Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive77

User disrupting & subtle vandalism

Resolved by agreement between parties ^Talk - The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 10:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A registered user is repeatedly disrupting an RfC, making attacks and false accusations seemingly to start a huge and irrelevant row in the middle of an RfC. This more subtle form of vandalism is from an experienced User Michael Ralston who knows what he is doing. It includes false accusations of anti-semitic allegations.

Evidence:

• the purpose of RFC is summarised [[1]] for this user
• after each further disruption, this user is requested three further times to stay on point [[2]], [[3]], [[4]]
• here in a fifth attempt at disruption and causing argument [[5]] he makes a false accusation and pretends he is the one asking for others to stick to the point, whereas that is not the case.

86.10.231.219 10:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to inquire how, precisely, adding to a talk page is vandalism of any sort? Disruption, perhaps, but certainly not intentional.

As for "false accusations of anti-semitic allegations", I'm curious what, precisely, "Here he accuses all jewish people who hold to religious customs of child abuse" is supposed to be other than an allegation of anti-semitism. (The location of said text is in that "summarization of the purpose of RfC", so I won't bother relinking it).

As for the claim that it's "not about Midgley's behaviour", I'm curious what [[6]] is supposed to have to do with the topic, then. Michael Ralston 07:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Firm action would be appreciated against this disruptive user Michael Ralston. He will not take the hint.

Despite repeated polite requests (evidence links above) to Michael Ralston to use user talk pages instead of an RfC Michael Ralston now insists on using the Admins noticeboard as well. Note the false allegation of anti-semitic remarks. The only person mentioning anti-semitism is Michael Ralston and it is clearly done to bait and start irrelevant arguments in the middle of an RfC instead of dealing with the main issues.

Further request for Admin action posted by User:86.10.231.219 10:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Reposted by User:86.10.231.219 11:12 24 February 2006 - for details see [[7]]

I do believe I have the right to defend myself against your accusations, 86.10.231.219. And declaring that someoone accuses all religious Jews of child abuse is, in fact, declaring that person is anti-semitic. You did that well before I even commented on that RfC. Michael Ralston 22:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Here [[8]] is direct evidence of bad faith editing by this disruptive user Michael Ralston. Here also is the link [[9]] to the sixth and seventh times Michael Ralston disrupts and raises anti-semitism. But now he is arguing this is part of the RfC when it has nothing to do with it. User:86.10.231.219 16:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I am arguing that you repeatedly link to the diff in which you declare Midgley to be anti-semitic, and declare that diff is what the RfC is about; therefore, you are claiming that Midgley's behaviour is part of the RfC. If you were not claiming this, as I have pointed out, you would present a diff or a new post that does not mention Midgley, or at least does not mention Midgley in reference to religious beliefs. As you continue doing so, I am forced to assume you do believe Midgley's behaviour is part of the RfC. Michael Ralston 22:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Admin intervention would be appreciated as this is now very concerted harrassment by Michael Ralston:-

• Michael Ralston now together with User:Midgley have, in further harrassment, collaborated on simultaneous and equally inappropriate unjustified AfDs [[10]] and an MfD [[11]] as well and

- both are for deletion of my user talk page and

- both applications are made out of thin air without warning, discussion or evidence

• as seen immediately above Michael Ralston continues the same incorrect accusations in this page as he does in the original page and which have been demonstrated to be incorrect
• the AfD and MfD come just a short time after a prior "thin air" attempt by an anon (sockpuppet?) to list the talk page for deletion [[12]]

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 05:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Will an admin please say something on this topic? At this point, I don't care what's done or not done, I'd just like to see someone say they've seen this and what should be done in regards to it, so that I can stop worrying about having to verge on wikistalking someone to defend myself against accusations. Michael Ralston 06:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking into it now. Ok. First of all, to an outsider this looks like a total mess. Here are a few recommendations based on a first (and possibly wrong) impression:

• 86.10.231.219 (talk · contribs) a.k.a. "The Invisible Anon" is strongly encouraged to register a username. Anons don't "own" their user pages and talk pages the way registered users do. The notice on top of 86.10.231.219's talk page ("Attention: The Invisible Anon's Talk Page") is inappropriate. If you want your own talk page, register an account. I believe you can still claim your anonymous edits later.
• Nominating 86.10.231.219's talk page for deletion was not a good idea. If the talk page is used in violation of Wikipedia policy (this is a hypothetical; I haven't looked into this), please bring it to the attention of an admin. Since anons don't "own" their talk pages, stricter standards apply than for registered users. However, registered users are also bound by Wikipedia:user page and other policies and guidelines.
• It's not a good idea to paraphrase somebody's utterance in controversial terms. Saying something like "parents who have their children circumcised are child abusers" may or may not qualify as antisemitism (for purposes of this discussion I will make no assumption on whether it does or doesn't qualify). But antisemitism is a rather serious charge, and since it rests on shaky foundations it is best avoided. That said, I have not seen any evidence that Michael Ralston was acting in bad faith when he made that accusation.
• Not only is there confusion about what the anti-vaccinationism article is about, there is also confusion about what the talk page RFC (which would resolve the first kind of confusion) is about. Michael seems to think (and again I see no evidence of bad faith) that the behavior of editors is partly at stake. That may or may not be the case, but in this case I agree with the anon that such disputes should be resolved in other venues, not on an article talk page.

Admins won't be able to help you with the content disputes. The only actionable item I see is whether 86.10.231.219's talk page was used inappropriately. If you think it was, please present concise evidence. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no confusion. This is straight-forward conduct. There are no content issues here. I have shown with specific evidence that Michael Ralston has eight times engaged untrue personal attacks, disrupting an RfC and harrassment.

Here is further specific evidence of stalking by Michael Ralston. Within less than ten minutes of my posting here this further report [[13]] of the harrassment by combining a second AfD within 24 hours with an MfD, Michael Ralston asks here [[14]] for the AfD to be a "speedy keep". Having been caught red handed here [[15]] he admits to stalking me, but there has been no justification for that.

If I had been doing what Michael Ralston is and has been doing, I would have been blocked in seconds.

I will be happy to consider registering a user name as soon as I see some proper enforcement of Wikipedia policies against serial registered abusers of those policies. This is not an isolated case. All other aspects are of less importance than that prime one. Here is a clear case of double standards.

Isn't there a current AN/I report against MarkSweep here [[16]]

^Talk - The Original Invisible Anon 12:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't stalked you. I've strongly contemplated wikistalking you in self-defense, but I haven't yet done so - and given that I know now there's at least one administrator who's looked at this case, I don't think I'll have to. I do have this page on my watchlist - after all, there's an accusation against me! I'd darn well better be keeping an eye on this. As for me asking for the AfD to be closed in your favor... do I have to point out I also stated before then, on your talk page, that an AfD was improper, as it was not an article? Someone wondering about the timing might be advised to take a look at my contributions - I've been doing a moderate amount of editing the past few days, and most of my posts that in some way, shape, or form have something to do with this IP have been at the same general time as other edits. As for "untrue personal attacks", I can't even think of any personal attacks I've made, at least not lately. Claiming that you said Midgley is anti-semitic is not a personal attack - it may not be entirely accurate, but it's not a personal attack, especially when it is and has been perfectly clear what I'm referring to at that point. Claiming that Midgley is not anti-semitic is also not a personal attack, to my knowledge. Michael Ralston

All that said... Anon, can we try to work this out somewhere it belongs? Because it definitely doesn't belong here. Given your apparent opinion of me (and, I'll admit, my opinion of you), I doubt mediation would be effective. If you'd like to open an RfC on my conduct, I will willingly waive the two-person requirement as long as you'd be willing to agree not to report me for any further alleged misconduct elsewhere without first notifying me on my talk page. Does this sound fair to you? Michael Ralston 19:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh - and I'll be willing to reciprocate and cease my discussion on the MfD for your talk page, as well as any similar locations that may come up. Michael Ralston 20:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I checked again: I don't see any evidence of personal attacks, wiki-stalking, or bad faith on Michael Ralston's part. Judging from 86.10.231.219's comments above, it seems you are more interested in escalating the underlying dispute rather than resolving it. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be an ad hoc mini-mediation taking place here [[17]] which looks very promising and positive. Lets see how that goes? ^Talk - The Original Invisible Anon 08:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Grue

A short time ago, User:Kelly Martin blocked User:Grue because of this comment on an RfA, for 24 hours. While I don't believe the comment helped anyone, I don't believe that blocking Grue does either. Grue wasn't warned, and I think it is a fairly poor reason to block a perfectly decent user (and good administrator). I've removed the block, although Grue may want to reconsider his choice of words on that RfA. Esteffect 15:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a great example of why "never unblock without bringing it up with the blocker" is a bad idea. This block was obviously inappropriate, and it's proper that it was undone quickly. Kelly, not sure what you were thinking, but if you must block, please be more reasonable about it. Friday (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - worse comments have been said and no one got blocked. --Latinus 15:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Grue's remarks were a breach of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL, there is no excuse and a perfectly decent user (and good administrator) ought to know better. In the current climate we need to choose words with care, and avoid such inflammetory remarks. However, a stern waring, an invitation to retract, or failing that an extremely short block would have been better. I believe Kelly acted in good faith, but too severely, and the unblocking was justified. --Doc ^ask? 15:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The remark was snarky. It may reflect poorly on Grue in some folks's eyes. That is all the sanction that is needed in such a case. Friday (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what Doc said. Blocking was perhaps too harsh, but Grue owes everyone an explanation for why he apparently no longer assumes good faith. Mackensen (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Friday. The remark was certainly snarky, possibly uncivil. It was not a personal attack. I believe Kelly acted in good faith to try to move us towards more civil discourse, but the comment by Grue did not merit a block. Johntex\^talk 15:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The situation was discussed on IRC. I believe the block was warranted. However, I'm not going to get into an extended fight over it, and frankly am not even interested in discussing it at this time. Whatever resolution the community decides is most appropriate in this situation is fine with me. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Your attitude horrifies me. Secretlondon 19:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea for resolution....Apologize. You were wrong. Just because you don't agree with someone is not a reason to block them.(And I assume that one of his/her allies will block me for speaking my mind, since that's been the nature of the cabal in the userbox wars.)Karmafist 18:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...nobody said that they blocked due to disagreement...and most of us agree that the RfA comments where not civil or "snarky" at best. The issue is whether they warranted a block. And bringup up cabal userbox comments is borderline trolling.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 23:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You assume bad faith, you mean? Don't. Dmcdevit·t 18:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I see a few things I very strongly disagree with: 1) the idea that the block was warranted, and 2) the idea that discussing it in a chat room somehow makes it better, and 3) the willingness to block without an accompanying willingness to discuss the block on the wiki. Blocking is quite controversial, as we should all know, so if you're not presently willing/able to be involved in the wiki much, you shouldn't be using the block function. Friday (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Just let it go. I don't agree with the block either but he's unblocked, so we can now all go about our merry way. Demanding apologies isn't getting us anywhere. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So, the story from my perspective. After making the above remark, I decided to go into IRC to discuss the recent RfA voting patterns and I saw people discussing just that, and also the blocking of some guy. Before I decide to ask whom they're talking about, I was informed, that it's me who is blocked. I was like WTF and indeed, I was blocked (this is the first time I saw what happens when you try to edit a page while blocked). Thankfully I was unblocked rather quickly. I won't call for Kelly's head, but I think that making sudden 24hr blocks is not the practice that should be encouraged.  Grue  19:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It is disconcerting, isn't it? My first time was last year during the affair which eventually led to Stevertigo's desysopping. It really threw me for a loop. Anyway, I would agree that the block for unnecessary, but I kindly ask that you assume good faith in the future. Best, Mackensen (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If it happens once, it will happen again. - Mailer Diablo 12:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Grue made a particularly unhelpful remark in an RfA (minus two cookies to Grue), Kelly over-reacted (minus one cookie to Kelly), Grue was swiftly unblocked, the story is over. Everyone go home and enjoy your remaining cookies. --Doc ^ask? 19:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You made a grammar mistake. IIRC, the correct preposition is "from", not "to". Minus one cookie crumb from Doc. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC).

