Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Visual archive cue: 121

Community ban on User:Hogeye

User:Hogeye was blocked for a month for disruption on anarchism related articles. Since then he has been consistently and almost on a daily basis (although with notable and lengthy lulls) been using open proxies to evade his block. Ideally I'd like to see a ban and indefinite block put in place, but I'd settle for something that we don't have to reset the block every couple of days :)

20:15, 7 July 2006, Sarge Baldy (Talk) blocked Hogeye (contribs) (expires 20:15, 7 August 2006) (Unblock) (resetting due to ban evasion)

See the category here. Note that most of these are not sockpuppets in the conventional sense, but just open proxies that are being used to circumvent his block. - FrancisTyers · 10:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I spent most of my time on wikipedia yesterday reverting Hogeye's sock edits at Anarchism, so I am fully supportive of this proposal. Their socks also reverted changes I made to other articles recently, including this page, making three personal attacks in the process: [1], [2], [3] and [4]. This user constantly evades blocks and edits disruptively, and it's about time they get banned permanently. The Ungovernable Force 18:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As the one who protected the Anarchism article for a month while trying to make Hogeye discuss his changes (before the first month-long block), I would not oppose it. --cesarb 02:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

They have a new sock: User:Drowner.--The Ungovernable Force 02:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• <sarcasm>Oppose; useful method for finding more open proxies to block.</sarcasm> Mackensen (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: They will still use open proxies even after they are banned permanently, so it won't keep you from finding more. The Ungovernable Force 02:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Oh, sorry. It's sometimes hard to tell sarcasm in type. It was funny though. The Ungovernable Force 02:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerning User:haham hanuka

I removed part of this users userpage becuase,imho, it violated the guideline at Wikipedia:User page (Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia) ; please also have a look here. I consider a block. Any comments? Lectonar 14:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Given the translation (which I had been waiting for before taking further action on this), I strongly support the removal of the material. There's no need for a block at this time, but the user should definitely not re-add the material. -- SCZenz 21:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The content has just been deleted through a formal procedure and he readds as if the community wasn't here. He should be blocked, as he has done this many times before and he was warned about his disrespect for our community decisions many times before. gidonb 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the was deleted at his request, not because of the MfD—and he hoped that adding it to his user page instead would be a compromise. It's clear the community wants it gone, even from his user page, so that isn't acceptable. But at this time, it has been removed from his userpage by Lectonar and not-readded; as long as he doesn't restore the material anywhere, no further action is necessary. -- SCZenz 16:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SCZenz: a block isn't appropriate at this time. There is a difference between re-adding because he's in a fight and re-adding after he's gotten multiple sets of administrative eyes. In the former case, the slow-ish dispute resolution process would need to take place. In the latter case, it's sort of a different set of offenses that can justify a block more quickly. (No, I'm not lawyering. I'm suggesting that the user can misunderstand some things, but not others.) Geogre 14:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, the page was deleted through a regular procedure with which he agreed. In the meantime he has been blocked for a week for serious trolling on other AfDs. gidonb 17:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson reverting Kitty May Ellis stuff

Wjhonson (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Hi guys, as a result of this deletion review, I changed my closure of this AfD (and deleted "Kitty May Ellis") and removed all quotations of her works from various articles. Wjhonson is reverting my edits. Now, I've already warned the user about revert-warring, but since I don't want to get into this revert war myself without knowing whether I'm in the right, I thought I'd make a note here. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A deletion review that was not consensus. My article was a professionally-writen, complete and thoroughly-cited biography. A few attackers kept stating over and over the sources weren't verifiable, which is incorrect. Every source I used for the statements is verifiable and previously published in a reliable source. The deletion *review* came to an incorrect conclusion and there is no reason I should be penalized for trying to expand, valid and useful content on wikipedia. All the sources I used were posted to the article, and the quality was far superior, in my opinion, to the majority of biographies on here. And again every source is verifiable, the attackers took no attempt to even try to verify my sources. Wjhonson 19:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now, for the first time, been given the opportunity to read the this deletion review. I go to bed with KEEP, I wake up and everything I worked on for the past week — every single quote, every reference to this very notable person has been wiped by Deathphoenix. The sources are on wikisource, a sister project, and have been accepted there as documents of historical interest. Aside from that, I have posted portions of those quotes to various genealogical and history boards for the various communities and names mentioned, and each has expressed great interest in this source. And yet, one of the remarks on the review is that this person is not notable. It's relatively hard to reconcile the two positions. One person, a descendent of Chief Joseph wrote with profuse thanks that there is yet another source on her ancestor. The mere fact that a person is not universally known, is not a sufficient reason for stating that person is not *notable*. The notability page I would add, states that a person is also notable if they *should* be more widely known. If nothing else, this person should pass on that criteria. Wjhonson 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I have some experience with genealogy. What are the links at wikisource so I can look it over? Never mind. This belongs on Wjohnson's talk page and DRV. Thatcher131 20:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring for the moment User:Wjhonson's conduct, the DRV should either be properly closed (and the old version possibly userfied?) as the closing admin has reverted his prior decision, or the history be restored until the DRV has run its course. ~ trialsanderrors 18:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The DRV has been closed in favor of deletion. Without getting into a debate about the merits of the deletion, in the interests of tidying up, I'd like to remove all the redlinks to the now-(re)deleted article. I'm afraid, however, that another edit war will ensue. Any advice would be appreciated. Katr67 18:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I unlinked references to Ellis mostly without deleting the text. If an article is developed that the community agrees is viable, the links can be restored. Hopefully this solves the above issue for now. Katr67 16:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The user has now reposted the article under Kittie May Ellis. Perhaps another AfD is called for. Katr67 20:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Absoluly incorrect. The article was reopened for further review, and then the deletion-request was closed *moribund*, no result. This is just more of you and your friends attempt to mischaracterize the situation. The article stays. Wjhonson 20:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD already started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kittie May Ellis (second nomination). And I am no friend (or enemy) of Katr67, I don't know her (?) at all. I'll conduct further discussion at the AfD, if needed. Fram 20:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me just state for the record that I am not a friend (nor enemy) of any of the other users who have expressed their opinions on the merits of the article under discussion. Katr67 20:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Any *new* review should either be based exclusively on new comments, or should take into account the many responders in the original AfD who voted to KEEP. And should not be done, in the middle of the night, in a few hours. The persons interested in the history of the Pacific Northwest in general are not awake at 3 in our morning to respond to attacks on our published history by people who have no idea what's going on, and who are boldly lied to by others in the response pool. Wjhonson 20:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not satisfied with the result of this deletion again. I have recreated the page and I am requesting some sort of arbitration, I just don't know how to do that yet. Verifiability is not reliant on ease, only possibility. Notability is not reliant on google hits. So someone tell me how to accelerate this up to the next level. Thanks. Wjhonson 05:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Undent. I have posted cogent rebuttal to the most salacious of claims Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Assume_good_faith, and I would appreciate comments on this meta-issue, What happens when editors who have not read a source, assume it is unreliable. Wjhonson 05:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Xoloz has protected my #redirect of "Kitty May Ellis" to "Kittie May Ellis". What possible resason could there be for this? Can someone please unprotect this page. Thank you. Wjhonson 15:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

JzG (talk · contribs):RfC

Is anybody here willing to help me fill a RfC agains JzG here? There are no pro-forma warnings on Wikipedia. There are warnings or no warnings. Pro-forma warnings are just a form of bullying. After I have proven, that the original reason for warning was removed even before the warning was placed, JzG is searching for new reasons (see his "it is still unacceptable.." comments) or calling the warning pro-forma. Now he is joking about the "cabal", disparaging my comments and complaints and clearly trying to irritate me with those comments. Azmoc 13:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You got a little warning. Lets order Global Thermonuclear War! --mboverload@ 13:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No way. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, I got friggin BLOCKED for reasons that I thought were baseless. All I did was calmly ask for comment. Calm down. I know you feel wronged but in the end it's just a warning. --mboverload@ 13:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, if you got friggin BLOCKED for nothing, it is wrong. That's why I proposed the easy-gain-easy-lose adminship on the Village Pump. Azmoc 13:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't you consider Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace to be an entire collection of pro-forma warnings? I would... -- ChrisO 13:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this even appropriate on this page? You've already made your complaint, now you want to escalate to an Rfc and you're issuing a blanket invitation for someone to second you? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I heard he punched a baby too. KWH 06:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not know anything about this particular case, but the attitude to shrug off complaints about abuse of adminship with derogatory comments and mock about "the cabal" is something I know from JzG, too, and I think it is in no way helpful to resolve disputes. An admin should know better that special rights come with a special responsibility. Socafan 00:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Deir Yassin

Guy Montag banned from Battle of Deir Yassin

Per the terms of his probation, Guy Montag has been banned from editing Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin Massacre for disruptive editing, soliciting votes on a requested move, and incivility on the article's talk page. Any dissenting administrator may repeal this ban as necessary. Ral315 (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that he was doing anything innappropriate on that page, I think the block should be lifted.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Votestaking is inappropriate. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I really haven't seen any evidence that what Guy was doing was in fact votestacking at all. I personally voted in that article because it was on my watchlist, I think everybody kinda voted at once because they might have been waiting to see what other people's opinions were. I think that it is ridiculous that Guy is being banned for something that almost everybody does when there is a vote going on, after all I wonder how so many people that voted "support" found out that there was a survey going on at that particular moment especially when so many people had never edited the article in question before? That "votestacking" probably occured through E-mail.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, this is a controversy to which you are a party, and your "judgment" that votestaking has occurred, it must be said, is subjective. Did you review this decision with another, impartial admin? --Leifern 17:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have a look at the admin who made the first post of this section, you would have had your answer already, and as such, I consider this a act of bad faith. Furthermore, see, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag, you will see I reported him, but did not do the ban. As such, an uninvolved admin has reviewed it, and come to the same conclusion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, you were the one who imposed the ban, see [5], so I'm not sure why the question is in bad faith. --Leifern 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you say I did this: [6]. Excuse me, what I did was positing the tag on the page AFTER he was banned. That is all. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim also seems to have a history of using his administrative powers to gain an advantaqge in disputes that he is a primary party to as anyone who was involved with the "Israeli apartheid" mess knows. As someone once said- "Assuming good faith does not mean be stupid".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

