So when people google about Islam they'll find out the truth!"--Aminz 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so what? Beit Or 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrow has written most of "war-and-violence" section in Criticism of Qur'an mostly using Spencer. --Aminz 21:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

actually, on closer observation, his listing of critics as G=W corresponds with [138]. ITAQALLAH 21:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

*Nice* observation. --Aminz 21:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is getting increasingly ridiculous. Aminz, why would I advertise elsewhere asking others to do what I have proven myself to be happy to do? And itaqallah, this is, again, not proof of anything. You have taken bits and pieces of this FFI poster and bits and pieces of my posts and tried to fit them together. It is clear that they do not. Arrow740 21:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• "why would I advertise elsewhere asking others to do what I have proven myself to be happy to do" ? you mean revert war..? seemingly not, as you have replicated such "recruiting" on-wiki as well as off. yet again, i see similarities with your comment above and:"Don't bother to do anything myself? As a matter of fact I spend tons of time on wikipedia almost every day doing exactly what I'm asking you to do." ITAQALLAH 22:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It would behoove you to read before responding. Regarding the language, this:

Please do this!! There's nothing more effective you can do than to make wikipedia tell the truth about Islam! So when people google about Islam they'll find out the truth!

is clearly not me. Arrow740 22:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

don't ask me why you wrote like that. there are plenty of reasons. ITAQALLAH 22:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrrow740 is right. For one thing, I don't remember him ever using exclamation marks. His style is much more restrained. Beit Or 22:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

try these, Beit Or.[139][140][141] and that was after one minute of searching. ITAQALLAH 22:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

When I am trying drive a point home to an obstinate editor, I will occasionally indulge in an exclamation mark. The fact remains that the two of us have different styles. Arrow740 23:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

While there is some circumstantial evidence here, there is no smoking gun per se and I'd hesitate to block anyone based on this at this time. However, the FFI post is serious enough that I'd suggest acting agressively against revert wars on these articles. WP:AGF on new editors, but I don't take kindly to individuals who are just here to disrupt the 'pedia whatever their POV is. If somone shows up and starts reverting to earlier versions they should be warned and then blocked if they do it again. 3RR allows for blocks before they hit 4 edits and I will call "spade if I see disruptive edits.--Isotope23 21:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it a bit ironic that User:Arrow740 mentions the Reforms under Islam (610-661) article. I actually witnessed what User:Itaqallah is mentioning here myself back in mid November. I even mentioned how an editor didn't need to be blocked and still rely upon sockpuppets (and now that I think about it meatpuppets). (→Netscott) 22:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

On any of these pages, I think we should immediately block for disruption anyone who shows up and reverts. We really need to discourage this kind of thing. I just saw a similar but less overt example on the 9/11 talk page: 9/11 Research's Guide to Wikipedia on 9/11. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Arrow740 22:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Such behavior is as common in this space as it is intolerable.Proabivouac 22:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but all of that has nothing to do with Arrow740. Beit Or 22:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I see we have about 250 links to faithfreedom.org. I bet we could get by with a good deal fewer, especially in article space. I'm not much inclined to use them for anything that we can get elsewhere. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know why, in amongst all of his lengthy accusations, User:Itaqallah refers to me as an "editor sharing his (Arrow740's) viewpoint", and states that it would be therefore inappropriate for Arrow740 to e-mail me? On what basis does Itaqallah add this claim to his lengthy and growing pile of other claims? Exactly what "viewpoint" is it that Arrow740 and I share? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

you are correct. amongst the diffs, that one shouldn't be there. i have rectified that accordingly. ITAQALLAH 22:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What a horrible and systemtic wretched work of Arrow740 and company. That is the same reason I had been emphasizing that such sick editors must be working for FFI. And that is revealed now. Nobody can deny except few people like 'Jayjg'. Have a look at the Jayjg's Contributions. Dozens of edits in each day, all revolving around Zionism and Islam-hatered. He seems to be mate of Arrow740 that is why he is blindly supprting. Are you people paid the part time also? to cunningly work for evil researchwork?