Grue's comment was snarky but not uncivil and not directed at any specific person. Blocking him for it was completely and totally out of line, and I am shocked that it happened. This intimidates participants in RfA. I will endorse an RFC if it is opened. Jonathunder 19:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh FFS, what good would that do? --Doc ^ask? 19:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It would further point out that RfC is more and more broken. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

For one incident? That's a bit overboard. To me, it's a simple matter of, if you're not willing to use the sysop tools responsibly, don't use them at all. This is not an unreasonable expectation. The drive-by blocking with the cavalier attitude of "It was justified and I don't have time to discuss it" is completely inappropriate, so I don't think it's unreasonable in the least to ask Kelly to refrain from using the block tool. The sysop buttons are not toys. Friday (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, IRC rears it's ugly head again. Were the massive oppose votes after closing the result of IRC action? -- Cecropia 19:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, not as far as I know and I was one of the first in the quick burst of opposes. I found some edits I felt were uncivil enough to oppose. Grues comments were uncivil....and snarky and empty of any good faith. The block may not have been justified but I for one am getting really discouraged over the lower and lower standards of communication on Wikipedia. I can understand the frustration she might have felt, people can be as sarcastic and biting as they want and somehow it's seen as an acceptable way of communicating. Rx StrangeLove 19:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Harshness in RfAs has increased lately (see this comment which really was incivil) and it is something I have spoken out against, even when done by those who voted the same way I did. In fact, I voted the same way KM did in the RfA in question, but I really am concerned blocking Grue for his comment will intimidate voters. Let the 'crats run RfA and leave any blocks for disrupting it to them. Jonathunder 20:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocking User:Grue merely for that comment he made in that RfA is unacceptable. Lowering the bar on bans so low — down to the ankles — will damage Wikipedia. Alexander 007 20:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm shocked that someone was blocked for a WP:RFA vote. Sadly, I'm not particularly surprised at this point, nor am I particularly surprised as to whom the culprit was. This is a blatant attempt at voter intimidation. We need about half a dozen good desysoppings to keep these people under control. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Cecropia - This happened after the restart. Esteffect 22:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No way to know for sure Cecropia; some admins thought it would be a swell idea to have a private channel for admins only, so if some attempt at vote stacking were made there, non-admins would have no way of knowing. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I make an attempt at perspective? Grue said something he shouldn't have. Kelly said something she shouldn't have. Both mistakes were reversed. No long-term harm was done except whatever bitterness people choose to make themselves. Everyone makes mistakes and infallibility is not a prerequisite for adminship. I found the sudden rush of votes to oppose Djr's nomination distressing, but RFA is probably the single area where Wikipedia drama does the least harm.

Since people are quoting Jimbo's opinions on userboxes until they're blue in the face whenever the subject comes up, here's one of his views I remember:

"[Adminship] should be no big deal".

This spat is making it into one. --Malthusian (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.--Doc ^ask? 22:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Adminship has been getting a bigger deal since IAR became fasionable. No big deal is dead.Geni 23:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with User:Geni 100%. As admins become increasinly enamored with IAR, and as we become increasingly contemptuous of consensus and process, adminship becomes a bigger and bigger deal. "No big deal" is as dead as a doornail. Babajobu 08:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The basic problem is that in many instances we have outgrown our policies, they haven't scaled, no big deal almost certainly fits with that to. Yet our basic set up is very resistant to change since most proposals are effectively scuppered by a few who disagree, and many not caring, making consensus difficult to reach. We also face the problem of many users believing process to be the end itself rather than the means to an end, and the rather bizarre belief that consensus is some how a trump card which overides common sense and the basic project goals. But this is nothing new, the "no big deal" line has been trotted out frequently, ususally on failing RFAs, which to me indicates that the person themself does believe it to be a big deal, in much the same way that WP:BOLD is often trotted out when someone knows they have over stepped the mark. --pgk^(talk) 08:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say, except that I don't think we really have a problem of users who believe that process is an end to itself. I think that's a bit of a strawman. I think users who make a good faith effort to participate in the various processes that have developed in Wikipedia would like admins to generally respect those processes unless they have a good reason not to. Admins who go trampling on process for no good reason whoatsoever win a lot of respect among other admins, but infuriate non-admins and make Wikipedia a less pleasurable, less interesting experience for them. But I agree with you that WP:BOLD, like WP:IAR, is often trotted out in defense of actions that serve no purpose. Babajobu 08:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The Monty Hall problem shows that "common sense" is flawed and thus there is no reason no to overide it.Geni 09:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Then I'll be more specific: Becoming an admin may be a big deal, but not becoming an admin certainly isn't. --Malthusian (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

WTF? Grue is one of the good guys! Somethign is borked and no mistake. Just zis Guy you know? 23:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh...I really didn't want to wade any deeper into this, but since it's the latest in thing to do, I'll shoot myself in the foot. Kelly was wrong. Grue was wrong. Both have had their mistakes undone. It's finished. This is living proof that the wiki system works -- any mistakes (which are always inevitable due to our humanity) are undone as soon as possible. Stop living on them and go write the encyclopedia. Also, please don't blow this out of proportion. Kelly clearly stated she was blocking for incivility, not for the vote. AGF plzkthx. Johnleemk | Talk 09:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Kelly's block for incivility strikes me as somewhat inconsistent considering that just a couple of days ago she was calling people "idiots". [18] When the personal attack was removed Kelly disapproved saying that "WP:RPA is controversial". She even took the time to explicitly "stand by" her original comment that certain people are "idiots". [19] It's true enough that RPA is controversial. But blocking without warning, reference to the blocking policy or review at WP:AN/I is pretty controversial too as has been pointed out here. Blocking is a big deal. Please use it carefully. Please apologize when you get it wrong. Haukur 10:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Grue's comment hardly even qualifies as a personal attack, though it was a bit incivil. Blocking him for it without so much as a warning or a prior request that he chill out was rather a bigger faux pas than his comment, especially considering Kelly was on the opposite side of the debate and absolutely shouldn't have been carrying out a block even had it been warranted. "Blocking is a big deal. Please use it carefully." Babajobu 12:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Question: Why have Kelly Martin's administrative privileges not been revoked? Silensor 19:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Officeskank and User:24.160.180.50

Officeskank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Officeskank is a sneaky vandal. During 4 hours time period started 2 articles to vandalize them. Sharon Rocha and Almond roca. Continued vandalism with false edit summaries. [20] [21] I cleaned up the mess and I left a block warning. Will an administrator follow-up and block if Officeskank returns? Thanks, FloNight ^talk 13:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm thinking that we should block on inappropriate name alone. In fact, I'm going to be bold and do that now. The usual "I know I may be undone" applies, of course. – ClockworkSoul 16:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

24.160.180.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) User:24.160.180.50 is vandalizing the same articles in the same way. [22] [23] From the look of IP user talk:24.160.180.50 page, same vadal several other times in Feb. FloNight ^talk02:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Could an administrator review the contributions of IP address 24.160.180.50 and block this account. Every edit is vandalism or nonsense coments on user or article talk pages. Appears to be vanalism by a single user. Most of it is nonsense, such as insisting that people are named after tasty treats. The most serious was adding the comment that Bodie Miller admitted on 60 minutes that he skied drunk. thanks, FloNight ^talk 19:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Additional new user complaining about admin actions by Gamaliel

I'm also adding to my complaint against Gamaliel that he has broken the Wikipedia:Harassment rule. This rule says

"Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely."

Here are the things that Gamaliel has done to foster all of the things described by this rule:

1. He threatened to ban me over the most minor infraction imaginable - a single case of "incivility" when I complained a sourced quote was being censored from an article.[24]
2. He followed me to my message page and to another article (National Lawyers Guild) to continue an argument on Chip Berlet
3. He made a secretive request for investigating me and accused me of being banned editors, which I am not.
4. He tried to intimidate my attempts to undo the blanking of a vandal who has blanked the majority of the National Lawyers Guild article a dozen times in the last week by misportraying the anti-vandalism rule and claiming it didn't apply when it does.
5. He blocked me under "3RR" for undoing that same vandal's blanking, when the 3RR rule says undoing vandalism does not count as a bannable revert. This was also on an article Gamaliel followed me to.
6. He added me to an "enemies list" he maintains against Republican and Conservative editors on his homepage.[25]

All of this behaviour is aimed at harassment, and as proof that he is targetting me you can look at any of those pages and see that Gamaliel let several liberal editors get by with breaking rules while he was singling me out. He seems intent on driving me off of Wikipedia for political reasons and he is abusing his sys-op powers -- such as blocking -- to accomplish this. -- ColonelS 04:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• 1. Warning you not to be incivil is not harassment. WP:CIVIL is one of the primary rules here, and admins share the job of enforcing it. (Whether it really was incivility is another question entirely.)
  2. Your "message page" is where he's supposed to talk to you; how could he follow you there? At any rate, it's hardly surprising that when an admin detects what he perceives as incivil behaviour, that he checks to see if it was part of a general pattern of incivility, or just a momentary lapse of manners.
  3. What is this "secretive request"? Everything's pretty public here.
  4. What you describe as "blanking" is not blanking as referred to in Wikipedia:Vandalism; it is a content dispute between representing an organization as a "human rights" association or a "radical far-left" association. 3RR applies strictly.
  5. See previous.
  6. He keeps an eye on angry new users. You're an angry new user.
• There's no harassment here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Harassment? Bah humbug. I've changed the foregone-conclusion accusatory header to something more descriptive. Bishonen | ノート 06:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen and jpgordon, I'm sorry that you're so immediately dismissive of this new user's feelings. Wikipedia has a don't bite the new user policy, and ColonelS obviously feels bitten. Gamaliel is an administrator, and is subject to a higher standard here. After stepping back, I think the problem arises from Gamaliel not drawing a bright line between his substantive editing activities and his use of admin powers. One solution which I hope that all will consider is to ask Gamaliel to avoiding even the perception of crossing this line, because crossing or bumping up against the neutrality policy makes users feel very comfortable. Whether or not Gamaliel has violated policy is an issue in dispute, but what is not in dispute is that many users (see Gamaliel's enemies list) feel like Gamaliel abuses his admin powers. I have been on the receiving end of his attack runs, and know what it feels like. It's not good, and makes me not trust the Wiki admin review process. The simple solution would be for Gamaliel to voluntarily draw a brighter line between his admin and editing activities. If he agrees to that, then no sanctions would be necessary. Thanks. Morton devonshire 19:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I hope you've read this user's contributions, as well as Gamaliel's interactions with him, to come to this position. I certainly wasn't immediately dismissive; I studied what had happened and came to my position in an informed fashion. As far as his "enemies list" is concerned, Gamaliel is one of our best NPOV enforcers, and his page is a useful record and tool in that fight. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

We've already had this conversation, Morton, and as I explained to you then and as is the case now, that "bright line" is already there. I am not editing the Berlet articles and thus this conflict you allege does not exist. My "substantive editing activities", which all administrators engage in, have nothing to do with the Berlet articles. I'm not sure how a brand new user like ColonelS would be made uncomfortable by or even be aware of my substantial edits to other articles when I ask him not to be combative and uncivil.

As far as you being "on the receiving end of my attack runs", I have only had two interactions with you. The second was our conversation about User:Bigplankton, when you accused me of oppressing him for asking him not to personally attack me and not to accuse me of all manner of nonsense. The first was when I submitted for AfD your article about an insignificant T-shirt slogan. Your response was to label me a "pedantic asshole" and "weasel" on your user talk page, accuse me of being a sockpuppet of Will Beback, Guettarda, and Golbez, and place me in the "cult of mumia" despite my not editing that article nor expressing any opinion on the matter. At no point have I had any administrative interactions with you. Let's be clear about who is on the receiving end of what here.