She was the one who reported Montag as well. I suppose someone who is on probation is subject to the subjective judgment of any admin, but I think Kim needs to think long and hard about the difference between her role as an editor and as an admin. --Leifern 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was also concerned to see that Kim van der Linde, who is involved in this dispute, got Guy banned from the page, started a poll about the title, ignored the results of it, then misused her admin tools to move the page against the poll results, then felt obliged to post a tag declaring that Guy is banned from the page. It's up to the admin to do that; maybe he forgot, or maybe he intended not to. I'm worried about the extent to which Kim van der Linde seems to be taking every opportunity to cause a problem for pro-Israel editors, and is consistently confusing her admin/editor roles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The ban was undone by User:Briangotts [7]. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin massacre: move poll closure review requested

On June 29, Guy Montag moved ithout discussion Deir Yassin massacre to Battle of Deir Yassin [8], and substantially rewrote the article [9]. This move/rewrite was contensted, see Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Total_Rewrite and Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Battle???. I was asked to have a look at the move, and decided to start a poll so that everybody could have their say, and could see whether the move was carried by consensus (see: Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Requested_move). The poll started at July 8, and by July 12, there was a clear consensus that the name should be Deir Yassin massacre. At 12 and 13 July, Guy Montag allerted 5 editors, with known preferneces, on the poll, who all voted in the days after in favour of the by Guy Montag preferred name: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Based on this, I reported him here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag, which resulted in an independent admin to ban him from the page under his probation from a previous ArbCom case (see above). After that, I have closed the move poll, which was now corrupted by votestaking, and based my conclusion from before the votestaking (roughly 4 days into the poll), which was in favour of moving back. The final tally was no consensus (15-15 (12+3 to Deir Yassin incident), which indicates that the original contested unilateral move was not supported by the community. As suchm, I have moved the article back to the original name.

As I have been involved, I request that this move is reviewed by independent admins, and undone if they come to a different conclusion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The page has been moved back in the meanwhile by involved editors, however, I will move the page back if there is no objection of uninvolved admin's of the decision I described above. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is what you did on the Israel apartheid page(s): you moved pages using admin tools, even though you were directly involved in the dispute. Also, your accusations of vote-stacking could amount to no more than like-minded people arriving because they agreed with what was being done. Admins are not allowed to use their tools to gain an advantage in a dispute they're involved in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The incident SlimVirgin points at has been discussed here, seeWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive109#Admin_protecting.2C_then_editing_article. The votestaking was confirmed by an uninvolved admin, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag. For the rest, I have posted my action here for review by uninvolved admins as it could be disputed, and if an univolved admin concludes that the move is invalid, I will move it back without hestitation. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this, and I have concluded that the move was invalid, because you're involved in the dispute but used an admin tool to make the move. You acknowledged that you were involved in the dispute when you asked another admin to ban Guy Montag from the page. Therefore, please undo the move, and leave it for someone who has no connection with the article to decide how to proceed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not consider you uninvolved due to our disagreements at various other Israel-Palestine related articles, and the ongoing ArbCom case here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, you're well out of order. You don't make me involved just because you choose to say so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have moved it yourself, however it should be moved back. - FrancisTyers · 18:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved back to the original name Deir Yassin massacre or moved back from my move to the Battle of Deir Yassin? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved back to Deir Yassin massacre. But you shouldn't do it and you shouldn't have done it. - FrancisTyers · 19:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I will not do it myself, but leave it to another admin to do it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved back from your move. Please undo whatever it was you did. You posted for input, and you've been given input. Kindly don't ignore it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to undo at the moment, as the page has been reverted back to Battle of Deir Yassin. However, the move revert war that has ensued may require further consideration, maybe even by the ArbCom. Pecher ^Talk 19:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this dispute and I don't remember ever editing pages on the Middle-East - but I do have some experience carrying out moves requested on WP:RM. I think that Kim van der Linde should not have closed the debate herself, having taken part in it. In spite of that, having spent some time looking into this, I agree with her analysis. The vote solicitation by Guy Montag clearly tainted the vote. His original move was objected to almost immediately. The user is on probation for biased editing on articles of this kind. This all seems to speak fairly clearly to moving the article to the name it had at its creation and which it still had last month. I've seen no rebuttal to this - can anyone offer one? Sarah? Haukur 20:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Haukurth, I have no opinion about the title, and don't know anything about the arguments. My only concern is that we're calling an editor's attempt to get help from other editors "vote-stacking," when editors are in fact encouraged to involve other people in disputes and polls. Had he posted to 50 talk pages, I can see the grounds for concern, but five seems legitimate enough to me, and the fact that he was doing it openly on talk pages is another factor in his favor. There's probably a guideline about this somewhere, so maybe I should look around. I'm also concerned about Kim's comment that "Guy Montag allerted 5 editors, with known preferneces ..." How could she know what these editors' preferences were regarding what to call the Deir Yassin battle/massacre, if they hadn't already commented on it; and if they had already commented, then why is she concerned about their involvement? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Very often you can make a good guess what opinion people will have on a given dispute and selectively contact those you think will agree with you. I know, I used to do this sort of thing back in my move-warring days... In this case Guy was, it seems, 100% successful in contacting the right people. The best way to bring attention to a vote is through noticeboards which anyone can watch. Haukur 20:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I can think of several others who might have supported who he appears not to have contacted, so there doesn't seem to have been any kind of a concerted effort. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis and Haukur, I recognize that I should not have moved the article myself, but should have brought it to the attention of this noticeboard to start with. My judgement error on that part. My appologies for that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that you did exactly the same thing on various pages related to Israeli apartheid (four times, I believe), and seeing the amount of trouble it has caused, it's hard to see how you could make the same mistake again and not realize. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

See this log for the moves in question. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The page should be moved back, and the move poll be taken there. Anyone else want to do it? - FrancisTyers · 20:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I really haven't seen any evidence that what Guy was doing was in fact votestacking at all. I personally voted in that article because it was on my watchlist. I think that it is ridiculous that Guy is being banned for something that almost everybody does when there is a vote going on, after all I wonder how so many people that voted "support" found out that there was a survey going on at that particular moment especially when so many people had never edited the article in question before? That "votestacking" probably occured through E-mail.

On another note, Kimv really seems to have an issue with using his administrative powers to gain an advantage in a dipute that he is a primary party to, while it is a step forward that he just admitted that he shouldn't have done it, I really must question his veracity considering the fact that in another post above he basically said that he didn't act inappropriately because people weren't "assuming good faith" whatever that means.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I think this is the type of situation that Wikipedia:Naming conflict (originally developed by Ed Poor and myself) was written to resolve. The guideline states that "Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis." It sets out three key principles, the most important of which is "The most common use of a name takes precedence."

Note that the issue of POV naming is specifically excluded from consideration by the guideline - if a subject is particularly contentious, there will almost always be someone who disagrees with the article title. The guideline sets out the use of objective criteria, such as frequency of use, and discourages the use of subjective criteria, such as political acceptability.

The name "Battle of Deir Yassin" seems to be virtually unknown (only 81 Google hits) while "Deir Yassin massacre" seems to be much more widely used (21,100 Google hits - Wikipedia entries excluded in both cases). Using a novel term for a well-known historical incident seems to me to be a classic example of impermissible original research ("defining new terms"). Unfortunately it appears that the POV-pushers have taken over on this article; I think the page's move permissions will need to be locked and the case referred for arbitration. -- ChrisO 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of title that shouldn't be decided by a Google search, in my view, because of the number of highly POV sites that get included. What I do with contentious titles is try to find out what mainstream academics call it. Maybe that could be done here: try to find out what academic historians refer to it as? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's any help, I just did a Google Books search for the two terms. 56 books use "Deir Yassin massacre" and only one uses "Battle of Deir Yassin" (citing "a motion [which] was put before the Jerusalem city council to honor the five Zionist patriots who "had fallen during the battle of Deir Yassin"." - the motion failed after a public outcry.) 142 books use the terms "Deir Yassin" and "massacre" in close proximity. Google Scholar returns 51 articles using "Deir Yassin massacre" and none at all using "Battle of Deir Yassin". All of the encyclopedia entries that I've found relating to Deir Yassin refer to the "massacre" at "Deir Yassin" (cites: Brewer's Dictionary of Modern Phrase and Fable, A Dictionary of Contemporary History - 1945 to the present, A Dictionary of Political Biography, The Crystal Reference Encyclopedia). None refer to it as a "battle".