Wikipedia will be better off by removing such wound creating hidden worms from its body. The moment you bow towards such evil editors , the moment you losed golden chance to identify. VirtualEye 06:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have just posted a final warning for VirtualEye for the avoid violation of WP:NPA. --BozMo talk 19:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

VirtualEye, your comment uses a rather extreme language. Also, while I have some disagreements with Jayjg. I believe we both have our own point of view and each think our view is correct. I certainly disagree with classifying Jayjg as an "Islam-hater". --Aminz 07:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Aminz. I'd also like to point out that opposition to Antisemitism and/or support for Israel, though you (VirtualEye) might disagree with it, is not equivalent to hatred of, or even opposition to, Islam.Proabivouac 11:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Requesting help from another admin

A few days ago I blocked User:Chunghwa Republic (talk · contribs) on what I percieved to be strong evidence for being a sockpuppet of User:Nationalist, currently under a 1 month block for repeated sockpuppet usage. User:Chunghwa Republic displayed several apparent similarities in editing patters with past confirmed Nationalist sockpuppets (see Chunghwa Republic contribs Taiwan53 contribs), registered shortly after the last Nationalist sock was blocked, and demonstrated an apparent farmiliarity with Wikipedia processes, including CheckUser. Today, a CheckUser request for Chunghwa Republic returned negative for IP similarities with Nationalist or past socks. However, It is worth noting that at least one other confirmed Nationalist sock also responded to warnings by demanding a CheckUser, suggesting that Nationalist may be making use of other IP blocs. I am requesting that an uninvolved admin review User:Chunghwa Republic's unblock request in the interest of fairness. Thanks. -Loren 06:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've declined the unblock in endorsement of your block rationale. Sandstein 21:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a personal messaging service

I think this is the right place to say this... The other day I found a group of users who were using wikipedia solely for personal messages. I warned all of them, and when they continued two of them were blocked by an admin. Jrsas07's user page is apparently still being used like that, so I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Thanks!--TheAlphaWolf 16:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to SP the talk page to at least force them to sign in to do this. --rogerd 17:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC) I thought better of it. I just removed everything but your warning. --rogerd 17:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Any other users? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, other users (User Talk:Bobbyj221, ‎User Talk:ILOVETRAMPOLINE, User Talk:Lunadabay, User Talk:Waterpolobob11) were using wikipedia in the same manner, but they have stopped (and the other two were blocked). I'm watching their pages so I'll post it here if any more continue. As an aside, an anonymous user which I assume was user Lunadabay asked if it was possible to delete his/her account or talk page. I told him/her it might be possible to delete the user talk page, but not the account... but to contact an administrator. --TheAlphaWolf 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

While using Wikipedia as a single-purpose as a messaging platform is inappropriate, there must be a solution more likely to win the <3's and minds of those involved :x —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-21 08:58Z

Powerrangerbuster, PowerRangerBuster2, Can't sleep, Zordon will teleport me and CBDrunkerson

This is a hard story to piece together, but Powerrangerbuster contacted me asking to be unblocked. As far as I can tell, CBDrunkerson is an impostor of CBDunkerson and applied a false {{tl:Doppelganger}} tag to his userpage. This was met with an indefinite block, which has now come to mean any sockpuppets have been banned.

Powerrangerbuster (talk · contribs) claims not to be CBDrunkerson (talk · contribs), but admits to being Can't sleep, Zordon will teleport me (talk · contribs), created in an attempt to see "if Can't sleep "owns" the "Can't sleep" prefix (*shakes head*). The user also created Power ranger buster, a nonsense article.

Mackensen commented [142] at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names that "Can't sleep, Zordon will teleport me" was the same user as "CBDrunkerson" and "Powerrangerbuster". "Can't sleep, clown will eat me" apparently requested a checkuser [143] but I can't find any case to that effect.