Administrators should be cautious about the feelings of new users who are unfamiliar with our rules, but what you and ColonelS and likeminded users have done is labeled me an oppressor for merely just asking people not to act like rampaging assholes. The job comes with a certain amount of hassle and abuse, but this is just utterly absurd. Gamaliel 20:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Rather than expend all of this energy in justification, please consider adjusting your practices to avoid this kind of conflict with new users. Morton devonshire 22:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

He can't and shouldn't. He's doing what administrators are supposed to do. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The Invisible Anon blocked

I've blocked The_Invisible_Anon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely. Please review. For background see #User disrupting & subtle vandalism on this page. The issue is that 86.10.231.219 (talk · contribs) has been signing many of their posts as "The Invisible Anon". They have been asked several times to register an account but have not done so. Now somebody else came along and did register that username. Ordinarily I would say "tough luck, you should have registered it first if you want that name". However, it appears that The Invisible Anon was registered by someone who is engaged in an ongoing dispute with 86.10.231.219, apparently in an attempt to cause confusion. An attempt to use an account in a deliberately confusing manner violates Wikipedia:User name#Inappropriate usernames, and I've blocked the account The Invisible Anon indefinitely. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. It's either a troll trying to wind up 86.10.231.219, one of 86.10's adversaries, or 86.10 creating a sock for himself; in any case, it should be blocked. I've placed a CheckUser request, and I'm hoping that it gets expedited service. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser confirmed that Midgley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is behind this. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-vaccinationists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) just when i thought wikipedia had run out of stupid things to have edit wars over--64.12.116.65 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the right policy is for the abuse perpetrated by Midgley, but surely the offense is graver than a 3RR? Having said that, I'm not sure what point 86.10.231.219 is trying to make, but he/she would have saved everyone some trouble by registering. --Leifern 23:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, this should not be taken as vindication of 86.10.231.219. Midgley is wrong. But it looks like a reaction to weeks of goading by a group of anti-vaccination POV warriors in Talk:Anti-vaccinationists. Please could some admins apply attention there, to warn these people off the continual personal attacks and accusations of conspiracy (in breach of Assume Good Faith).

The contributions of 86.10.231.219 (talk · contribs) should be studied more closely: little contribution to article space, but a lot of attempts to stir up procedural wrangling. His recent posting to Wikimedia, Growth of Powerful Subcultures in Wikipedia, suggests he is involved in some kind of breaching experiment to prove the existence in Wikipedia of "hierarchical sub-cultures operating on tribal lines" and to "to try to use the normal procedures to see what happens". A case for invoking Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point? 213.130.142.21 00:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You know that's pretty amazing, seeing as how this is your first ever edit of wikipedia--152.163.100.65 01:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As Doolittle says to Bomb#20, "the concept is valid no matter where it originates". TenOfAllTrades can confirm that this is just the latest spat in a longer dispute in which 86.10.231.219 has been very far from blameless. Note the warning three weeks ago 213.130.141.24 03:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This incident is not about 86.10.231.219's behavior; it's about Midgley's. No matter what 86.10.231.219 did - and maybe especially if his/her behavior is so bad - there is no justification for malicious sockpuppetry, impersonating another editor, and deliberately confusing the discussion. If we are going to allow that accusations against one editor justifies bad behavior by another, we're setting a very dangerous precedent. --Leifern 03:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm seconding Leifern here. I've had my own difficulties with 86.10 - just look up the page to see! - but when one deliberately violates WP:POINT, this is a problem, no matter why. It can, at most, be partially excused as being provoked, but that remains partial, and would be something for an RfC or maybe even an RfA to resolve the degree of. (As a side-note, my POV places me far closer to Midgley than Leifern or 86.10 on such issues as Anti-vaccinationists, as is surely obvious to anyone who cares to investigate. This conflict obviously started as the result of POV conflicts - but it has escalated beyond that, and must be stopped.) Michael Ralston 03:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I may well regret this - hell, I'm sure I'm going to regret this - but I'll see what I can do to mediate and ensure that articles agree with Wikipedia policy. There is far too much heat and not enough light on these articles. TenOfAllTrades has warned Midgley about this particular incident, and I think that's enough. Everyone, on both sides, needs to calm down. --ajn (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I appreciate the offer and will certainly cooperate with you. As a telling indicator, I am also involved in articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and things are going much better there. This is an area that requires a great deal of intellectual integrity. As far as next steps for Midgley is concerned, let me ask this question: if 86.10 had, say, registered as "Midgely" and done exactly what Midgley had done, would he/she have gotten off with a warning? --Leifern 11:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There are no "next steps for Midgley", other than the next steps which will apply to everyone - an end to personal attacks (including the loose ad-hominem stuff about conspiracies), and a rigorous course of treatment consisting of WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:CITE and other relevant policies and guidelines. This "he did it so I'm doing it" tit-for-tat behaviour has got to stop. I am going to think about this further over the next couple of days, and sort out some firm proposals. In the meantime, any more nonsense from either side will result in people being blocked. --ajn (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ehm, please try to read what I wrote - I wasn't suggesting that anyone do what Midgley did - quite the contrary. Other than that, I'm sure Midgley will be gratified to know that rules about sockpuppetry, etc., don't really apply to him as long as he does these kinds of things to people others already are annoyed at. --Leifern 15:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think you were suggesting anyone should do what he did - what you are suggesting (also here) is that he hasn't been "dealt with" to your satisfaction. I think several people who have looked into the background have come to the conclusion that there has been some severe provocation going on, some of it by people with very little history of constructive contributions to Wikipedia. There are two ways to go with this. One is to draw a line under everything now, and try to move forward assuming good faith, and sticking to verifiability, neutrality, and so on. The other is to go for a request for arbitration, which I suspect would see several of the people caught up in this being severely censured. I'm quite prepared to go down that route, if people don't stop needling each other. --ajn (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess what confuses (and concerns) me is this: we routinely block people for impetuously violating the 3RR rule and generally ignore protestations about being "provoked." The principle we are trying to engender is this: no matter how provoked you think you are - or have reason to be - certain behavior is unacceptable. Maybe I have a warped sense of justice, but it seems to me that malicious sockpuppetry, impersonating another user, confusing a discussion, and trying to preempt an MFD through all this bad behavior has to be one of the worst things I have personally seen here, with the exception of admins blocking editors in a content dispute. Yeah, I think Midgley got off way easy - and I also think there are plenty of editors who simply would have been banned indefinitely for the same offense. --Leifern 17:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot-related retaliation vandalism, possibly User:Beckjord

Anon IPs from AOL have been editing Bigfoot, and it seems this may well be User:Beckjord, in violation of ArbCom ruling not to edit this page (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord). In apparent retaliation against User:DreamGuy, this AOL anon has been vandalizing various articles, including:

• Jack the Ripper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mythology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cheese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (note, this article also being vandalized by other anons)
• Butter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Black pepper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The edits and edit summaries make it very clear that this is a vendetta against DreamGuy [26] [27] ("DG pages will never be left alone") and also User:Bunchofgrapes, both of whom are involved in editing Bigfoot. It would be useful if more people added these to their watchlist.

In the case of Cheese, there is some background vandalism by other anons, but also some clear AOL IP retaliation vandalism, more or less saying (paraphrased) "stay out of other people's pages or else vandalism will never stop" [28] [29]. The vandalism style has the same sort of intentional patent nonsense that is seen in various contributions to Talk:Bigfoot. -- Curps 23:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

As a long-term field researcher of the wiley Beckjordus crackpottus, I can confirm with near certainty that the AOL vandalism pointed out here is from from him. He occassionally goes after Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball players to annoy Android79, as well. Thanks, AOL. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding that last: Oh noes, Darth Vader wants to destroy WikiProjects! android79 03:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got all these on my watchlist. It's pretty obvious when he comes around. Maybe I just haven't noticed all of it, but I think he's doing it less frequently now. I <3 AOL. android79 03:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

He's also appeared on the Yeti article once or twice[30], though he hasn't been there in a week or so.

--Toffile 14:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Review needed

A user I blocked for a 3RR vio, User:Michael Martinez, has requested to have other admins review the block. I would like someone to kindly do so. Thanks. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Did he break 3RR? I would say so, on Middle-earth. Did CBDunkerson, whom he was editwarring with, block 3RR? No. Was CBDunkerson blocked? No. However, both are coming very close, occasionally overflowing, the common sense bounds that are the 3RR. Both parties should be reminded that the 3RR is not an allowance, it is a guideline. IMO, the articles should probably be protected if this moronic fight continues. Also, I very much dislike it when people call anything but vandalism "vandalism", and that's an extra strike on Martinez. Please don't do that, it really distracts us from fighting the real vandals.

Long story short: Looks like a valid block, but both parties are gaming the system. --Golbez 05:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I did let CBunkerson know that he was on thin ice. I agree with your assessment. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd definitely say that protection is in order if they keep it up- but they should start hashing it out on the talk page soon, before they have no other choice. So this is a good block, but both should remember to discuss disputed changes on the talk page. That is why it's there, after all :).--Sean Black ^(talk) 05:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This user continues to insist that his version of the article is the only correct one and that all others are vandalism. Despite several uninvolved administrators reviewing his request, he insists he be unblocked despite his violation of WP:3RR, and has assumed bad faith of everyone involved, including myself, when I addressed his request to be unblocked on his talk page. He also continues to replace the unblock template on his talk page after several administrators have reviewed the situation and removed it. —bbatsell ¿? 06:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

When I saw where this mess was going I walked away to sleep on it. Apparently a bit too late to avoid 'being on thin ice'. For the record, there has been discussion on the talk pages and I have attempted to compromise with neutral wording. I have a problem allowing Michael's edits to stand because even if we were to assume that he's right, his assertions could never be verified. He is arguing for the inclusion of things that he believes an author meant... but never actually wrote. Personally, I think that ample evidence has been provided that Michael is simply wrong, but even if we assume that the author changed his mind or meant something different there will never be any way to verify it because the man is dead and he never wrote the things Michael wishes to include. That said, I tend to think that 3RR blocks cause more problems than they solve so I'll continue to leave the articles in the 'wrong' version and wait until Michael's block expires before resuming efforts to settle this. If someone wants to remove his block early I think that could only help. --CBDunkerson 11:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Normally I would, but I think he should serve the full 24 hours to give him a chance to cool down. His last comment was still fairly agitated. There's not much of a block left anyway; he's almost there. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Slander, voiding and self-aggrandizement

While trying to create the page 'Attila the Hun to Charlemagne', which did not exist, I received a 'hand-in-stop-sign' icon. The page had not been being worked on, until I started to create it. This was placed by Ghirlandajo. I completed the page. It took quite some time, because there was much information to format. I had come to this page by way of 'Descents from antiquity' [sic], where I had also tried to add some information and a bibliography. The bibliography was removed overnight, with the note on the changes/history page that 'charlatans' had been removed. The entire bibliography! Since I was one of those half-dozen charlatans, I was (justifiably) offended by the slander. Especially when one considers that I was the author of one of THE three seminal works creating the field. The other charlatans are also all very well respected in the field. Since Ghirlandajo claims to have written the page, he should be aware of this fact. The work which I did creating 'Attila the Hun to Charlemagne', was entirely removed, and replaced with other material, (which was not nearly so helpful); and Ghirlandjo takes credit, on his page, for having created 'Attila the Hun to Charlemagne'. He also uncorrected spelling, grammatical and punctuational errors, returning them to their original incorrect state.

Ghirlandajo takes credit for a great many things on his page. I wonder how much of it is deserved. He also, as one can tell by reading his discussions, is very heavy-handed, and smuggly self-righteous - as is mete for one as knowledgeable as he claims to be. He also proudly states that he is not an administrator, and does not wish to be. Then let him behave accordingly!

Frankly, I shall just quit contributing ANYTHING to wiki, from this point forward. That includes related projects, (such as MeroWiki), or any of the other topics, to which I might have contributed, as in the past. I simply will no longer be slandered, and have hours of work undone, by one who is not the expert that he wishes the world to believe.

Indignantly, 'though with sincere best wishes, Stanford Mommaerts-Browne

We can't help you, this is not something I see as actionable on. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:38 UTC (2006-02-28)

It might help get things reviewed if you gave us some links to the articles and user page in question (by bracketing). This appears to be partly a content dispute, and many of the admins here will not consider it worth attention. However, any removal or replacement of info should be explained on the article Talk page. Did G leave an explanation? Removal by a editor without explanation of a sizable contribution of a new editor would certainly warrant our attention. The best place to ask for community review is at wp:rfc, where you can list the article and ask for review. Your work is not lost. It is in the article history, and can be resurrected. Give us a little more info and some of us will take a look. alteripse 12:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Not worth the trouble. Seems to be original research anyway, trying to construct some line of descent from Attila to Charlemagne. Tin foil hattery, IMO, and at the lousy title "Attila the Hun to Charlemagne". The summary Ghirlandjo left there just about covers it. Lupo 12:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thepcnerd, revocability of the GFDL, legal threats

Thepcnerd (talk · contribs), upon discovering that the article for the web site he runs was deleted [31], attempted to withdraw the GFDL licensing [32] [33] [34] on the images he uploaded and listed them on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 January 7, which of course didn't work.