So it seems that the term "Battle of Deir Yassin" is not only little used but is associated with a specific, highly controversial POV - rather akin to calling the Srebrenica massacre the "Battle of Srebrenica", as some denialists are wont to do in that case. This seems a very clear-cut case of a non-mainstream term being adopted for presumably POV reasons. -- ChrisO 23:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have made a watertight case from a NPOV so unless anyone can find and equally strong verifiable rebuttal, this should be accepted, and the contention should cease. Naturally what people think it should be called is pure OR and irrelevant. We are looking for the commonly accepted term, the principle of least surprise. Tyrenius 01:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A "watertight case"? Are you serious? All he did was illustrate a pov, its not like someone can say that hey you can't disagree with him, can;t you see that my side has already made a watertight case? Anyways it is irrelevent what the majority of people call the incident, what matters is that we chose a title that does not favor any pov, I am not saying that "battle of Deir Yassin" is completly npov I am just saying that the "Deir Yassin Massacre" really isn't npov either.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

All right, I'll go ahead and move the page back, citing this discussion. Haukur 08:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, you might want to move protect the page after that to avoid a new move war. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 08:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer if someone else did that. Haukur 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe a move war is forthcoming Kim as long as you stay out of it. I reverted your initial move because of your completely unacceptable behaviour there. If Guy Montag's initial move was done without consensus, then it should have been reverted, and done so swiftly. You starting a poll on the matter, rejecting the legitimacy of the results when they failed to go your way, and then making an out of process move however, was farcical, especially given your current involvement in an ArbComm case on this very same matter. The move war was not the result the intractability of the issue, but rather a response to your complete lack of standing to make the aforementioned move. This entire move war could have been avoided if you had bothered to act in a way even vaguely resembling what is to be expected of admins. Protecting the page is thus likely unnecessary, as without your involvement in the move, I do not expect there to be serious objection to the page remaining there while debate continues on the talk page. Bibigon 11:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the important thing here is that KimvdLinde stays away from the situation completely. I would also suggest we try to find out what academic historians call it i.e. academics who are currently employed as historians by universities. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd also suggest this discussion not be split up. For some reason, it's been started on AN too. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_to_do_if_a_move_poll_is_determined_by_partisan_reasons.3F. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to let people know, I'm proposing to start a workshop along the lines of the ArbComm workshops to work through the specific policy issues involved (e.g WP:NC, WP:NCON, WP:NOR etc). The workshop will be at Talk:Deir Yassin massacre/Workshop later today. Hopefully it'll help to identify the specific points of disagreement, provide some advice on what the policies and guidelines require, and focus the discussion on policies rather than personal POVs. I suggest we continue this discussion there. -- ChrisO 13:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, you've protected the page against moves, and on the version you prefer. You're involved in the dispute and you're currently in front of the arbcom for using your admin powers in another content dispute. Please undo the protection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you feel it's inappropriate, please feel free to unprotect it. I've had no involvement in editing or moving the article, and my only involvement to date has been in providing pointers to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, providing some data on usage and trying to help the parties to find a resolution. If you (or any other administrator) feel that makes me too close to the issue to legitimately move-protect the page, then please unprotect it. -- ChrisO 13:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris, you're involved in the dispute, and we're not allowed to use admin powers where we're involved, especially not to gain any kind of advantage, and given you suggested the page be moved back to the version you prefer, and then protected it, that's what you've done. I'm not prepared to unprotect it and be accused of wheel warring, so I'm requesting that you do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case, OK. -- ChrisO 13:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. I hope everyone will leave it where it is now until a consensus is reached. Your workshop idea is a good one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make sure I notify people when I've got the workshop prepared. You're very welcome to offer advice and views (on my talk page if you don't wish to get directly involved). Given your experience in dealing with controversial issues, I'd certainly value your advice on the policy issues. -- ChrisO 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If Kim needs to "stay away from the situation completely", as Slim suggests, then so should Slim, myself and ChrisO. However, I don't see the point in delaying this - Guy Montag changed a long-established article name without consensus. His user page, User:Guy Montag identifies him as a supporter of the Irgun, the Revisionist Zionist armed militia identified as perpetrating the massacre so his interest in choosing an equivicating title for the article is clear. If a Stalinist tried to retitle "Katyn Forest Masscare" to "Battle of Katyn Forest" we would not permit it, even if he was able to rally the support of his friends in a poll. Homey 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not going to play that game with me. I have no involvement in this content dispute, and while I have no intention of becoming involved, I'm also not going to stay away from it because it would please you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a systemic POV when it comes to articles related to Israel so you are not neutral in this matter even if you haven't explicilty addressed content. I was not asking you to stay away from the article (you are projecting your habit onto me, it seems) - rather I'm saying you are in no position to dictate to Kim that she should stay away from it.Homey 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Could the three of you please stop ragging on each other? It's incivil, inappropriate and definitely not in the right place. It's certainly not going to resolve anything! -- ChrisO 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What to do if a move poll is determined by partisan reasons?

(Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_to_do_if_a_move_poll_is_determined_by_partisan_reasons.3F)

I'm rather troubled by the problems which KimvdLinde has reported over at WP:ANI#Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin massacre: move poll closure review requested. As I've posted there, the article's current title of "Battle of Deir Yassin" violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Wikipedia:Naming conflict and Wikipedia:No original research (it's a novel term with negligible use outside Wikipedia - only 81 hits versus over 21,000 for the alternative "Deir Yassin massacre"). It also probably violates Wikipedia:NPOV, as it seems to be a novel and minority-POV term for an historical incident which is generally known by a different name. (It's comparable, for instance, to renaming Srebrenica massacre to "Battle of Srebrenica" or American War of Independence to "War of American Aggression".)

In the light of these issues I would normally simply move the article myself. However, the page has already had a move war today and sparking another wouldn't be helpful. Ordinarily, a move poll would be a good alternative. However, there has already been a move poll in which the participants deadlocked, with many on both sides explicitly stating POV reasons for their votes (see Talk:Deir Yassin massacre#Clarification). There seems to have been relatively little consideration of what Wikipedia policy and guidelines require. Starting a new move poll would undoubtedly bring out the POV warriors again and, unfortunately, it's more than likely that they will again ignore policy and vote for their personal POVs. Are there any other alternatives short of taking the whole thing to the Arbitration Committee? -- ChrisO 23:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is why voting in the main namespace is a bad plan. :-/ Each time people have to find out the hard way. <sigh> Requested Moves should be strongly discouraged as a means for well, anything. Oh well.

Perhaps something can still be salvaged? You can look at who is supporting and opposing, and start a discussion with each, one at a time. Perhaps a more neutral name is possible? Kim Bruning 00:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've found in instances like this (Republic of Macedonia comes to mind) that POV warriors usually won't agree to anything other than their own POV. Am I right to think that the Mediation Committee can't do binding mediations? Perhaps this is where we need some sort of intermediate stage between the Mediation Committee (non-binding) and Arbitration Committee (binding but not usually dealing with content disputes). We really need to have some way of dealing with these disputes that would involve taking them away from the POV warriors and giving them to neutral editors or administrators who know, understand and respect Wikipedia policies. -- ChrisO 00:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Although formal mediation isn't binding, I think most editors would respect the conclusions of it. I think the key in this case is to use the term most often used by academic historians i.e. academics who are actually employed as historians by universities. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The quick and dirty method is to attract as many uninvolved editors as quickly as possible, because POV warriors work by fighting in packs and outnumbering their opponents. But polls like that are almost always confrontational, so it would be better to try some form of mediation (formal or informal) as Kim suggested. Even if it fails then it's something to show to other users who can determine for themselves what caused it to fail, if it's because someone wasn't cooperating then that will be detrimental to them. A good first step would be to do a survey of the academic literature to see what name is more commonly used, Google is unlikely to settle this one. --bainer (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've done a quick check on the literature using Google Books/Google Scholar, Amazon's "search inside" feature and a number of encyclopedias on Xreferplus. It almost exclusively refers to the events at Deir Yassin as the "Deir Yassin massacre", the massacre at Deir Yassin and similar formulations. None use "Battle of Deir Yassin". So it seems plain enough that the article's current title is a novel term. The problem is, of course, that the POV warriors don't care about WP:NOR, WP:NC and all the rest. Mediation is certainly appropriate though I wonder if it's ever likely to work in a situation where the participants are riding roughshod over Wikipedia's fundamental policies. I suspect it'll probably end up in arbitration, one way or another. -- ChrisO 07:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I thionk is a main problem for wikipedia, as the focus is consensus and prevention of disruption, and not so much upholding basic policies (Such as NPOV of which Jimbo states: NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."). However, in practise, NPOV is negotiated, just as other unnegotiable policies such as WP:NOR. The bigger question is, can these policies be enforced, or are they negotiable? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim Bruning is right. Discussion is the solution. As an experienced mediator, Kim is likely picking up on the fact that you are in too big of a hurry to settle the dispute. Having an article in the The Wrong Version is going to happen for some of the parties in the dispute. Mediators (and experienced editors) need to reinforce the idea that Wikipedia is not going to be ruined by having an article in the The Wrong Version. IMO, mediation goes astray once you began reverting or making moves based on the idea that there is a wrong version. Patience and discussion are mediation's friend.  : - ) FloNight ^talk 10:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that unnegotiable policies are negotiable? And if mediation is not working because people insist on violating NPOV, ArbCom? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that you hold a particular POV, you got involved in the dispute, you got an editor banned from the page, and then you moved the page as an admin, so that has helped to entrench positions and increase hostility and suspicion. It would be a good idea if you would remove yourself from the debate entirely and allow the matter to be discussed by editors who were not involved in it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, your opinion about me is clear. Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't just my opinion. I don't see that you have any support for what has gone on here. You've caused trouble first at Israeli apartheid and now here by acting as an editor/mediator/admin as and when it suits you, mixing up the roles in pursuit of a particular POV. It's a textbook example of what admins shouldn't do, and yet at the same time you take process fetishism to new heights when you think it'll help you. It's not on, it really isn't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For those uninvolved, SlimVirgin and I are both involved in the same ArbCom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I am barely involved in that case, whereas you are at the center of it, and it's a case involving exactly the same problems as here: your confusion of roles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I urge the interested editors to have a look for themselves at the ArbCom case before the decide what is going on. I am not going to drag the extended discussions from there to here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim van der Linde at venus I mean that impartial experienced editors do no care if the articles is temporarily The Wrong Version. This dispute is one of many daily editing disputes that occur on Wikipedia. You are involved in it so it seems extra important to you. If I can make a suggestion. I think you need to take a break from this topic. Perhaps some distance from these articles will help. There are 1,261,193 articles in English. Many of them are in desperate need of editing by an experienced editors/admin. FloNight ^talk 12:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