HighInBC (talk · contribs) blocked "Powerrangerbuster" and "PowerRangerBuster2" indefinitely, the latter with the rationale that he'd "admitted to being a sockpuppet of CBDrunkerson"--I assume on the strength of this edit summary: [144].

Given the account creation proximity ([145] and [146]), I believe the user is also "CBDrunkerson", and I informed him that I would not contemplate unblocking. However, I do think the rationale of the above could be better documented, which is what I've done, above, and I invite other admins to review and comment. Demi ^T/_C 19:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'd say we unblock as and when we have credible evidence that the user has grown up. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify that CSCWEM privately requested a checkuser, the public results of which I presented at the above forum. I was also contacted requesting an unblock. Mackensen (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe I found another user in this sockpuppet ring, Wrongporch (talk · contribs). His first edit was here. Obviously, he doesn't have vandalproof, and because of his other edits, I've blocked this guy indef for trolling.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mykungfu back at it

Just a heads-up - I've indef-blocked two obvious socks of our dear friend MKF: Freakin Fool and ReadyToLive. As always, I'm open to review. Both headed right for articles on African-American fraternities and started pushing negative and somewhat racist content; editing styles are similar; and Freakin Fool also went for Dominicans Don't Play, a favorite subject of earlier MKF socks (including MrDouglass). | Mr. Darcy talk 20:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

HanzoHattori (personal attacks)

HanzoHattori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to engage in personal attacks, even after five warnings by five different editors. Attacks:

• calling other editors "insane" [147]
• calling other editors "stupid" [148]
• calling other editors "retarded" or "retards" [149][150]

Previous WP:NPA warnings:

• First warning, 11 August 2006
• Second warning, 23 September 2006
• Third warning, 16 November 2006
• Fourth warning, 25 November 2006 ("final warning")
• Fifth warning, 23 January 2007 (another "final warning")

Enough already. —Psychonaut 03:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Time to show we mean what WP:CIV sais. I recommend a 72h block (based on the fact that the last time the user was blocked for 48h) to shove our message through.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, but keep in mind that blocks aren't supposed to be punitive. —Psychonaut 04:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

He's had plenty of warning. Blocked for 1 week (this is his third block). ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

One week seems a bit excessive, in particular since his past blocks were not for personal attacks (not that it wouldn't have been appropriate to block him for personal attacks previously, however, he wasn't). He also should be notified as to the specific reason for his block (that is, notified of this discussion, which he does not appear to have known about). _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not punitive as I have every reason to believe it will continue without a block. I recommend between 1 and 3 days, but I cannot bring myself to disagree with a week. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I blocked for a week as an extension of the first two blocks. I view it as a preventative thing: he's been blocked 3 times now, and still hasn't learned to be civil and not engage in personal attacks. Now, don't get me wrong, if there's some sort of sign this sort of thing won't continue there's no problem with lifting it early. But there's no evidence that it will. Osgoodelawyer, the last time you and I got together was for Hanzo's personal attacks. Now, I realize that's not why he was blocked before, but it does meant that you and I BOTH have warned him about them before, and the extent of the personal attacks warrented a block IMHO. As for the reasoning, I gave it to him on his talk page, "personal attacks". I was under the impression he was aware of this discussion, that's why I didn't include a specific diff, but the knell was the "Are you stupid?" edit summaries.

My apologies Ozgoodelawyer, I completely forgot that you were involved in mediation with Hanzo, I definitely should have gotten in touch with you first. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 21:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal info posted

I believe there's a method for removing personal info like this from the article's history.; if so, would someone do so, please? Andy Mabbett 21:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, although I can't get the article's history to load correctly. I deleted the page then restored all versions up to the offending one. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In future, you may want to use requests for oversight, to prevent drawing attention to the info. Trebor 21:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have oversighted the offending revisions from the deleted history. Essjay (Talk) 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)