He seems not to have discovered that it didn't work until today, when he again listed them at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 28, and furthermore made irate legal threats on my and Garglebutt's talk pages. Given that he's a seventeen-year-old and clearly released the images under the GFDL himself (per MediaWiki:Uploadtext in addition to the above diffs), there's no real bite to his threats, even with his outlandish claims that someone else licensed them as GFDL using his account. There is sort of a case for these images to be G7'd, but they clearly weren't mistakenly contributed. —Cryptic (talk) 10:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Should "I have hereby revoke (sic) permission for wikipedia to use my photography" [35] be removed from his user page? While we all know it's utterly meaningless, you never know whether someone else might come across it and not know that. --Malthusian (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I would not remove it, but rather add a note to its ineffectiveness. It's better to have all this out in the open, I think.--Stephan Schulz 11:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a note to that effect [36]. Please reword (or indeed revert) as necessary. --Malthusian (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably, the most diplomatic thing to do is to find replacement images. Thepcnerd's request, though petty and groundless, is reasonable. Perhaps it would be best to write a message on their talk page saying that the images will be taken down as soon as replacements have been uploaded, and that, in the meantime, Wikipedia has no obligation to take down images that have been licensed under GFDL. — Gareth Hughes 15:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the images' files more closely, it could be argued that they were not explicitly placed under GFDL. When they were first uploaded, CopyrightedNotForProfitUseProvidedThat was used. When Thepcnerd discovered that this unfree licence would lead to a quick deletion, they removed it with the edit summary GFDL or whatever the official wikipedia copyright terms thing is. I beleive that anything uploaded and not otherwise tagged is under GFDL, and the edit summay implies that such a licencing, although not understood, is sought. — Gareth Hughes 16:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

IANAL, but "the official wikipedia copyright terms thing" is surely either GFDL, or there isn't one. In the first case, the pictures are GFDL. In the second case, we go back to what's on the other side of the 'or' conjunction and they're still GFDL. (It sounds like we agree on this point, hope I don't sound argumentative as I frequently do.)

As for the question of replacing the images, it's entirely up to whoever wants to use them now. On the one hand I sympathise with the user, and replacing the photos if it's easily done would be a nice gesture. On the other hand I think he's learnt two sorely-needed lessons: 1) read the small print 2) don't threaten people with the almighty Western legal system like it's everyone's universal bigger brother because it annoys people, especially those who have chosen to make themselves accountable by using their real name. --Malthusian (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sock Puppets by Skull 'n' Femurs (talk · contribs)

It appears that user Skull 'n' Femurs (talk · contribs) is evading his block for sock herding.

• Imacomp (talk · contribs) has demonstrated behavious similar to that of SnF before his block, focussing on the same areas of interest and with similar concerns to the exclusion of all else. A Check user yesterday suggests that this is the case[[37]]. Imacomp was previously identifiead as a possible sock. [[38]]

• Book Mouse (talk · contribs) has since weighed in with exactly the same issues regarding content and is making numerous statements about me accusing him/ her of being SnF. Note that BM replied to my post at the previous reference, before then resigning as Imacomp. [[39]] Note that Book Mouse has also started posting a Sock tag on my talk page associating me with Lightbringer, without provocation.

• Useful if Imacomp and Book Mouse could be investigated as Socks and managed appropriately. Many thanks.ALR 15:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Jack White1

I have just blocked Jack_White1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) since his entire edit history seems to be personal attacks. Feel free to review and unblock, at least one of these was against me, but if you look at his Talk page at the response to a previous block you'll probably conclude as I did that the chances of him ever being a useful member of the community are pretty slim - assuming he's not a sock, which on current evidence is not unlikely. Just zis Guy you know? 17:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Admitted sock account being used to breach WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Indef block is good. Jkelly 19:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich Socks

Can someone PLEASE put an end to Gastrich's pattern of serial sockpuppetry? How in the hell has the current CVU allowed Gastrich's BigBear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account to make 19 edits, all of which are policy-violating vandalism, or removal of sockpuppet notices? Hexagonal 03:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

He does seem to be a growing problem: here is the latest: JLATLC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I think a lot of us weren't aware of this person until very recently, but now he's showing up a lot when I RC patrol. Antandrus (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. He's been at this a long time. And now he's at it again. Persistant little bugger. --DanielCD 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been mentioned so I will. There is an active arbitration case against Jason and people are welcome to give evidence. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Heads up! Here is another one, just came alive- Barry_Hatchett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). JoshuaZ 04:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And here's another one that needs blocking: Mary_Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). JoshuaZ 02:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You may want to check up on Raisinman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another possible sockpuppet of this user. KHM03 18:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

For the information of all conerned, someone is doing something (honest!). There is an RfC which came ot a strong consensus for strong action, including blocking of socks, and since this community-based decision does not seem to have had the desired effect it is now with ArbCom, who at present look likely to endorse the block-on-sight, revert-on-soght approach used for other serial sock-puppeteers. I know it is incredibly hard to assume good faith, but we have to allow for the fact that some of these might be genuine editors albeit likely brought in by Gastrich's external efforts. It's probably best to give them enough rope to hang themselves, especially since the Gastroturfing is now at a much lower (i.e. containable) level. I've blocked a couple of the more obviously abusive ones lately, but one of those was for gratuitous personal attacks. If you feel that a suspected sock is a problem (e.g. edit-warring over tendentious edits to controversial and previously Gastroturfed articles), leave a note here using the {{vandal|user_name}} syntax (replace spaces with underscores) and someone will have a look. Tolerance levels for Gastrich and his hosiery is at a low level. Just zis Guy you know? 10:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User:KDRGibby

This user was the subject of a recently closed arbitration case [40], in which he narrowly escaped a ban for disruptive and abusive behavior but was put on personal attack parole and probation. [41]

Just 3 days after being unblocked (he had been blocked for a week shortly before the close of the arbitration case, then unblocked early in order to be given a second - or 1567th - chance [42]), KDRGibby made this comment on Talk:Classical liberalism:

Like what? From our last conversation it seemed you tended to favor a host of centralization programs, social programs, and trade barriers that original liberals would have found to be anti-freedom and anti-individual. Please explain what a European liberal is like now? Because after talking with you it appears that European liberals don't hold on to the true meaning. Especially since you conflate minimal government interference with having a government that cannot punish cartels or break up monopolies (Bad bad bad electionwood!...you are making the socialist free market conflation mistake! free market limited government advocacy does not mean anarchy! Stop that fallacious assumption please). (Gibby 03:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)) [43]

[emphasis mine; "electionwood" refers to User:Electionworld]

I may be accused of pessimism, but I sincerely doubt that KDRGibby is about to reform in any way (he made no promises to reform; in fact he boycotted the arbitration case because it was "a total circus" [44]). As such, whenever I run into misbehavior by him (which has happened saddeningly often in the past, perhaps because our watchlists share many common articles), I will record it here.

I would like to note that I was not a party in the arbitration case, and I do not go out of my way to find incriminating evidence - it's just very hard not to bump into it at every turn. -- Nikodemos 06:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Update (as of Feb 25, 2006). KDRGibby has done it again... He made the following comments in edit summaries and the Talk page of the articles market economy and free market:

• [45] "the complaint is actually...stupid"
• [46] "The neutrality complaint is stupid. [...] Nikodemos is simply on a communist hell bent anti libertarian tirade." (emphasis mine)
• [47] "Ironically you make the same sophomoric arguement that you complain about. Free markets are only an impossibility if you don't understand what the word means."

-- Nikodemos 08:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Update (as of March 1st, 2006). KDRGibby is now flaming left and right as if the arbitration case never happened. Here is just what I saw on the talk pages of 3 articles I watch:

• [48] "I've got a word for you, its BULLSHIT. You are not allowed to do this. You guys make so much shit up all the time to get rid of stuff, its creative, but it really shows you guys are running out of intellectual steam, arguements, and freaking material."
• [49] "You lefties are so gd amazing! ITS NOT MY POV that is expressed... The section of the article is REPORTING the views of Brink Lindsey of the CATO INSTITUTE. He has a published book which you can read!!! THIS IS NPOV. STOP ABUSING WIKI RULES TO CENSOR MATERIAL YOU DON"T LIKE!"
• [50] "This is the problem with people like you. [...] Nothing is deleted because I reverted your vandalistic censorship like deletions."
• Disrupting wikipedia to make a point: [51] (added "only because citing free market economists is obviously pov" in a NPOV tag).
• [52] "There is no neutrality dispute you are simply ignorant of the meaning of NPOV and neutrality. Reporting what other people think does not violate this. Learn the rule!"
• [53] "ANd it is, your own ignorance is no excuse however. Citing and reporting an author is not POV. Stop it. Stop the total bullshit!"
• [54] "Nati, you are making up crap again. You are one of the worst editors here and you have a knack for deleting content you don't like for any reason you can think of."
• Refusing to keep a NPOV tag on a disputed article: [55] "the tag is evidence once again that only left leaning views are acceptable here. Leftists hate information that contradicts their own poorly held views. The tag does not belong because the criticism section is already NPOV."
• [56] "Niko just wants to delete Friedman because he conflates Friedman with libertarianism rather than understanding that Friedman is an economist who just so happens to scientifically prove that markets work better than any alternatives and that free markets are the best form of market economies. Thats it. He wants to delete this information because he disagrees with it. BUT REMEMBER NIKO...we are only reporting what Friedman says. But seriously, I think your scared people might start to see how rational his thoughts really are and just might start agreeing."
• [57] "Don't bitch about cited Friedman and Hayek material you disagree with. You are starting to irritate me with your lazy deletion censorship-like methods."
• [58] "Its the circus I refer to on my user page. Its also called BS." (referring to the actions of a number of users)
• [59] "If you are in fact a leftist of some sort, it is very likely you would not understand or want to understand if Friedman himself explained it to you."

I do not believe any further comments are necessary. -- Nikodemos 05:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Could someone offer a third opinion on Matt Leinart

Jossi blocked User:Davis21Wylie for violating the 3 revert rule on Matt Leinart. Davis21Wylie was not warned, and was blocked nearly 4 hours after the fact. Also, I have tried to explain to Jossi that this is not a content dispute at all, but a case of pure vandalism. Several trolls have been inserting information that Matt Leinart is gay. This information is unsourced and their persistence in re-inserting it amounts to vandalism. I think User:Kbh3rd, User:Wahkeenah, and User:IanMcGreene will vouch for Davis21Wylie that this is not a legitimate content dispute. Davis21Wylie was acting in good faith and should be unblocked. Could someone take a look at the situation and offer their opinion? thanks, --Alhutch 04:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand the point about the attempts by anons and user:Cooldc19 to add material without sources. Nevertheless, the tone in the talk page and the comments made by Davis21Wylie in the edit summmaries are not the way to proceed in these cases. If you want to remove the block, please go ahead. Just make sure that you explain to that user that regardless of vandalism, there is no need to escalate things by feeding the trolls, and that there is always semi-protection to deal with IP vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The page was already semi-protected while these reverts were going on. The anon had created an account and waited several days so as to get past semi-protection. Since you have assented, Jossi, I'm going to go ahead and unblock Davis21Wylie because he was acting in good faith during the whole episode.--Alhutch 04:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No problems. Just make sure to cool off the air and remind Davis21Wylie that even if he considers an edit to be vandalism, and there is a need to revert, to not feed the trolls by writing things like Straight-up rv'in, baby, Yeeah, this is how we do... rv., Illin' like a villain... rv, Word to your mother... rv, and other. These comments were the ones that prompted me to to check the edits and assessed them to be a violation of WP:3RR. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Additionally, I have blocked User:68.48.237.65 for vandalism/3RR, for adding the exact same stuff back in repeatedly, and adding basically a trolling message to the talk page, trying to further stir things up. --W.marsh 05:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Just as an update, the guy keeps coming back under various IPs. I don't consider it a content dispute at all, this is simple vandalism/trolling, so I have blocked several of the IPs after they've demonstrated they're just here to re-insert the attack. --W.marsh 05:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak pagemove vandal

Just a note that I indef blocked Whitmair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after his fun moving User:Doc glasgow and User:Mindspillage around some, to pages in Linuxbeak pseudo-space. -Splash^talk 17:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

He's back as Discodiva900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and blocked. --Sunfazer (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Incivility raising its ugly head on deletion debate…again

Could someone reasonably neutral take a look at the train wreck that WP:AFD/Neglected Mario Characters is becoming? The nominator seems to be jumping all over anybody who dares to vote "keep" and the whole thing is descending into farce. Are we really wanting to drive every single WebComic article into the sea? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, there is so much horrible spleen over this, that I no longer care whether this is speedy deleted or made a featured article. Gaaaah. --Doc ^ask? 17:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• All in a day's AfD. I have personally seen worse. - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Spam, phishing, browser hijacking attempt?