FloNight, I share your opinion about "the wrong version". -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Kim, I am barely involved in that case, whereas you are at the center of it, and it's a case involving exactly the same problems as here: your confusion of roles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)"

This is a misrepresentation. Slim is one of the admins against whom sanctions are being proposed - Fred Bauder proposed a one month ban - there have been no action proposed against Kim, nor is she accused of having participated in the wheel war that has gotten Slim in trouble. Homey 17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey, quit it. You and Kim van der Linde have caused the entire dispute at Israeli apartheid, and you kept it going at maximum heat and intensity, because that's how you get your kicks at Wikipedia. I've never seen such disregard for the rules about using admin tools between the pair of you. The evidence hasn't yet closed, by the way, and I'm not going to argue it out with you here, because it would make your day. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim, you brought up the arbcomm case and misrepresented it by claiming that Kim was "central" to it while you are "barely involved" when in fact you are facing sanctions and she isn't. As for "disregard for the rules about using admin tools", you are the one who participated in a wheel war, not Kim (or myself) so stop deflecting (or projecting). Homey 17:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

When in fact you are facing sanctions and she isn't

Are you serious? I'm sure that not even you can actually believe that that makes sense, You proposed a bunch of wierd and inappropriate "solutions" that nobody supported and then you claim that that shows that Slim is more involved with the dispute than you or Kim. The fact that there isn't a bunch of stupid proposals involving you and kim really just shows that other people aren't as spiteful or inappropriate as the two of you. I guess the fact that there is nothing on that page that explicity calls for your adminship to be taken away and for you to be banned must show that you are a completely neutral and uninvolved party or at least that you did nothing inappropriate at all in that conflict, is that right?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this really is my last comment. No sanctions have been proposed against Kim because no evidence has been put up about her yet. Only half the evidence is in, Homey. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Homey, please lay off. Ragging on SlimVirgin only gets us deeper. Fred Bauder 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Trolling by user:ARYAN818 and user:Elven6

Hi - I request administrative action against user:ARYAN818 and user:Elven6 for acting like WP:TROLLs. I had lodged a previous report on ANI[15] that apart from the issuance of warnings and a debate on ARYAN818's username, did not restrain these users from trollish behavior on Talk:Sikhism, Talk:Hinduism and the Sikh Panth and on their own talkpages and the talkpage of user:Sukh. These users have spoken offensively to user:Sukh, User:Rajatjghai, user:Gsingh and myself.

Despite repeated and continuous warnings, both ARYAN818 and Elven6 have repeatedly engaged in revert wars, removing comments from their own talkpages, coming close to WP:3RR violations, repeatedly violated WP:NPA (includings religious, personal, political and racial abuse), WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV and WP:POINT, and have been acting like WP:VANDALs and WP:TROLLs.

user:ARYAN818

Relevant Diffs (most recent):[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33]

Relevant Diffs (continuous):[34], [35],[36],[37], [38],[39]

user:Elven6

Relevant Diffs (most recent): [40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50]

Previous Report (continuous):[51], [52], [53],[54]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduization of Sikhism - Elven6 created an article that constituted WP:COPYVIO.

Thank you - I request administrators to take decisive action, as this has been going on for over one month, with a previous ANI report and numerous warnings. This Fire Burns Always 06:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to block both of them for 48hrs. Frankly some of the material discussed isn't for me to understand - well I couldn't see anything obvious from the article edits, but some of the talk page edits seem rather bizarre to say the least and some of the knockabout tone and inappropriate language is very disconcerting. Blnguyen | rant-line 06:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically Aryan argues from a hard Hindu POV, and Elven is oppposite that. The diffs provided illustrate a combination of revert warring, personal attacks, abusive messaging, vandalism and constant disruption of Wikipedia work. This Fire Burns Always 06:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This time I ask for really decisive and follow-up action, because several good editors have taken a lot of hell for over a month over several articles. A thousand warnings have not affected these gentlemen, who haven't even acted in a civil manner aside from the disputes. This Fire Burns Always 06:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Having seen both these users (ARYAN818, Elven6), I endorse these blocks. Both of these users spent most of their time in disrupting the articles and attacking other editors, without adding anything fruitful to the articles in question. ARYAN818 has already been blocked several times for his user name, though he claims 818 is just his area code and has no neo-nazi connotations (though his frequent edit-wars in Aryan provide an interesting insight). I suggest other admins keep an eye on the pages referred to above as frequent edit warring continues to foment there. --Ragib 07:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

ARYAN818 should be permanently blocked for his user name. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

His articles of interest (and manner of edit warring) lead me to believe that he is not a neo-Nazi. While this can also be easily faked, his name in the email address he used to write to the unblock mailing list also had "Aryan" as a first name. Maybe he should be blocked for edit warring, but I don't think he should be indef blocked unless he shows more serious behaviour. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Nazis use the code number "88" ("HH" = "Heil Hitler". This is a clearly inappropriate user name. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And Chinese people use "88" as a good luck number. I've seen plenty of people with "88" at the end of their user name (I mean email address and user names outside of Wikipedia, I don't know anyone here IRL), and they're about as Neo-Nazi as I am. I'd never heard of this 88=HH="Heil Hitler" stuff until here (and as a side rant, Buddhists can't show a certain religious symbol because of the damn swastika). And he's not 88, he's 818. Look, I'm not saying that it's not serious, but there is such a thing as too sensitive. This guy is an edit warrior, sure, but looking at his edits, he doesn't strike to me as a neo-Nazi (at least, not yet). That means that he's certainly a good recipient of a block if he's a persistent edit warrior, but it'll take more evidence to indef-block him for having a neo-Nazi username. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought this had been pointed out already, but in the same way that 88 means HH, 818 means HAH, or Heil Adolf Hitler. And there's the tiny matter of the fact that the code is preceded by the word Aryan. If his username was CuteFluffyKitten818 it might be different, but it's not. The claim that it's a common name sounds fishy to me - I've never heard of anyone called 'Aryan', and after going through two disambig links I only managed to find a single person called 'Arya'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that's the first time I've had that explained to be, and thanks for that. Man, there's a code for friggin' everything these days. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a tough username issue. I appreciate the argument of ARYAN818 (talk · contribs) regarding his user name (on User talk:ARYAN818). I saw the name on RC patrol a while ago, and was about to indef block for username, but after reviewing contribs, I'm pretty sure he's not making a neo-Nazi reference -- Samir धर्म 01:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I will study the matter and shall offer my comments within two to three days. Prima facie, I find that the two users concerned do not care for the guidance and comments of fellow-wikipedians. This is not a good sign. --Bhadani 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Being referred to by name again

"Ryulong! you are not Moot, stop changing other peoples edits." Does this count as a personal attack, too? Ryulong 23:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• All of these are vandalism, but please don't look for the NPA policy. It's not needed, in the first place, and we all take chances when we edit Wikipedia. The gibbering on the talk page and the random edit warring is sufficient for intervention without trying to assess whether or not a person has been insulted. Geogre 02:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Community block on User:Mayor Westfall

Recently User:Adam Bishop blocked this user indefinitely for trolling on WP:RD. Having looked through his contributions, I agree partially: some of his posts are clearly inflammatory (check out his first edit, for instance). I feel that this guy could be unblocked eventually, but certainly not yet. Anyway, I just wanted to post a notice about it here; since this would be a community patience block, I think it merits a mention here at least. Mangojuice^talk 15:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, User:Baron Von Westfall is presently active on WP:RD. — Lomn | Talk 15:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Suspicious. Mayor Westfall was blocked on 7/11, and Baron Von Westfall became active later. FWIW though, Baron Von Westfall seems to be behaving. *shrugs* Mangojuice^talk 15:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So were some of Westfall version 1's. The guy's just a timewaster; he had thirteen main-space edits, and two to article talkspace - one of which was abusive. One Wikipedia: space edit that wasn't to WP:RD (which was on an AFD - "I'm the mayor and I say delete"), and north of a hundred, mostly pointless, questions to WP:RD. As far as I can see he was trying to be funny; it didn't work. On it being unsubtly hinted that we knew he was screwing about, he got abusive; on Tagishsimon making the point clearer, he just strutted. Community patience was definitely exhausted on my part - he was being an idiot, wasting people's time, and not even having the redeeming feature of being funny about it. Shimgray | talk | 16:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There is currently a suspected sock puppet case, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mayor Westfall, with Mayor Westfall (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) being the master and Baron Von Westfall (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) being the sockpuppet. Not only do they have similar names, both of which use the reference desk, here. The account was only created after Mayor Westfall was blocked. Enough to block? Iolakana|T 16:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC) (Merged from other entry on this page by Baron Von Westfall 18:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe this block was justified. I have contributed to Wikipedia in many ways. As to questions on the reference desk, if questioning paradigms, and having a differing view on morallity & ethics is trolling, then would Abraham Lincoln, Rosa Parks, and Socrates also be banned from Wikipedia for their views? The reference desk should be a place for Wikipedia users to ask questions they would like answers to. Many of the questions I have may be provokotive to some, but so would have been "Hey, why don't we free the slaves?" in the early 1800s. I shouldn't have responded to rude comment made by another Wikipedian in the manner I did, but other than that I have done no wrong--certanly nothing close to justifying this ban. In the future, I will try not to respond to personal attacks, like this and this. Btw, why where those users not repromanded for their personal attacks against me. Not a big deal, as I know they won't be--Wikipedia isn't as fair as it should be, but I think they should have been. Baron Von Westfall 14:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

But your username is too similar to the current blocked user. Iolakana|^T 11:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kilo-Lima&curid=2828608&diff=64966492&oldid=64674848 Confirmation of block evasion] has been made in the form of a confession. Please block this sock account and extend the block on User:Mayor Westfall for being an admitted puppet master. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over pending deletion vote of Encyclopedia Dramatica

The notability of the site is still being debated after the issue was first raised a day or two ago, and this deletion was immediately forced through after editors complained about perceived bias (almost immediately after). Admins do a good job, but this does feel like a retaliatory nomination, especially given the ferocity of people to "get rid of it". This nomination so far is heading based on votes to either a weak to solid keep, or a no concensus. If that happens, the article should remain while it gets worked out further on the page itself.