On the ice hockey article, I've come across 24.222.25.186 adding gibberish and replacing some wikilinks with external links to qklinkserver.com (accompanied by javascript). Edits include [60], along with some others that I've reverted. Wikipedia isn't interpreting any of this javascript. I've also done some google searching to find out what qklinkserver is, and found this edit from February 15th, [61] by a different IP on the File sharing article. It seems like an attempt at browser hijacking or something malicious. Has anyone else seen anything like this? --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks to be a spammer, trying make a few dollars with click-throughs. I would classify it as vandalism, trying to sneakily change links like that. I guess it could be his browser is already hijacked, but unlikely. Block him if he continues this behavior. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-28 08:48Z

This behaviour is perfectly consistent with other cases of spyware-added links I've seen before (the edits genuinely change something else other than adding the links, and it uses the HTML link syntax). The best response (in this case, and in all other similar cases) is to ask some meta admin to add the site to the Spam blacklist, before someone gets wrongly accused. --cesarb 14:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. This site is on the spam blacklist now, and resolved the issue with the user in question. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Complaint about admin actions by Gamaliel

Hi -- I'd like to report major harassment and abuse by Wikipedia sys-op Gamaliel against me for political reasons. Gamaliel is a vocal Democrat and has been harassing me since I am a Republican ever since I joined because I edited one of his "sacred cows" in an article about a liberal pundit he likes. We had a dispute there at Chip Berlet over what the article should say when I clarified it to show that Berlet is not a lawyer because the old version left an assumption that he was. Gamaliel quickly turned this into a personal campaign against me. I was immediately attacked there with all sorts of rude personal comments accusing me of "fabrication" and deceit -- which Gamaliel ignored -- but when I responded with a single sentence that the Republican view was being censered Gamaliel rudely threatened to ban me! That's when his campaign against me intensified and it hasn't stopped.

Gamaliel then followed me over to another article -- the National Lawyers Guild -- which has been vandalized for several days by an anonymous editor who sometimes logs in as user:Carlosvillareal and sometimes edits anonymously as 169.237.161.209, but only does one thing -- he blanks 3/4ths of the National Lawyer's Guild article without discussion and explanation. Carlosvillareal and his isp number have been doing this on February 23rd - 26th. I count 9 different times that this article has been blanked by this same vandal in those days, plus 7 or 8 times somebody else has done it.[62] All in all this article has required the watching by several of us simply to keep its text from being wiped clean. Over this period 4 editors have been fighting this vandalism - me, user:MSTCrow, user:Latinus, and user:Tawker. We've all posted warnings that Villareal and his anonymous accounts were doing vandalism and he's ignored them all.

On February 24th after a long day of undoing all the damage by this vandalism Gamaliel followed me to the National Lawyers Guild article. It had been blanked 9 times that day alone including 6 by Villareal and his ISP account, but each time one of us restored it. Gamaliel singled me out for this and accused me of violating the "3RR" rule of Wikipedia by undoing this clear vandalism more than 3 times. He posted another block threat on my userpage for supposedly violating this rule and then claimed that the anti-blanking rule on vandalism only applied when the entire article was deleted [63]. I quickly showed him that this is not true and Wikipedia:Vandalism says it is also blanking when "significant parts" of the article are deleted without reason [64], which is what Villareal and the vandal accounts were doing with 3/4ths the text. I also showed him that WP:3RR says it is not a "3RR" violation when you are reverting to undo vandalism. Three other long established editors agreed with me that this is the case with Villareal at the National Lawyers Guild and were active reverting these same vandals too, but Gamaliel singled me out for harassment.

He ignored all the rules showing that this was indeed vandalism that Villareal was doing, that 3RR did not apply to it, and that 3 others were involved in fighting this same vandal. Then Gamaliel singled me out and blocked me for an accused "3RR" violation -- [65]. I believe that this was a major abuse of his administrator powers and it was only done to harass and cause harm to me. Nothing I did at the National Lawyers Guild article was inconsistent with wikipedia policies -- it was all done to fight a vandal who has been a major disruption to that article for most of the last week. Gamaliel blocked me only because of our fight on the other article and he singled me out because of my politics clashing with his.

I believe he is also harassing me elsewhere on WikiPedia -- Gamaliel also tried to start secretive investigations of me and now he's got me listed on an "enemies list" that he created here -- [66]. His main issue with the people on it seems to be his disagreement with their politics because he is such a partisan Democrat.

Somebody with power to do so -- please reprimand this guy as he is out of control. I personally think he is abusing Republican editors and making Wikipedia a hostile environment for them to edit in. He should also be de-sys-opped for abusing his powers to block me and to protect a vandal who has been a major problem at National Lawyers Guild.

See here for the blanking that was happening there and that Gamaliel reverted to preserve -- [67].

Somebody please help! -- ColonelS 19:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Chip Berlet is not "a liberal pundit I like". I have never read anything written by Berlet nor have I even read the Berlet article in its entirety. I have Berlet articles on my watchlist because I chipped in to help back when they were under attack by Nobs, Congnition, et al.

I spent a great deal of time trying to explain to ColonelS simple rules like civility i.e., don't accuse people you disagree with of censorship or vandalism. I also explained to him that he was defining "blanking" incorrectly and that this "vandalism" (which included established users like User:Calton and not just User:Carlosvillareal as ColoneS incorrectly described) was actually a content dispute. ColonelS had been previously warned about the 3RR by User:SlimVirgin.

User talk:ColonelS speaks for itself. Gamaliel 20:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

ColonelS is already back to describing edits he doesn't like as "vandalism" [68]. It would be nice if some other administrators explained to him that this was inappropriate. Gamaliel 20:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel is clearly being deceptive here. While he did advocate "civility" and accuse me of breaching it for a simple complaint that liberals were censoring that article, Gamaliel completely ignored it when liberal editors were uncivil to me -- including accusations of "fabrication" and namecalling. He is also not being fully truthful when he says he "explained" I was using the term blanking incorrectly. He did no such thing and only declared on his own definition that deleting 75% of the article without explanation is not "blanking." I showed him the rule from WP:Vandalism that defines blanking: "Blanking - Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit." He ignored this rule and continues to insist on his own definition. Also on National Lawyers Guild Calton reverted to the blanked version 3 times versus 6 by Villareal and anonymous ISP (up to 10 now!). It's also worth noting that even though 3 other established editors also undid Villareal's blanking as vandalism (MSTCrow, Latinus, and Talker), Gamaliel ONLY TARGETTED ME FOR HARASSMENT. You can see this documented on my talk page, along with all of Gamaliel's rude and harassing block threats for "violations" that are minor or fabricated. This guy is clearly out of control and seems to be out to drive me and other Republicans off wikipedia. Just look at his "enemies list" page, which is all the people he has political disagreements with. He needs to be de-sys-opped because he is abusing his power to persecute people for their politics. -- ColonelS 20:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

One more thing -- Gamaliel says I was given a "3RR warning" by Slim Virgin. Yet I did not violate "3RR" there either. She posted it saying I was "about to violate" 3RR because I had reached the 3 revert limit, which she had also reached on the same article [69]. At no time did I cross it though. Gamaliel is simply lying and using that as an excuse to enforce a politically motivated block. -- ColonelS 20:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not say you violated the 3RR on any other article besides National Lawyers Guild, I said you were warned about the rule by SlimVirgin, which your talk page shows you clearly were. Feel free to apologize for your accusation that I lied. Gamaliel 21:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Colonel S, when people warn you about 3RR, they're doing you a favor because you're a new editor. If either Viriditas or I violated 3RR, we'd be blocked without warning, because we know not to do it. Insofar as you're attracting the attention of other editors and admins, it's because you've arrived with a chip on your shoulder about certain pages, apparently convinced that only you can save them from their horrific left-wing bias, and you've leapt into making controversial edits on disputed pages with no editing experience and no knowledge of our editing policies. I've already advised you to spend a few weeks editing less exciting pages so that you gain a bit of experience, then return to the ones you're more interested in. I can assure you that no one cares whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved party: Speaking as a dirty scummy Republican myself: If this is at all representative of the the sorts of edits you've been making and Gamaliel's been reverting, I don't think your complaint is going to get very far here. It was a blatant WP:NPOV violation and didn't meet WP:V standards either. --Aaron 20:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved party: I have not looked at the specific edits in this case, but I can't see that there is ever a good reason for an admin to block another editor that he/she is in the middle of a revert war with. Thatcher131 21:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but that is not an accurate description of what happened. I was not "in the middle of a revert war" with ColonelS, nor have I been editing any of the Berlet articles. My sole edit to these articles was to revert ColonelS's fourth revert, as I customarily do with 3RR violations because I feel to leave a 4R in place is to reward a 3RR violator. Gamaliel 22:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131 -- Actually Gamaliel was in the middle of a different revert war on the other article where I first met him - about liberal pundit Chip Berlet. He was arguing with me there on the talk page [70] and a few moments later followed me over to my own message page to post rudely worded threats of banning for a very minor offense [71]. After a lengthy argument there he followed me over to National Lawyers Guild and blocked me for 3RR violations when I was doing nothing more than undoing a blanking made by a vandal who has done the same vandalism over a dozen times. As WP:3RR clearly indicates, undoing cases of simple vandalism do NOT count as 3RR violations. I've shown that rule to Gamaliel several times, as well as the one that shows that blanking is the removal of a significant part of any article (and deleting over 3/4ths of it is certainly "significant") but he keeps dishonestly claiming something else is the rule when it very plainly is not. Also notice that Gamaliel is not enforcing any of these "rules" against anybody but me on these articles. On Chip Berlet: When User:Cberlet insulted me repeatedly in the Edit Summary box and in his talk page posts, Gamaliel didn't lecture him on civility or threaten to ban him for it. When User:Slim Virgin and User:Viriditas both reverted up to their 3 revert limit on a deletion that ignores the talk page objections of several others, Gamaliel didn't post any 3RR warnings to them or threaten to ban them if they make a 4th. When 3 different editors on the National Lawyers Guild made the exact same revert of the blanking done by the vandal operating there Gamaliel did not send them warnings that falsely claimed his blanking wasn't really vandalism. No. Gamaliel only does that sort of thing to me, which is for the sole purpose of harassing me. -- ColonelS 03:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaron - Actually the only part of that I added was the last paragraph, which is a quote about the NLG. It is linked to give it a source too. The rest was the existing text of this article before I edited it. I'm sure it could be improved, but that is not the problem here. The problem is that an anonymous vandal who sometimes logs in as Carlosvillareal keeps blanking 75% of the entire article -- part of which is the quote I added. Also Gamaliel is not the one doing the reverts except for that one, which he did after imposing an abusive 3RR block on me for fighting Villareal's vandalism that had been going on all day. -- ColonelS 20:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The substance of this seems pretty clear. There are two separable reasons that the block should not have been made by the administrator who made it:

1. A 3RR block for reverting vandalism is invalid, since WP:3RR expressly permits making multiple reverts of vandalism.
2. Administrators are expressly forbidden under WP:BP from blocking someone they are in a content dispute with.
   • Note, the rule isn't "admins may not block someone as part of a conflict" -- it is, rather, that they "must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in an editing conflict." It doesn't matter if the blocking is over a different issue.

In other words, it seems that the block in this case was (1) invalid, that is, not called for; and separately, (2) specifically prohibited in policy. Even if there is reason to block a person with whom an administrator is in dispute, that administrator is specifically forbidden from doing so. He or she should instead raise the issue to other administrators for review and action. --FOo 05:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I wish people would investigate the issue or at least fully read the comments here before commenting. It is irresponsible not to do so and only encourages frivolous complaints. You are correct when it comes to policies, but these policies do not apply here.

1. ColonelS was not reverting vandalism. It was a content dispute, as I explained to him before the block. Even if you do not accept my judgement that it was not vandalism, it certainly doesn't fall under any definition of simple vandalism.
2. I was not in a content dispute with ColonelS. I have not been editing the Berlet articles.
3. I was not in a content dispute with ColonelS on any other article.

If you don't believe me, investigate for yourself, but please do so before commenting. Gamaliel 05:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do investigate. Gamaliel is being less than forthright in his characterization of this dispute, as he has been all along.

1. The National Lawyers Guild stuff is a clear case of vandalism by every measure. This is what the vandal was doing - blanking the majority of the entire article without given reasons and without participating in a discussion. A content dispute takes a discussion and the vandal was not doing so. Furthermore, the vandal was using a combination of anonymous ISP's and a username created ONLY to edit that article. You can look and the ONLY thing they did at wikipedia is blank that article [72] [73]. This same guy seems to be using those ISP's and an account user:Carlosvillarreal to do only one thing on WikiPedia - blanking the National Lawyer's Guild article. He also alternates between logging in and making an ISP vandalism so as to avoid 3RR, even though he's accumulated about a dozen different blankings of the article since last Thursday. Carlosvillareal has also been warned about vandalism and urged to discuss his desired changes by three other long established editors plus me but he's ignored it.
2. Gamaliel was involved in the content dispute with me on the Chip Berlet article when this whole mess started. He made posts several times on Talk:Chip Berlet to me and in general. -- ColonelS 06:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I posted on Talk:Chip Berlet to attempt to get you to act in a productive and civil manner with other editors, not to participate in a content dispute. I did not edit any of the Berlet articles. Gamaliel 06:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• It seems a shame Gamaliel should have to waste time responding to these Mickey Mouse charges, which are based on multiple misunderstandings of policy (to be very charitable and assume good faith very hard) on the part of the accuser. I'm changing the header from random attack to description, in accordance with the policy of this page. Bishonen | ノート 06:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC).

I don't think Gamaliel has purposefully acted in a malicous manner, but I do think that perhaps he has made some unwise decisions, and a bit overzealous in his odd persecution of ColS.

MSTCrow 01:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked anon IP is evading the block

Should we allow anons to evade the block so easily and get away with it: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:69.160.17.133. Thanks and sorry if this is not the proper place for this. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Now he uses IP 69.160.1.178 (talk · contribs). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible Gastrich sock

I am now involved with this one so will leave it to someone else. Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich and now Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich) has repeatedly posted what he asserts is the real name of User:WarriorScribe. Juicy_Juicy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has already been cast as object of suspicion after starting out with tendentious edits to previously Gastroturfed articles, followed by an RFC against Arbustoo as their eighth edit, eleven minutes after the first supposed "attempt to resolve the problem". This user has now posted at WP:RFCU a sock check request for WarriorScribe (talk · contribs) and Arbustoo (talk · contribs), in which the same allegation regarding WarriorScribe's real name is repeated. [74]. I may be wrong in this, but I do not know of anyone but Gastrich and socks doing this. My inclination is to sock-block, given Gastrich's previous acknowledged and unacknowledged use of socks and given that this account has no obvious good-faith edit history. Sadly dealing with Gastrich has made me unusually cynical where he is concerned. Just zis Guy you know? 22:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Strikes me as a bad faith misuse of WP:RCU to silence those who rightly opposed Gastrich's gaming of the system. I support removing the request to the WP:RCU talk page for discussion of its basis in reality. FeloniousMonk 00:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, struck from CheckUser. Do you see a need to take action against Juicy_Juicy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Just zis Guy you know? 15:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement requested

Could some admins take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#RJII_.283.29? RJII's previous case just closed, and he's currently on NPA parole, probation (can be banned from any page), and general probation (can be fully banned by three admins). Looks to me like it just needs to be enforced (if all adds up of course, I haven't looked over the diffs). Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 00:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII banned from Anarchism

I have banned RJII from Anarchism for two weeks. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 03:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD for User:Arbustoo

Hi, User:Sam_Tindell has put up Arbustoo's page for deletion. Can this request for AfD be removed? Didn't want to revert an AfD page. Thanks. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 01:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I delisted it and asked Sam_Tindell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for an explanation. FeloniousMonk 01:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

He also nommed Harlan Ellison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WTF did Ellison do to attract the ire of the Christian right? android79 01:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it was I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream (computer game). Or since these Afds appear to be the work of Gastrich, perhaps it is his AOL lawsuit. Who knows? KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I am only sorry someone beat me to the early close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harlan Ellison. Probably the most absurd example of WP:POINT ever from this particular cabal, trumping even the nomination of the first President of Angola. I suspect that vastly more people have heard of Ellison than have heard of Agostinho Neto. No SF fan can possibly be ignorant of Ellison's name and reputation. Just zis Guy you know? 09:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Harassment by 82.194.62.23

An anonymous editor operating through an open proxy made a number of edits in various articles relating to Shi'a Islam, replacing all instances of the word "Rafidi" or "Rafida" with "Shi'a". The editor seems to believe that the term Rafidi is a vile slur used only by contemporary Salafi and Wahhabi Muslims. I reverted or revised his edits, using the term "Shi'at Ali, party of Ali, and by their opponents, Rafida". We can't use the term Shi'a for Muslims before 750 or so, as they were only proto-Shi'a; sectarian lines hadn't hardened yet. Rafidi/Rafida is a well-attested description used in the 7th and 8th centuries; it means Refuser and has no inherent derogatory meaning. The anon will not accept this reasoning and continues a revert war, which he has broadened to include defacement of my user page and reversion of all my edits, in ANY article, even the ones with no relation to Islam, no reason given. Can someone PLEASE revert his edits and block the open proxy? Zora 02:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Harassment by pro-Salafi Zora

there is no relation between the term shia and rafida in islamic history please stop adding POV anti-shia Salafi only terms. the term nasibi is islamic term used by the prophet himself for the sects like salafi also u edits ALL salafi related articles that have nasibi term . the shia term has been used by the prophet himself in the history this was proofed for u and u reject the facts. Sunni have refused the shia imams so they are refusers (rafida) why u use arabic words and what is that if i did not accept sunni "caliphs" (who killed the shia ) i am refuser so if i do not accept president Bush i am refuser !!! and i must called refuser forever only loooool ( if u wish add the term rafide to all salafi sunni articles because they refuse shia imams and they killed the shia and there imams ). as wiki we can edit without login that is my right and this is not open proxy dear... please help us and stop her from ADDING blocking non salafi's edits --82.194.62.22 02:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora, the IP has been blocked for 3 hours for some clean up and pending some discussion on a better way to fix this problem. Some of the edits I'm not so sure what to do about them. Anonymous user, you lose a lot of credibility calling Zora a salafist because if you knew anything of her history here you would know she is not. If you disagree find a better way to do it and makes points not just call names. Thanks. gren グレン 06:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Copperchair

I take somewhat guilty pleasure in informing all and sundry that Copperchair has once again edited a Star Wars article in violation of his parole. I realize he is currently blocked, but for unrelated reasons. I believe this makes his magic five violations of that term of his parole, technically, though I would not actually encourage throwing the book at him as this latest edit was not an example of his usual disruptive nonsense. I guess it depends how strict one wants to be. PurplePlatypus 08:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• According to the block log, multiple users have responded with a 24 hour block. Last user threatened with year long block as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Copperchair#Enforcement_by_block. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User:69.70.145.236 & User:Gjm130

User:Gjm130 has uploaded three photos of the Montreal skyline Image:Montreal Twilight Panorama 2007.jpg (January 8th), Image:Montrealskyline4.jpg (October 7th) and Image:Montreal skyline 7.jpg (January 2nd). The first is a copy of Image:Montreal Twilight Panorama 2006.jpg that User:Diliff uploaded to the commons January 4th and it may have been doctored. The second one has no licensing info on it but does say Serge Lacasse who is a professional photgrapher and has pictures of Montreal available at Emporis . The third, again with no licensing, has also, according to User:207.198.239.111 been doctored and I think is this. User:69.70.145.236 has been inserting these into several articles (contributions. I think that the three Gjm130 uploaded should be deleted. Any suggestions? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the two faked images. All his other image uploads are either blatant copyvios or do not have source/license info. I've processed them accordingly and left the user a note/warning. Sheesh. That someone would upload a 3Mb faked image... Lupo 10:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Jack Hyles Controversy

No really sure where to take this. Just want to get it cleaned up rather then let it sit out there forever. Short hand version is:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Hyles Controversy; outcome MERGE on 23 February 2006. Merge compleate 27 February 2006 on as per User:Arbustoo. Please delete this page. Thanks. San Saba 19:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted it. Mushroom (Talk) 19:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI 2nd Parole violation

SPUI is on probation since the pedophilia wheel-war case, and may be blocked for 7 days at an admin's discression. He has now twice inserted this personal attack into a debate. (I reverted him the first time) [[75]. The last time he violated his probation ( a few days ago), I blocked him for 24 hours. I recommend he is blocked for a deal longer. However, as I am now on wikibreak, and as I blocked him last time, I leave it for someone else to implement this, or do otherwise as they see fit. --Doc ^ask? 01:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like JesseW's and SPUI's remarks were both designed to provoke. I see this as a borderline violation if that. Chick Bowen 05:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Spui's remark appears to be a reminder not to breach WP:DICK rather than an actual insult. --Victim of signature fascism | Do people who don't think Jesus existed exist? 00:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I recommend not blocking him, I just don't think anything good will come of it. But I commend you for not blocking him yourself again and in the same spirit I won't unblock him if he does get blocked because I unblocked him last time. Haukur 00:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Editor harassing and attempting to game 3RR

At the article Operating Thetan JimmyT (talk · contribs) appears to be trying to game the system. In his first edit there today he used the edit summary "writing only of body thetans and NOTs is innacurate POV as there are many things addressed on the OT levels", and in this edit he removed all descriptions of all that happens after reaching the state of "Clear". He did not dispute that those were accurate descriptions; he simply stated that because "there are many things", that it was "innacurate [sic] POV" to describe the ones that were being described, even though these were described as being "amongst other things" -- not even implying that the description already there was complete. In his next edit he removed even more information with the cryptic summary "Description - Took out incorrect POV mention. OT5 is not the only OT level about OT3" which does not appear to match his actual change.

I attempted to revert this to a previous version, and immediately got an edit conflict with JimmyT's next edit, stamped in the very same minute as his last. Because of the unexpected edit conflict, I did not see that the effect of his edit, for which he used only "/* Description */" as his edit summary, was to insert his original research that certain documents were "fake (or forged)".

Jimmy's next two edits ([76], [77]) expanded on the same theme, prefacing the premise (generally accepted) that the documents over which the Church of Scientology claimed copyright are authentic (otherwise the Church would have been acting illegally to claim copyright over them) with "Critics argue that ..." My next edit was reverting this attempt to paint this generally-accepted argument as a critic-only argument, and his insertion of original research which I had discovered in the meantime, with the summary "Show us non-critics who believe that the Church successfully and illegally claimed copyright over non-authentic documents, we'll talk. In the meantime, do not insert your own OR that they are "fake"."

His next two edits ([78], [79]) were made with the edit summaries "Antaeus' plays games with his edit summary" and "Regarding you RV which does not match your edit summary", and started with "Antaeus, FLUNK!!" That "attempt to communicate" included the incivil "Care to explain your dishonest and sneaky revert or did you make a mistake? I'm not buying any more confusing dialogue from you, lets stick with the facts and get to the point without the extra blah blah." Less than three minutes later, he reverted Operating Thetan with the edit summary "RV #1 (Antaeus you already have 2 reverts on this page today)" and then proceeded to make seven edits in a row to my user talk page -- in the space of exactly as many minutes -- most of which were simply cutting portions out of my user talk page, and then repasting them in separate edits to different locations. ([80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86]). Are those the actions of an editor trying to communicate in good faith? I think they show very clearly, along with the 'scoreboard' edit summary counting reverts, someone who's trying to stay nominally within the letter of policy but abuse its spirit -- using talk pages for harassing other editors instead of communicating, and viewing the 3RR as a game at which to outmanuever other 'players'. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Antaeus. The editor in question has engaged in a pattern of removing cited material from articles without seeking consensus or even providing credible criticism of its accuracy. By itself, that's not a great thing to do here; in addition with the mistakes Antaeus describes, it speaks very badly of JimmyT's ability to work productively here.