If the vote and discussion from the article is a "keep" or no concensus, I am concerned that some action may be unilaterally taken vs. this article after the vote possibly, going against concensus. Questions in regards to this have been ignored on the vote page, while every other question/comment from parties opposed to the article's existence have been met with swiftness. rootology 00:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a "vote"...--MONGO 04:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That is fine for syntax clarification, thank you. I expect if a decision of keep or no concensus of the discussion is clearly reached, it will be honored as is standard...? rootology 06:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel bad for whoever is going to close that mess. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have evidence that the attempt at deletion was a premeditated act to destroy the article: [55]( other one - threat in edit summary) Hardvice 06:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are strong accusations from you. I think that it would be good if you offered an apology.--MONGO 06:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually no, almost any AFD nom is a "premediated attempt to destroy an article". That is, after all, the point of nominating something for AFD - to remove something that the nominator believes is unsuitable for Wikipedia. I would hope that AFD noms are premeditated - I would hate to think that people would nominate articles for deletion on the spur of the moment. Calling an AFD nom "a premeditated attempt to destroy an article" is like calling article creation a "premeditated attempt to create an article". It is rather impolite to phrase it that way, trying to spin a perfectly normal action into something sinister. Guettarda 06:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

(But very amusing now that you've pointed it out! Tyrenius 07:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

If the community decides they don't want the article, then fine, it can go. I don't see a problem with this. --Lord Deskana (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The actions and comments from certain members of the keep side of the debate are really quite shameful. If anyone wonders why admins burn out or get upset occasionally, one need only look at the onslaught of willful ignorance and the completely undeserved sense of entitlement being utilized by certain members of that debate, threatening current editors who have had the courage to speak their mind, and even against anyone who would potentially enforce policy in regards to this debate. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Examples, please? I've seen no threats or intimidation from anyone but MONGO and Hipocrite, mostly MONGO. Karwynn (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

m:Don't be a dick should have a corollary, m:People are dicks.

Emails

Am I the only who received a ridiculously long-winded ranty email regarding this? Twice actually. The same both time. 207.96.237.60 18:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That was me. I had no activated the cookies when connecting. Circeus 18:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I got one, too [56]. I made a note of it in the AfD. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that every admin (except those complained about, which includes me and MONGO) received a copy. Oh well, at least one recipient has forwarded the silly thing to the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 20:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No copy was sent to my inbox. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Zscout, be careful what you wish for. The only thing I learned from the copy I received was that MONGO was an Admin (for some reason I had presumed he wasn't) -- the letter does not make it clear who is doing what to whom, except that one or more individuals are alleged to be acting very badly. -- llywrch 22:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Was the IP address of the emailer used by any other usernames? Can that be looked into to see who sent it? rootology 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I got this email too. -- JamesTeterenko 20:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the sending IP address in use by any usernames on wikipedia? rootology 20:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I got one too, even though I'm listed in it for deleting an attack image. I guess I'll have to investigate myself ;). NoSeptember 20:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I got two, from different senders. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I got FIVE, from one sender (User:Rptng03509345) -- Samuel Wantman 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And I see hw has now been blocked. Blocking still allows the use of Special:Emailuser, the possibility of blocking that should be requested to prevent abuse? Circeus 22:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I also received such an email from User:Rptng03509345. I guess email needs to be allowed from blocked users as it is one way they can request unblocking.--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• From looking at the linguistic patterns and involvement surrounding this ED issue I have a sneaking suspicion that user Hardvice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is our spammer. Does this type of diff and language seem familiar? (→Netscott) 05:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• the emailer may be using this page as a place to copy and paste from. It has all the same info.--MONGO 10:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User RJ evading ban

Warning: Due to the complexity of this case the following entry is not concise. My apologies.

Background Information

This notice concerns RJII, a user who has been banned indefinately for a series of wiki violations and his own eventual admission of intent to abuse. Vision Thing is a user whose first edit occured on March 19, 2006. Because his first edit was to immediately initiate a discussion on a topic which had recently been the focus of user RJII, he was soon accused by user AaronS of being a sockpuppet. User Infinity0 also suspected Vision Thing of being a sockpuppet, and requested a checkuser. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the RJ "project", as user Logical2u said on the checkuser page, "all accounts by the RJII "team" will likely be undectable and un-check-user-verifiable, due to "home" computers, etc."

Due to lack of evidence from usercheck, the case appears to have been dropped. However, I believe that subsequent edits by user Vision Thing have more than demonstrated, via circumstantial evidence, his intimate connection to RJII. Unfortunately this is the only kind of evidence that could be applied to this case. I have compiled an extensive list of identical edits made by user RJII and Vision Thing. Please note that in my time searching dozens of articles edited by these two accounts I never found a single instance in which either editor reverted or even openly disagreed with one another, despite a tendency by both accounts to engage in edit wars and reverts. When I eventually became certain of Vision Thing being a sockpuppet I attempted to inform twice. Despite making several other edits on his talk page in the meantime, both my attempts remain ignored.

Evidence of Vision Thing and RJ being the same user

As evidence I would first like to note RJII's repeated insistance on indicating that the writers of the anarchist FAQ are "social anarchists". This is the very topic that Vision Thing first used as a subject of his first edit. The similarity of their edits can be seen from these examples by RJ,

• 27 March RJ, 30 March, 3 April, 8 April, 26 April

which can be compared with this edit by Vision Thing after RJ was banned: 9 July

Such instances are not isolated. For example, RJ and Vision Thing inserted the same edits concerning David Friedman on medieval Iceland:

• 24 April RJ
• 25 April Vision Thing
• 26 April RJ

Vision Thing has made many of the same edits that RJ was formally known for inserting since RJ's ban. Benjamin Tucker's "capitalism is at least tolerable" is a quote originally introduced into several articles by RJ:

• 20 May, 20 May

After RJ's ban it has been inserted into articles by Vision Thing in his place: 15 July

Individualist anarchism "reborn", is another quote originally inserted by RJ into the anarchism article:

• 23 June

has since been championed by Vision thing after RJs ban:

• 15 July, 3 July

Way back in January of 2005 RJ started posting many edits about the "U.S. Postal Service monopoly"

• 11 January

not surpirsingly, after RJ was banned nearly identical edits started coming from Vision Thing

• 3 July

And yet another instance, before his ban RJ inserted the following edit into Anti-capitalism: 15 June After RJs ban Vision Thing once again inserted an identical edit: 25 June

These articles and edits are only a small sample, constrained due to my limits on time. Here is a partial list of more articles that each has contributed to, often making the same or very similar edits. Please feel free to look through them to get an idea of the similarity in tone, style, and point of view: An Anarchist FAQ, Economics of fascism, Anarcho-capitalism, Bryan Caplan, Laissez-faire, Capitalism, Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, Anarchism in the United States, Template:Socialism, Criticisms of socialism, Talk:Wage labour, Collectivism, Anti-capitalism, Corporatism, Friedrich Hayek, United States Postal Service, Mixed economy, Free market, Property, Altruism, Natural rights, Negative and positive rights, List of anarchists.

In fact, the total number of edits to pages they hold in common is far greater than those to pages they do not. Yet, despite the fact that these two seem to have identical interests, edits, and political viewpoints, they have never engaged in so much as a "hello", with their only contact being to support one another on arbitration issues or deny that they were the same person.

Evidence of violation of wiki policy by Vision Thing beyond circumventing ban

To my knowledge use of a sockpuppet to circumvent a ban is a violation of wiki policy in itself, however I believe there is plenty of evidence that this sockpuppet is also a violation of the rules on:

• voting (as mentioned above)
• and Creating the illusion of broader support [57], [58]

RJs explicit intentions now carried on in Vision Thing account

It is important to note that when faced with a ban RJ eventually admitted what had previously been obvious to many, that his intent was to use "...advanced techniques of psychological warfare... most importantly, most of our edits were not done through the RJII account but through multiple "sockpuppets" (from a seperate IP(s) for increased security against detection). Hence, the RJII account served largely to wear particular individuals down, pyschologically, who were judged to be enemies."

In admits again to having multiple sockpuppets already prepared and engaged in wikipedia, "In the meantime, the "sockpuppets," who evinced a somewhat amiable personality did not engage in personal attacks and other such disagreeable behavior that may have risked blocks by adminstrators, went about editing the encyclopedia... It is safe now for us to divulge that some of the sockpuppets will continue editing Wikipedia until at least the end of the year."

The edits of RJ and Vision Thing are so nearly identical, and so obviously from the same narrow POV, that it can't helped but be felt that RJIIs intent to be "successful in driving several individuals off of Wikipedia, or away from particular articles, who through their hands up in disgust (probably literally)" is being carried on via the account of Vision Thing. Circumstantial evidence is never certain, but I believe this is as much evidence as one could provide given the difficulty in tracking down all the sock puppets employed by RJIIs account. In the unlikely case that the circumstantial evidence I have compiled does not remove doubt that Vision Thing is a sock puppet of RJ he is at least a Meat Puppet (perhaps in the form of banned user Hogeye who worked closely with RJ in the past). Regardless, Vision Thing is clearly carrying out RJs explicitly stated goals of disrupting wikipedia and gaming the system. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 05:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting analysis. I would tend to concur with you. However as you said, this cannot be proven. I suspect the only thing that can be done in this case is to go through the dispute resolution process and get a similar result to that which was meted out to RJII. You could use the previous two ArbCom judgements against RJII as precedent. - FrancisTyers · 15:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that in any case, RJII also appears to be using a series of throwaway accounts to avoid detection. Accounts like User:Antitrust and User:C-Liberal which were registered since he vanished, made a couple of edits (only two in Antitrust's case) to keep his preferred versions in place, and then promptly disappeared seem like classic socks to me. --Aquillion 17:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the assumption, but nothing can be proven. If his words are any indication, RJII would thrive on this kind of speculation. I'd rather not give him that satisfaction. He can play with this until he's 80 years old, for all I care. I might suggest some professional help, though. --AaronS 01:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would add to the above: CapitalistAnarchist (talk · contribs), who, somewhat comically, was blindly reverted by Lingeron (talk · contribs) in this edit, where Lingeron reverted three days of edits by ten different people to revert to a version by Vision Thing. Even if we don't assume that Antitrust (talk · contribs), C-Liberal (talk · contribs), and CapitalistAnarchist (talk · contribs) are RJII, it can probably be taken as a given based on usernames and contributions that those three are all one user... and I cannot think of any compelling reason why a user would run through three accounts in such a short time unless they were trying to avoid detection. --Aquillion 17:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Also TheIndividualist (talk · contribs). The Ungovernable Force 22:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Casteist And Racist Remarks

Someone is making intentional casteist remarks on some pages(mostly talk pages) related to Marathas. Marathas are universally accepted in Hinduism as Kshatriyas. But this particular user is slandering and maligning Maratha image by typing everywhere that Marathas are Shudras (the lowest caste in Hinduism). This is particlarly insulting to the Maratha community on Wikipedia. The Marathas, builders of a former Hindu empire (see Maratha Empire), being a proud community are aghast at this kind of humiliation. I request the admin to please check this user. He is working through different IP addresses everytime. And he is signing his name as "Manu". Here are hi IP addresses -

• 59.144.101.196 (talk · contribs)
• 59.144.102.20 (talk · contribs)
• 59.144.103.36 (talk · contribs)
• 59.144.106.158 (talk · contribs)

This kind of nonsense slandering must stop.

--NRS^{(talk to me,mail me or award me a barnstar)} 10:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am white, but would saying that I am black or asian be an offense to me? No way. In fact, by stating that somebody/you might feel humiliated by comparison to some other ethnical / whatever group of people, you are being a racist yourself. Azmoc 11:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. While I don't in any way consider Kshatriyas better than Shudras, it seemed obvious to me that calling a Kshatriya a Shudra is an insult... Never crossed my mind that thinking that way amounts to buying into a racist system. Guettarda 14:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As racist and strange as the caste system might sound to us I really think it is inappropriate to refer to it as a racist system, after all, it is followed by millions of hindus, I really think we shouldn't pass judgement on it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Racism doesn't suddenly become acceptable by weight of numbers, so yes, I'm perfectly happy to pass judgment on it for the corrosive, corrupting, and, ultimately, stupid belief system it is. --Calton | Talk 05:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics is the better place of this sort of issues. Tintin (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Can a user deny an unblock?

Can an normal user deny an unblock if it's an obvious no?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea, except in the case of someone not giving IP address or autoblock information, who isn't blocked by name. Then, you could leave {{autoblock}} there and remove the request. I think otherwise, it's important that at least someone who can unblock takes a look. Mangojuice^talk 14:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How about in cases where someone puts an unblock template on a user/IP that isn't blocked at all?--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 14:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's a user or IP and they aren't blocked (or haven't been blocked in a long time), leave the {{autoblock}} message, if they didn't leave the block message. I guess it's also okay in cases where the block shows up but has already been undone or has expired. If you guys want to help, actually, one thing that would be very helpful is to go through the Reviewed requests for unblock, and remove tags that are old or for which the block has expired. The {{unblock reviewed}} template says that the request continues to be visible, but that really isn't true if most of the requests are out of date. Mangojuice^talk 14:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't see why not, generally non-admins can do anything which don't require the admin buttons close RFAs AFDs which are keeps, detag speedies which aren't really speedies etc. --pgk^(talk) 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Corrected RFA --> AFD, as I'm sure that's what Pgk meant, and I *really* don't want to have to deal with the effects of what a misreading of the statment could do at RfA. Essjay (Talk) 00:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha, better than that, has an anon ever tried to close an RfA? I'm sure it would be User:69.145.123.171 if ir was anyone...... The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's no big deal......I won't make any block decisions unless I become an admin, it's not in my power to unblock or protect a talkpage from attacks if the user goes bad. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I posted a couple denials:

1. Case 1: Vandal continued to vandalize articles, after test4, I requested an admin to block, and I posted the blockmessage. When the user requested an unblock, I contacted the admin who performed the block and decided to deny the unblock, so I responded to the unblock request.
2. Case 2: User requests unblock multiple time while I and admins are on rcpatrol. I report the unblock request reason, they deny it, and I post the unblock deny on that user's talkpage on behalf of the admins. This case was brought up in my RfA.

I'd say, the best course of action would be to play it safe and only do so if you have an admin backing you up and willing to vouch for the unblock deny on your behalf. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring over the weather in London

Perhaps it's because London has been basking in 30 degree temperatures, but there's now an edit war over The weather in London. For a long time this was an intentional red link as an example of an article which should not be created. Now, NeonMerlin has decided to create it as a redirect to Climate of London and is trying to eliminate it as an intentional redlink. (Now I'm no climatologist but I always understood there to be a fundamental difference between climate and weather)

It does seem to me that NeonMerlin by recreating the article after several admins have deleted it is beginning to flout the spirit of the 3RR. I'm not sure where consensus is on this but he seems to be the only editor consistently on his side of the argument. Debate is going on at Wikipedia talk:Choosing intentional red links. Opinions welcome. David | Talk 14:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not still "trying" to eliminate it as an intentional redlink: I have finished doing so. Now, the only pages linking to it are those that cite it as an example of an edit war. An edit war which I am trying to end, not prolong, by stopping the use of intentionally permanent red links that look like potential article subjects. (See Wikipedia:Choosing intentional red links.)

In general, I support WP:1RR. However, I feel the deleting admins are out of process, since they are not discussing this on the appropriate page, despite that a note on the page itself, and the talk page, leads them there and asks them to discuss before deleting. NeonMerlin 15:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Weather does not = Climate, does that help at all?File:Face (Wikispecies Welcome Message).png--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 15:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but weather and climate are both discussed on the Climate of London article, which should perhaps be renamed "Weather and climate of London." NeonMerlin 15:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no they aren't, unless someone blanked the entire article when i wasn't looking--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 15:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Dbiv says the redirect is inappropriate. If he is right, which I am not sure of, I would suggest making it a protected deleted page and using the template, now that it no longer needs to be red. My fear is that if it remains red, it will still be used as an example red link, spurring both well-intentioned edits and vandalism. On the other hand, if the link is blue and the page (or its talk) leads them to WP:IPRL, I think editors will choose better red link examples, i.e. phrases that don't look like potential article subjects. NeonMerlin 15:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:NeonMerlin does seem to be causing an edit war while claiming to prevent one. This includes recreating deleted content despite the exiting consensus to leave this as a red link, while in pursuit of a proposed policy which at this stage has had minimal discussion and as yet no consensus. --Henrygb 18:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not my fault that not enough people can be bothered to speak up yet. However, bear in mind that nobody appears to have raised any objections to, let alone reverted, the edits that brought these red link examples into disuse in the first place. Instead of blaming me for a few admins' rash decision to speedy the weather in London and ask questions later, I'd appreciate it if everyone else could discuss the relevant guideline proposal on its own merits so that consensus can be reached and it (or an alternative) can become official as soon as possible. As it is, it will probably take all summer to get a guideline in place. That's why we have one of my favourite guidelines: WP:BOLD. NeonMerlin 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User revealing personal information

User:Karwynn is maintaining a series of attack pages in his userspace, which I expect few would care about. However, on two of these attack pages, he links a valuable contributor to wikipedia's IP address to his username. I have requested that he not do this, but he has refused.

Request to user: [59]

Attack page designed only to propigate IP address: User:Karwynn/Compiling_Evidence/data_dump_to_be_sorted

Section of other attack page used only to propigate IP address: User_talk:Karwynn/Compiling_Evidence#Might_be_relevant.2C_adding_for_my_own_later_review. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to my good faith attempt to ascertain the best course of action here. I do not know the policy well, I am open to comment.

Perhaps this is unimportant, but please note Hipocrites appeal to a friendly admin about this matter who I have pror history with. Karwynn (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Note in same talk page that same admin said nothing should be done. Any additional action by Hipicrite should be taken as trolling on this matter. rootology 16:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Any further attempts by Karwynn to "out" any other editor will cause him to be blocked. Last warning. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

admin Zanimum violating hot button article protection

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&action=history

Please review and get him to stop. This article is locked, is under AfD, and the crux of half the arguments revolved around perceived admin bias based on the fact an admin was attacked on the 3rd party site the article in question is about. Why is this admin being allowed to edit a protected article under AfD condtion? It needs to be immediately reverted back to this version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&oldid=64682131

And this abusive admin stopped immediately. rootology 16:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Back on topic, this abusive admin continues to make unchallenged, undiscussed, unilateral edits on a protected page being discussed for AfD. We need an admin to stop him and revert the edits he is doing in violation of policy. Its a protected article and his edits are inappropriate. rootology 17:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Zanimum has reverted himself, leaving only minor formatting edits. Move along, nothing to see here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. This is the second time an admin has changed content on this article in some fashion while it was locked, and editors had no ability to revert. What is the actual, official policy on edits done to locked articles? Zanium on the talk page also stated he would not revert, which to me is abusive. rootology 17:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How about you actually read the policy before making such accusations? --InShaneee 20:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I had read them.