FWIW, JimmyT has also claimed (on Talk:Body_thetan) to have been "hatted" (that is, trained for a post or job) "by Scientologists" to edit Wikipedia articles. --FOo 08:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at this, and I am inclined to agree that Jimmy has probably broken 3RR. Of more concern is the fact that the group he may represent is powerful, organised, fairly good at PR and has in the past been unscrupulous. I think maintaining the NPOV of these articles will be hard, not in the gross sense but in keeping finer detail in, and changes that can be wikilawyered, but are not apropriate out. At the same time, we don't want to keep those with a pro or anti-POV from editing. It's one of WP's dilemmas writ large. Rich Farmbrough 22:57 1 March 2006 (UTC).

It's true that the Church of Scientology has in the past perpetrated organized attacks on Internet sites. However, I don't see that happening here. Instead we seem to have a small group of individual Scientologists who push Scientology positions in articles. My speculation is that JimmyT's "hatting" was not from Church hierarchy but from another one of our Scientologist contributors, such as Terryeo or (less likely) AI. We are not dealing with the likes of Helena Kobrin here -- fortunately for our article quality! In order to cover Scientology better, we need Scientologist contributors who are willing to discuss and provide information rather than to whitewash and delete criticism. The current set are a hell of a lot better on that metric than (say) User:AI was ... although they've still got quite a bit to learn about civility and policy here. --FOo 02:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This guy appears to be a Scientologist who is trying to whitewash the organization. Referring to people as "suppressive" [87] is a dead giveaway. In Scientology terminology, "suppressive" is a person who tries to destroy that which is "pro-survival", namely, Scientology tech. I am protecting the page until this is dealt with. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone familiar with Hinduism

Could someone take a look at the recent contributions of Buddhaboy108 (talk · contribs)? If I've unfairly accused him of spamming, please let me know so I can apologize. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to be familiar to hinduism to say that adding a link to Dharmacentral to many articles feels to be in violation of WP:EL. I haven't reverted them (aside from the one where he was testing the waters with http://www.externallink.com/), but I have your back if you wanted to revert them. --Syrthiss 18:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That is linkspam, pure and simple -- for some New Age woo-woo entrepeneur. Please remove it all! Zora 18:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That looks like spam to me. --Victim of signature fascism | Do people who don't think Jesus existed exist? 20:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby civility

User:KDRGibby is currently subject to personal attack parole, probation, and general probation as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby. Could an uninvolved admin please review these edits [88] [89] [90] and remind Gibby of his personal attack parole? Accusing "lefties" of "censorship" is not conducive to improving encyclopedia articles. Thanks. Rhobite 22:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for twenty-four hours, and now I'm going out. Please review and unblock as appropriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The run to 1 000 000

GOLD

We are less than a couple of hours from reaching 1 000 000 article here on en. New page patrol will definitely need a few more eyes, in part to quickly excise the flood of non-articles that will likely occur within a couple minutes of the event. Also, is there a place where eyes will be gathering to try to reach a quick consensus for which article reached a million? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe #wikipedia-countdown on IRC has a bot counting down, which will be able to pinpoint pretty well. Looks like it'll happen just before 00:00 UTC if the current rate holds up. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

IRC is the tool of Satan and will be the cause of the destruction of all man-kind. Anything on the Wiki? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt there could be any meaningful way to say which article was officially number 1 million. A great deal of the new stuff coming in is complete junk, so the first one millionth article is as likely as not to be speedied right after it's made. :-) Friday (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm the article creation rate at just after 11 UTC was suspiciously high.Geni 23:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing suspicious about it. Everyone wanted to create the one-millionth article. --Cyde Weys 23:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

So along I went and guess what popped up? Brian Peppers (internet meme). Funny how things go, isn't it? Just zis Guy you know? 23:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. Well, according to my count, and a backward regression using Special:Statistics, Special:Log/delete and Special:Newpages, the millionth article was Aaron Ledesma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by BorgHunter at 23:09 UTC March 1 2006. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

So that's it, right? We're full now? We can start making the million articles all good ones before adding any more? :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope. I need to article creation rate to stay up if I'm going to win the 2 million pool.Geni 23:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the millionth topic was Jordanhill railway station. Check the talk page. --Victim of signature fascism | Do people who don't think Jesus existed exist? 23:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey I just wanted to give a big booyah to all the admins here - it is a rather thankless job at times, and I think it is easy to become jaded at times when you are admining this site, which at times can seem like an addictive waste of time :). I did want to say that it IS getting better thanks to the contributions of people - it may seem hard at times because of the 1,000,000+ artices, but it is turning quite well!!! Keep up the good work guys!!! WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 06:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

And extra kudos to everyone in the kevlar suits - there were a ton of us on New page patrol as the pyroclatic flow of articles erupted out of nowhere. Good work indeed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Slight oddity on hy.wikipedia

This page seems a trife out of place. Any ideas about what to do about it?.Geni 23:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That is weird. The author of the page, a User:Lilith, was apparently a b'crat and admin who was desysopped after some controversy of some sort. If anything, the page should be blanked to allow for the real thing to be added by that wiki's admins. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be discussed at the hy wikipedia or at meta? --Victim of signature fascism | Do people who don't think Jesus existed exist? 23:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It is our admin list. I can't speak hy and I have no idea which bit of meta to throw this at.Geni 01:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

And it's an old copy. android79 01:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Repeated editing of my talk page posts by SlimVirgin (vandalism)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:User_review?action=history I have asked twice for her to stop this (see the above link) and she carries on doing it: She knows full well that posting a link once is not by any definition "spam" (and definitely does not come under Wikipedia's spam policy) but still continues to edit my talk page message to remove my link just because she personally doesn't like the content. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is lame. So what if she puts nowiki tags around it? People can just copy and paste the URL into their browsers, it's not like she's deleting it. Please go contribute to the encyclopedia and quit edit warring over trivial stuff like this. On the other hand, I believe that using rollback for content disputes is bad form, but as someone pointed out somewhere, it's one click versus three to get the same effect. Hermione1980 02:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand she shouldn't be editing other peoples' talk page messages as a matter of principle and has no right to do so unless it breaks a policy: Which it does not, not breaking ANY.. I'm sure she would be up in arms if someone made a minor edit like removing the image from her user page (after all, it's "trivial and unnecessary"), or someone changed HER messages.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point me to the policy which says that any given user may or may not edit any given content on any type of page. I see no policy being violated from the above description. Just zis Guy you know? 15:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)

I have banned Instantnod and SchmuckyTheCat from editing this page for edit warring in violation of their probation. --Wgfinley 02:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hamid Yazdani

I don't understand why my first artice on "Hamid Yazdani" is being deleted? Isn't is a discriminatory action against a genuine poet from a third world country? Is it just because some of your so -called editors don't know him or what? I met Hamid for the first time in Germany where he was working as a produer/editor with the radio Deusche Welle: the Voice of Germany's Urdu Service.I was on working with the Bangla Service those days.During our stay in Cologne,Germany,he translated poetry from German and Bangla languages,too.His books have been published in Pakistan and he IS well-known in urdu literary circles of pakistan and Canada.I can supply you with the copies of his published works/books,if it's about the credibility of the information. Would you mind reviewing your decision? Although it does not make any difference to the literary stature of my poet friend,anyway. Thanks, Jahid

There was a request for deletion, which was granted after other Wikipedia contributors commented on the article and subject. Ral315 (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Alienus

I am losing my mind with the Alienus person. The constant revert war on page after page after must stop. I am no longer able to function with this person goading me into fights again and again. This person has to go and you can toss me with him if you will. I don't care at this point. He is now active engaged in baiting me on Ayn Rand Objectivism and homosexuality and he has come onto a page unrelated to Objectivism Borderline personality disorder and the only reason for this persons presents is that I care about this page. I am a good editor and the only problem I have ever had on Wiki is this one person. Could someone please do something. Block me as well if need be as I have deffinatly lost my cool with this issue. Someone with a cooler head needs to step in.Billyjoekoepsel 05:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've erased my response because it's redundant. Instead, I'll just quote another part of this page:

Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors.

In short, not only are you doing the wrong thing, you're doing it in the wrong place. Alienus 05:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

All I ask is for ONE administrator to go over this persons Contributions. JUST ONE! That is it. That is all it will take. ONE. Go over this persons record and then you will see for your self. This is absolute repugnant that this is happening. It seems that every administrator is asleep.Billyjoekoepsel 05:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As an administrator, I can say that we generally do not handle content disputes, and certainly not here. Ral315 (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wiki-cheese

This category is nonsense created by a vandal. I would put a speedy tag on it, but it has a lot of nonsense pages categorized under it. Could an admin see to cleaing out the category, then deleting it? CG janitor 05:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Already done. Ral315 (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

24.45.73.44

This user continues to vandalize after repeated warnings over several days. Thorell 07:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Some light entertainment

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mrs Gastrich. I love the answers to the questions. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

"Block all the atheist devils who run wikipedia" Aw nuts, that means I wouldn't be able to edit anymore. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A repeat IP school vandal who has been warned a lot by many people

User_talk:159.191.12.24 for details, thank you very much admins.

Abuse of policy to justify template deletion

MarkSweep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has now deleted Template:User_review - before deleting, he went on a mass spree subst'ing it using "What's linked here" (see his contributions - just two examples [91], [92]) and then using "orphaned" as an excuse for deleting the template.

The template was used on at least 25 pages before he sneakily removed it, then used "orphaned" as an excuse for deleting it. I put the template back and then he uses "CSD G4 recreation of deleted content" to try justify it.

As has been said http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=116 here by Blu Aardvark: "Orphaned templates are not a CSD criterion - because any admin can do what MarkSweep just did, and orphan the template to get away with deleting it. But hell, now it's gonna sit on DRV for a week, where most members of the elitist cabal will vote to keep it deleted. Not that that's what DRV is for, or anything. DRV is for determining whether the deletion was made in accordance with policy, or for determining whether events have changed significantly to warrant a review of the page's inclusion in the project. It is NOT for "Well, I don't like it, so keep deleted", as so many have used it for."

Please also read additional info at Template_talk:User_review --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 08:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The actual CSD is T1, I presume. Ashibaka tock 08:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As has been pointed out here: Template_talk:User_review, the template itself does not contain anything "divisive", it just links to a profile. For those reading this that have no access to deleted pages, here's what the template contained:

This user has a http://wikipediareview.com Wikipedia Review account, http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser={{{1}}} {{{2}}}]

... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 08:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to view it as T1, you can, but you can also say it's common sense, IAR, NOT, etc. The point is, people were edit warring over the wording of the template. The template itself is not widely used, so substing and deleting was a rather elegant solution (if I do say so myself) to several problems. Whoever wanted it can still have the template text and edit it to suit their needs without getting drawn into the edit war that was going on prior to its deletion. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_review?action=history - That hardly classifies as an "edit war"

Oh yeah, the history is gone isn't it so no one else can see how invalid your claim is? Very convenient... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 08:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Mark, looking at the amount of flamage this has produced, I hope you understand that I disagree with you calling this solution "elegant". I don't care about this little box. I care about having a bit of peace and quiet for a change. Even if I did agree that this little template had to go, consider that there's a policy in the works that could possibly back you up in the near future. Blasting away at them now amounts to trolling or feeding the trolls, depending on personal politics. And if you think that having them disappear in a bang and then the situation will settle down after a bit of complaining, well, if I could agree with that I'd kill the damn things myself. But it's been tried, and didn't work. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Yes, things like this don't help building an encyclopedia. But the mess we're in now is actively disrupting building an encyclopedia. -- grm_wnr Esc 11:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong, then. It wasn't T1 at all, MarkSweep applied IAR in order to resolve the dispute over whether to have a link to Wikipedia Watch, I mean, Wikipedia Review, in template space. It's not a divisive template, just an outside-link template. Ashibaka tock 08:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If the matter is about outside links, then why do templates for links to personal sites and blogs exist? NSLE _(T+C) at 09:51 UTC (2006-03-02)

Template:User PT

I restored this template after this DRV debate. MarkSweep has now speedied it justifying it with, among other things "common sense". I have already restored it twice, and don't want to wheel war over it. I think this is a speedy undeletion candidate as it has survived a TFD and been restored on a DRV just minutes ago. Both debates had an overwhelming majority for inclusion, and while I may not like the template, I think blatantly running against consensus like this is more damaging than the userbox ever was. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