"In addition, admins should avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless one version is vandalism. In this case, the protecting sysop may choose to protect the non-vandalism version." - thats my objection.

"Administrators should be cautious about editing protected pages and do so in accordance with consensus and any specific guidelines on the subject. In most cases, administrators should first raise the issue on the relevant talk page, unless a case of obvious trolling and/or revert warring, or blatently unsuitable content." not done, another objection.

"In the following specific cases, an exception is made:" - none apply. Thats it. I'm done. Cheers. rootology 21:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It says "be cautious"; it doesn't outright prohibit it. --InShaneee 00:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we saying that admins get final say on content then? They can unilaterally change ANYTHING on an article, and if a 'regular' editor doesn't like it, protection can be used as empowerment of the admin's viewpoints on what that featured content should be? Because to be frank, his breathless "the edits stay" can be construed by anyone as saying "I'm not changing it and you can't do a damn thing about" due to the protection in place. rootology 15:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like the "be cautious" part applies to indefinately-protected pages, such as the main page or templates; the page in question is a "temporarily protected page", which falls under the section above the one you were reading. That says, in an extremely straightforward fashion:

Do not edit or revert a temporarily protected page, except to add a protected page notice, a link to Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute or Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, or a similar disclaimer about the current state of an article, unless there is widespread agreement that the page was protected in violation of these policies.

Of course, common sense should also be applied, and I don't think these edits were really such a big deal; but they weren't direly needed, either. Part of the purpose of protection is to force people to come to the talk page and participate in discussions about the article's direction; if admins start handling seemingly trivial maintenance edits on temporarily protected pages, that encourages people to leave the page protected longer, and increases the chance that editors who are generally happy with the protected version will stay out of discussions. The annoyance of being unable to make small corrections like these is part of what makes protection work the way it does. --Aquillion 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

People found some sources in real newspapers, not blogs of Encyclopedia Dramatica, and I think those should get linked at the bottom of the article, protected or not. Hardvice 00:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not something to discuss here. --InShaneee 00:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony Alamo article

Recent edits to the Tony Alamo article have added the full name of a child who was allegedly abused at the direction of Alamo in the late 80's. Since no reliable source has printed the name of the child as far as I can tell, it seems that revealing the name in this article could potentially be illegal under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (rather, the laws passed in every U.S. state designed to conform to this federal act). I am not absolutely certain that this is illegal (as this would require research of a lot of states' laws), but given that every state has passed laws to conform to the federal act and because the federal act requries the states to keep child abuse reports and records confidential, I think it's definitely possible. My posting on the article's talk page explains the problem in a little more detail. Thanks. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 18:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure myself. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If in doubt, cut it out. Generally, every state that I've ever lived in has not only kept the names of minors secret, but they have additionally ruled that such sealed records cannot be brought up at a later date, so it wouldn't even matter if the victim had passed the age of majority since. There is zero benefit and great harm to exposing the name. Geogre 19:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'd have to delete more than one edit, possibly violating the GFDL here. My personal policy is if in doubt don't delete. No one has opened any sealed records here, the info came from a web site. There was no prosecution so it was only an allegation of child abuse. The minor in question is an adult now. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Inproper deletion

Hi, not sure exactly what to do here, this is a new problem for me. One of my subpages was being considered for deletion, see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Karwynn/Compiling_Evidence/data_dump_to_be_sorted. In the midst of ongoing discussion about its merit, during which 3 of the four participants agreed it was harmless, User:Tony Sidaway speedy deleted it without even mentioning the matter. THe reason, "attack page", was the subject on ongoing discussion on the MfD page. I have discussed it with him, proposing continued discussion and compromise, but feel his answer is unsatisfactory and request a second outside administrator opinion. Karwynn (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony acted properly; the top of the page begins with "Below are links to edits by multiple users. Because these users are administrators, they will likely use the article delete power to hide them." and Karwynn, on occasion in the page, is trying to figure out the ISP of one admin, MONGO. This is a form of harrasment and Tony acted properly to have this deleted before the MFD is finished. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is incorrect. The page is a copy of a former page, I am not the original author. Additionally, if that is the only problem, I will recreate it, delete the first paragraph, and delete any mention about the IP. Thank you for (finally) clarifying the problem. Note once again that the page was not an attack page. Karwynn (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

People, in the past, have allowed to keep evidence for related issues, RFC's and RFAr's; but anything that is trying to "out" an editor usually gets deleted for being an attack page. An example of outing is trying to figure out the ISP of a person, real name of a person, real location and their real job (unless, of course, the subject of the investigation gives it out willing). But since MONGO and others have not, then it is considered harrasment. It doesn't matter where it came from, nor if you were the original posted, the reason why we have pointed it to you is that the page is in your userspace. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm particularly shocked to see the results of another wiki's checkuser pasted in there. They may have low standards for IP outing but we don't. Mackensen (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism is not the same as attacking. I agree that the IP addresses are a concern, but those could have been removed while leaving the rest of it. There's discussion of this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Karwynn also. Friday (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was the entire thing deleted and not just the offending material? That was--as the note mentioned--a copy paste of a previous diff that multiple users were actively checking against. My note also said it would be removed after. It seems the IP info at most should have been removed, not the 40-50+ referenced links. Why was that information removed as well? It is all public record in the WP history; we had simply compiled it into one location for Good Faith analysis, criticism and review. rootology 19:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Can ED drama stay on Encyclopedia Dramatica please?? --Cyde↔Weys 19:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

THe issue is not about ED, please make an effort to be informed and not dismissive. Karwynn (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't ED drama. See my above post. It is a criticism/review of whether Tony overstepped what is an appropriate deletion. rootology 19:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As you yourself (rootology) so willingly splurted above, "Any additional action {...} should be taken as trolling on this matter."

You're not going to convince people of the importance of following up your claims of supposed process violations when you continue to willingly post personal identifying information and dismiss the importance of avoiding personal attacks. This entire crusade of your fellow ED editors here on WP (defending the article, attacking people and then claiming process vios) is a major violation of WP:POINT, and an obvious (and quite pathetic) attempt at intimidation of users. Might fly on ED, but not on WP. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't know that it was MONGO's IP, and if it was, and confirmed (not to us, in general) as MONGO's IP by an admin, that info can be removed. If it wasn't his IP it's a random vandal IP and no harm to leave it up--anymore than the thousands of others scattered in notes all over WP. Was it appropriate for everything on the page to nuked and the earth salted? In any event, everyone else can fight this now. I had nothing to do with ED and came to the defense of what (opinion) seemed like MONGO's friends defending overreaching actions as an admin. I did not know that researching/compiling public WP records for a possible perceived violation by a user was against the rules. rootology 19:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Does rootology have an ED account? Begging the question? YOur premise is faulty, faulty, faulty. Karwynn (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't. rootology 19:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever he claims, it's unverifiable. WP:V. Much like other trolls I've met (Karwynn, or whatever your prior names have been), you answer with a misstatement of the question. The pathetic actions of a troll are not often this conspicuous. And I sense from the response to your pleadings here that the community's patience is fading. Return to ED, or choose other areas of focus for WP... if contributing to the article is indeed your goal at all. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at every one of my my edits before this ED disaster pulled me in. NOTHING to do with it. I worked on my own little baby project, and a bunch of comics/TV related stuff. We'll have to just agree to disagree in good faith that this sad mess is littered with bias on both sides--possible bias on some staff/admin/whatever pro-MONGO, some editors/admins pro-ED. I'm done with this and am going back to my old stuff. I kept trying to argue that everyone stay neutral but the attacks just kept swirling from *both* sides (fact). Sorry if anyone's time was wasted. rootology 20:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like ED drama to me - someone gets ahold of MONGO's IP from a CheckUser on ED and then people on here run around releasing that information. --Cyde↔Weys 19:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, sir. I had no idea if that was really his IP, that's why it was up in the first place, to compare contribs. I've stated here and copied that diff link to several other places that I didn't know if it was really his IP, and that if it really was, I would take it down because it would be moot. Karwynn (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In view of the nature and provenance of this material, I don't think assumption of good faith is appropriate here. It was correctly speedied. --Tony Sidaway 19:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly and feel that you came from a biased position in light of your history with MONGO and Hipicrite. Another admin should have dealt with this. In any event I'm done. Everyone else can fight over perceived or factual bias on this one. rootology 19:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cyde. This has everything to do with ED, and is therefore ED drama. I am sick and tired of this. This garbage does not belong on this site. We have much better work to do. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm unwatching this page (and nearly all this ED related cesspool). I'm just sick of all of this. Sorry again if anyone feels their time was wasted--I'm going back to my old projects. If anyone has any important questions or whatever for me hit me on my talk page or email me if it's private. rootology 20:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