For goodness' sake, it's an orphaned advocacy template. The text is still available, so if anyone really wants to use it (no takers yet), they can. In fact, if you want to use, just drop me a line on my talk page and I will personally put it on your user page (offer valid only to first 10 applicants). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not the point. The point is that the DRV produced overwhelming consensus to undelete. It determined that the template should not have been speedied. We need to respect that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest simply undeleting these, as well as the associated categories. It isn't wheel warring as the reasoning given for deletion ("orphaned") is NOT acceptable grounds for speedy deletion. These deletions are in violation of policy and I see no reason not to immediately restore. Sarge Baldy 09:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition, you'll have to forgive users for not using a template just minutes after it was undeleted via DRV discussion. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Now undeleted. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is getting bloody ridiculous. Either we should have a policy to delete these userboxes or we shouldn't delete them. If the application of IAR, mentioned in the thread above, is right then you should be able to formulate a good common sense policy. If it isn't..... Leithp 09:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

IAR is only "right" when nobody cares about it. If someone, anyone, objects, then it is just a totally random and unprecedented admin action that needs justification. Hence, this mess will continue until we have a policy for admins to follow. Ashibaka tock 09:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about that. IAR is fine when it results in an improvement in the encyclopedia, but it's not a solution. As you say there needs to be a guideline/policy/anything to stop this being repeated ad-nauseum. Leithp 09:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You could have just linked to WP:SNOW, you know... Johnleemk | Talk 09:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Which hell? Niflheim is one hell where snowballs stand a chance? Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If this is not being used, then I suggest it could be redirected to the userbox that states "This user is from Portugal" since PT is the TLD for Portugal. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 16:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of picture

Fashion1 has been consistantly removing a picture from Lindsey German since the beginning of january. They refuse to discuss why the picture should be removed on the article talk page and have deleted any attempts to comunicate with them on their User talk page [93] [94] [95].

I tryed leaving the article alone for a few weeks, but as soon as I replaced the picture it would be taken down again.

I I reported the user for violating the 3RR (See here) but they now seem to be editing from as an annon 80.168.14.138 and 86.134.206.142 The edit history of the two I.P's shows they have made very similar edits to Fashion1 --> Assumption that they are Sockpuppets seems fair enough.--JK the unwise 09:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sprotected, as I agree that an user is probably evading the 3RR as an anon. -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

IP: 213.249.239.7

This IP has been vandalizing Bandwidth hogging. Alberrosidus 10:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Mais oui! continual reverting

This user has finally given up on the revert war at Template:Scotland counties and has now turned attention to Template:Infobox Scotland place and Template:Infobox Scotland place with map. Despite attempts by myself and others the text 'Historic county' keeps being changed to 'Former county' in line with Mais oui!'s PoV. The original version used the phrase 'traditional county' in line with other Wikipedia articles but this was changed to 'historic' on December 20th which both parties seemed happy with. Owain (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have had a quiet word with the user on their talk page. This is an industrious editor, I would hope they will see sense. Just zis Guy you know? 15:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well who'd have thought it. Seems Owain is being a little disingenuous here. Just zis Guy you know? 15:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Dolores Dicen

User keep making pages with his own poetry. Exformation.info 14:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack by anon user

138.130.85.160 (talk · contribs) made a personal attack against me this date on the Emma Watson Talk page. The attack followed an admittedly snippy comment on my part (for which I have since apologized) but could not be considered warranted under any circumstances. This user had previously vandalized the main article and was given a {{test2-n}} warning as a result. My warning against any future attacks like the one prompting this report is genuine; I have every intention of following through with the ISP and/or law enforcement if (s)he pulls that stunt again. RadioKirk talk to me 15:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, if you decide to take legal action, that is your right, but please do not mention it here. At all. Ever. We do not like to have legal threats bandied about. Second of all, it should have simply been removed as a moronic personal attack rather than escalating it with legal threats. --Golbez 15:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to both talk pages. The anon user was given a test warning and Radio was reminded about the legal threat rules here. I will remove the personal attack. I think that should take care of it. No big deal.Gator (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, Golbez removed it. Well done my friend. :) Gator (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the input. RadioKirk talk to me 15:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Policy pages edited

WP:NOR and WP:V are again being edited dramatically. Please review changes made recently. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the editors making the changes is User:Étincelle, formerly known as User:Lumiere, who has been trolling on that page for a few weeks, and I use the word advisedly. I suggest we regard his edits as vandalism and revert without comment, because his aim is simply to trigger endless, pointless discussion on talk. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom Enforcement, please

Instantnood is under probation for aggressive revert warring, not using edit summaries, and renaming places. The result of the case is that any admin can page ban him for "inappropriate editing". For really aggressive edits, he's been banned entirely for a week, a week again, and two weeks. Each time he comes back and continues to play revert games. There is now a third case which will potentially ban him from the site entirely.

I'd like an admin to review these edits for "inappropriate editing" concering his renaming political entitites (countries, provinces etc) in line with his POV, his revert warring with multiple editors (even spread out over multiple days, he doesn't have the luxury of 3RR) and not using edit summaries.

Since I'm a party to both his cases, I'm listing my involvement in the interest of disclosure.

• [96] [97] revert warring on a page he's banned from (to his credit, he reverted himself when he noticed he was banned). I'm not involved in this dispute. I fixed something else broken when he asked for help since he's page banned.
• [98] Four reverts to his preferred style of putting China in parentheses, reverted by three other users. The "blind" reverting of find and replace fixes resulted in broken links and mis-named buildings (Bank of People's Republic of China of Tower).
• [99] same as above.

As part of the dispute, on one of these pages I fixed the broken titles/wikilinks and removed the silly parens. the rest of the revert warring is with other users.

• [100] re-ignite old revert war from December, no edit summary. (I haven't edited this article).
• [101] slow revert war going on since Feb 23, several edits with no edit summary (I haven't edited this article)
• [102] reverting to his preferred spelling, which he's been doing for months. (It appears he is reverting me, but my last edit was to unblank the page after an anon edit.) I make no claim to whether his edit is "right" as the spelling of Macau with an o or a u is mostly a style preference. I object to him revert warring over his preferred spelling.
• [103] ongoing revert war over a template. (I have no involvement here.)

SchmuckyTheCat 19:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to request administrators to look into every single of those presented above by user:SchmuckyTheCat, that he might have been deliberately presenting only the very tip of the iceberg, possibly because of being dishonest. For instance, for the list of skyscrapers and list of world's tallest structures, contrary to what user:SchmuckyTheCat has claimed, there was only one user, user talk:Alanmak, who had kept objecting using round brackets, with no edit summary. It was user talk:Alanmak's edit that contributed to the blind find and replace fixes [104] [105]. As for the rail transport in Hong Kong article, I made similar improvements to both versions (mine and user:Huaiwei's, and there's actually a RfC regarding the two versions). For the TVB News article, I've explained many times why part of user:Alanmak's changes were reverted, by both edit summary and the talk page, but user:Alanmak never replies. As for template:HONG KONG, the templates locate at template:HONG KONG until user:Alanmak created a fork by cut-and-paste move (cf. user talk:Curps [106] and my user talk page [107]). The official full name in English of Macau is spelt with -o, with little dispute. The link to the list of cities and parishes of Macao was what the article was like before the blanking by the anonymous editor [108]. I restored it with -u before the linked article was moved [109] [110] (see time stamps). — Instantnood 19:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Tip of the iceberg because you have hundreds of similar edits that simply go unreviewed. :)

As to "only one user, user talk:Alanmak, who had kept objecting using round brackets," that exact same edit keeps getting reverted on other articles by enochlau and others as well - it's simply wrong to put parentheses around China. As well, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO OR WHY. It's your revert game that is the problem. An interesting point of that series of reverts is that you say AlanMak made the find and replace problems, but in the revert game, you're the one that restored them. That tells me you're not actually paying attention to what you're reverting. You're just doing it - a revert junkie.

If there is an RfC on an article, Rail transport in Hong Kong, then YOU, who are under probation, shouldn't be making controversial edits to it. Those who came to the article from the RfC also saw a blank talk page. Apparently playing revert was more important than trying to state your case here as well.

The templates as well, I don't know or care who is right or wrong between you and AlanMak or you and Curps. YOU, under probation, need to quit edit warring.

Macao: again, it doesn't matter why you did it or if you are right. You've shown repeatedly that you will edit war over your preferred spelling. It's not vandalism for another user to change the spelling, it's a matter of controversy - which means Instantnood should butt out and discuss, not revert.

SchmuckyTheCat 20:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There are often mistakes. Changes won't be perfect in one go, and very often it takes several edits to keep everything alright. Please don't count on anybody as long as the find and replace problem has been fixed. I'm not making controversial edits to rail transport in Hong Kong, on the contrary I'm making the same improvements to both versions, with the version I don't preferred displayed. Please don't pretend you don't know what I've edited. As for the spelling of Macao, don't think I was doing anything wrong for linking to the real title, instead of a redirect, at the time of my edit. Being on probation doesn't mean every edit by you or I could be deemed controversial in such a casual manner, without looking into the details. — Instantnood 22:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Acumen76

This user has been blocked indefinitely by Hall Monitor as a subtle vandal account. Now that the account is blocked, clean-up needs to occur. The account has been making subtle information changes for over a month. Mostly, but not limited to, the March 4 page. Any assistance in cleaning up the messes left behind is appreciated. - TexasAndroid 20:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

User:PSRuckman

I have blocked PSRuckman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 3RR violation at Peter Ruckman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It's problematic that he should be editing it at all, and he seems unwilling to engage in Talk. He has reverted multiple times as anon, then logged in. I am trying to find out what his problem is. Just zis Guy you know? 20:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

HeyNow10029

I've left several messages on the talk page of HeyNow10029 (talk) concerning images that he/she uploaded. Each one lacks a fair use rationale, and despite being informed of the policies at Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Images, the user continuously reinserts the removed images. On one occasion in the edit history of the Kelly Clarkson article, the user wrote: "Image is fair use screenshot and should not be removed for copyright reasons, if you think there's a copyright problem get an admin to sort it out". This is rather peculiar — are they stating that removing the image from the article would qualify as copyright infringement? Unfortunately, I am not aware of all of the guidelines regarding images and screenshots, however, another user, WAS 4.250, explained to him/her that the images did not justify as fair use. HeyNow10029 has been repeatedly insisting that because numerous other articles include images lacking fair use rationale, the Kelly Clarkson article should as well. I cannot locate the logic in this mess that has been created, but could someone help me with the situation? The current discussion between myself and this user is taking place here. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam's Dance Troupe

This article is up for deletion. The kids who made it have gone around making redirects and dab pages point to their article with half a dozen anon IP addresses. Can I ask for some assistance in watching SDT and STD? Just put those in your watchlist? SDT should redirect to Self-determination theory. SchmuckyTheCat 21:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Why must you persecute the already oppressed?!?!?!?! STOP BEING THE MAN!!!1111oneoneone (p.s. dont be a tool go to Deep Springs)

User:82.15.28.195

This anon user refuses to sign his discussion posts properly, and has made obscene personal attacks at those who disagree with his stance on this. *Dan T.* 21:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Anderson12 and User:WMMrgn

These two users have been embarking on the same types of edits that User:Lightbringer and later User:Basil Rathbone had. As such, they are likely socks, and therefore at the very least are banned from editing Freemasonry-related pages, if not being banned indefinitely for being socks of a banned user. My instinct tells me they are operating on open proxies, but I have no proof of this.

Anderson and WMMrgn have also each betrayed information that they should not have as new users, such as Anderson12 reporting a 3RR after 7 edits, and posting a sock notice on my page as me being a user he never dealt with and should therefore not know about). Anderson12 has also deleted sections of Talk:Freemasonry, and has c/ped another user's page verbatim (his edit history shows no interest in the Philosophy project materials he has on his userpage, which is the same MO Basil used).

WMMrgn has engaged in POV editing on List of Anti-Masons, and uses the same sites Lightbringer/Basil used for "support". The blatant factual errors and unsupported edits were detailed on the Talk page. There was no response from him, and the article has been protected.

A look at these users' edit histories (if not simply their antagonistic usernames) will quickly verify tactics. Could someone please intervene on this before it gets even more out of hand? MSJapan 22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)