IMO, if the discussion lasted longer than 5 minutes on this topic than it was too long. We aren't a internet hosting service. We allow some extra stuff on users subpages for the work of writing the encyclopedia or to make the place more enjoyable. If something is disruptive in anyway it needs to go. The sooner the better because it will cause less disruption that way. FloNight ^talk 20:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but sadly, as is often the case, the deletion of the "disruptive" material ended up causing more disruption than the presence of that material. Friday (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone else has been affected here, but I've also been getting email spam from at least two users about 'innapropriate admin action' on this deletion, which upon investigation is really nothing worth noting. --InShaneee 20:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sweet fancy Moses this entire issue needs its own notice board, it's clogging up both WP:AN, and WP:AN/i, get a grip people--64.12.116.65 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, cry me a river....the IP isn't mine anyway.--MONGO 21:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• missing the point? this is the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, why is this here at all?--64.12.116.65 21:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I felt like adding something...there was a complaint, and this is the proper forum. You're missing the point anon.--MONGO 22:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant this entire header, why is it here at all? this meets a new level of off-topicness, even for AN/i, it has nothing to do with anything administrative, and it's not an incident--64.12.116.65 22:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• What's this edit <stalking deleted - User:Zoe|^(talk)> 03:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)>? Hardvice 23:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Meaningless is what it is, if he doesn't want to disclose if it's his IP, then that's his choice, you pushing isn't going to change anything--64.12.116.65 23:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

About Zoe's removal. I thought MONGO would want to leave it as it is and say, "That's not me." If he wants it hidden and it is him, that's fine, just don't say it isn't him. But if he says it's not him, that's different. The removed link was actually posted on one of these boards earlier by another user and it's still up to my knowledge. Hardvice 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's it. Blocking this fellow for blatant trolling. Three hours I guess. --Tony Sidaway 03:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Karwynn for this edit attacking MONGO. --Tony Sidaway 17:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hunter91

Hi, I have a problem which encompasses a question on policy. As you'll see here, [60], Hunter91 (talk · contribs) feels that I'm incorrect in some of my advice to him and my actions in an AfD (all of my correspondance has been deleted from his talk page, but with history: [61]). He's removed votes from an AfD, claiming that they were by sockpuppets and he left no comment on the AfD discussion [62]. He also changed my nomination, leaving no comment. The users he has labelled as sockpuppets have no warnings for sockpuppetry on their talk pages. From what I can see, the user has a history of removing comments which conflict with his beliefs on the article talk page Talk:Battle_Field_2 like here. I feel that this user is distrupting wikipedia (to an extent), and am trying to get in contact with an admin to see if they can/will do anything about it. The response I'm hoping for is a kind word to Hunter91 and a revert of his edits to the afd page (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_Field_2). Thanks Martinp23 20:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Do not alter other people's comments. If he thinks they belong to sockpuppets, he should add a note to the discussion for the closing admin, but removing AFD comments or nominations without leaving comments is not acceptable. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am with Martin. I voted for the 'Delete' of the article, and then he comments saying that the vote was done by a sock puppet! I am most certainly not a sock puppet! I also commented against the article in the discussion page, but he deleted my comment. He's then accusing everyone of being vandals. If you compare the article of Battle Field 2 to Battlefield 2: Modern Combat, there's a huge difference. You gotta help. Seriphyn 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I re-added a delete vote that he had removed and then he accused me of being a "sockpuppet and a vandal" - someone might want to have a polite word. --Charlesknight 21:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark Bourrie

Mark Bourrie has a semi-protected tag but is being edited, usually in a disruptive way, by anon. editors. I'm not sure what the problem is. Thanks. JGGardiner 22:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the article was tagged as sprotected but I don't see anything in the log that says it actually was sprotected. Fan-1967 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:NYTheaterHistorian Continues to post personal info

User:NYTheaterHistorian continues to post another user's personal information, including this individual's alleged current place of employment on his talk page [[63]]. Wikipedia pages pertaining to this individual have been deleted, yet, NYTheaterHistorian continues to re-post old warnings and discussions of the deleted pages on his own User Talk page, including derogatory statements about this individual and personal information.

Neither User:NYTheaterHistorian, nor his sock puppet User:OffOffBroadway behave like legitimate Wikipedia editors. Any reasonable person reviewing the contribution history of "both" these individuals can see that nearly all of their "editorial" contributions have been geared towards a targeted campaign of harrassment against this person.

Will somebody, please, do something?--MissMajesty 22:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The information posted on my discussion page is all relevent in explaining edits that were done in trying to work towards truth on two pages, which have now been deleted due to being seen as self promotion and of being not worthy of having pages. There are no derogatory statements that I have posted; simly truths in explaining my actions. Information that she says is personal is information that was relevant and specific to the pages she created. No contact information such as phone numbers or addresses have been given; simply information relevant to the page, and available with a simple google search. user:missmajesty has been noted as puppet master of numerous logins and has been threatening me with legal threats. This user is selectively removing information off of my discussion page, yet leaving the numerous 'warnings' that she left for me in hopes that I would not make legitimate and factual edits to the pages she created, at the same time mistakenly leaving the same warnings for an administrative editior. She is also incorrect in stating that user:offoffbroadway is a sockpuppet of mine; that is a completely seperate person and I encourage any administrative research to see that this is so. Kind regards, --NYTheaterHistorian 18:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the information from my discussion page that user:missmajesty has questioned as personal. --NYTheaterHistorian 19:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

PoV Edit War

ED209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and JohnnyCanuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been continuously adding PoV comments to both Michael Di Biase and Vaughan municipal election, 2006. Myself and a number of other editors have attempted to reason with them, to no avail. Discussions on both article talk pages have shown that the only people who believe the information should be included are the two users mentioned above. Every other objective editor believes that they have no place in the articles. Could someone step in and make a definitive ruling please? These people have demonstrated they have no interest in abiding by community consensus. Thanks - pm_shef 22:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Di Biase had three consecutive traffic tickets 'misplaced' by the police, and this was suspicious enough for the Toronto Star and the local newspaper to report. How does a ticket just vanish? This would be a lucky coincidence for most people, but when it involves the allegedly corrupt Mayor of the allegedly most corrupt council in Canada, luck may not be involved. Energyblue 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Also where is this so called "community consensus"? If you go to the [talk page], you'll see that only one person agrees with Pm_shef, and that's JamesTeterenko. Bearcat says that he has "no strong opinion about whether the traffic incidents belong in the article" and CJCurrie writes "I don't have any strong opinions about Michael Di Biase, and I'm willing to grant that the information could perhaps be presented in a neutral and encyclopedic manner." The question is, is pm_shef, the son on Vaughan Councillor Alan Shefman, capable of writing objectively about City Hall? Energyblue 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• PLEASE NOTE, Energyblue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is most likely a sockpuppet of User:VaughanWatch. - pm_shef 20:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

serial copyvios and vandalism by Yr41193

Yr41193 (talk · contribs · count) has been uploading copyrighted images and either not indicating a license or claiming them for his own work. Today I have marked three images he uploaded and claimed as his own work as possible copyvios, Image:Jsesecurities.jpg, Image:Chevy07Impala.jpg and Image:ChevMalibu07.jpg. Yr41193 has now posted a strange message about an image I have not touched to my talk page here and then vandalized my talk page here. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And now I see Yr41193 replaced another editors's signature block with his own on his (Yr41193's) talk page, here. He may just be a floundering newbie, but deliberately misrepresenting the source of copyright images is not benign.-- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Citing own material in which financial interest exists

On the Attachment Therapy page user JeanMercer continues to add as a reference a book she wrote with two others, Sarner and his spouse, Rosa. Mercer receives royalties for this and is a leader of the advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy, which financially benefits from the book sales. She has been warned once about this and I put a note on her talk page as a second warning. I'd appreciate your advice and interventionn here. RalphLender 23:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's bad form, but is it against policy? How is the book regarded by others? Would it ever be cited by someone not involved with it? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's self-published (or otherwise small circulation), it's not considered a reliable source. --InShaneee 00:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not self-published, but was brought out by Praeger, an imprint of Greenwood. This is an academic press that provides initial expert review, developmental review, and professional editing services. Jacket comments were provided by Elizabeth Loftus and Frederick Crews, and there is a series forward by Hiram Fitzgerald of the World Association for Infant Mental Health (the series was Child Psychology and Mental Health). This book was cited by the APSAC task force in 2006 with respect to the use of Attachment Therapy. However, as is the case for many serious books, the royalties have been very small-- I would suppose each author has realized no more than $200 from the book in the three years it has been out, rather less than it took to prepare the ms.. This is in fact the only single publication that gives a thorough analysis of the topic, and that is why I cite it.

I could, of course, avoid being the subject of such complaints if I did not reveal my identity, but I consider it important for people to know who is speaking about a subject so relevant to the well-being of children and families.

Incidentally, I applaud the distinction made by InShanee between self-published and other material, but I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that today there are a number of what one might call "printer-ready publishers" who provide none of the services of a company like Praeger, but permit authors to avoid having their work tagged "self-published." Such publishers add complexity to the existing problem of identifying authoritative information without careful reading and analysis.Jean Mercer 13:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Zereshk Internal Spamming

The user has been internally spamming to try and get a favorable outcome on this afd. Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view. (Wikipedia:Spam) [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78][79] [80] [81] [82]--Jersey Devil 01:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm rolling back as many 'notices' as I can, and issuing a stern warning to Zereshk. However, it appears he's also been busy trolling for meatpuppets, which I think deserves looking into seperately. --InShaneee 02:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I honestly think that a temporary block is neccessary here, this kind of action isn't going to stop with a warning on his talk page and will just be brushed off. I also don't think it is fair to the rest of us who want a fair afd process and who do not resort to this action to get keep votes on afds.--Jersey Devil 02:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I've removed the messages. He's not currently spamming, and unless he starts again, he's not going to be blocked. --InShaneee 02:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If he starts up again, do what you have to do, with my support. --Tony Sidaway 03:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that he was also doing it externally, on the Persian Wikipedia: [83]. And I've been told there are precedents of similar behaviour: [84], [85]. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for informing us on that I am going to tell InShanee in his talk page.--Jersey Devil 06:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Those posts all belong to the period before Zereshk was asked to stop spamming other pages. --Aminz 06:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Another question, and an important one: Zereshk has now vowed to continue spamming off-site, which of course he can't be caught in the act as easily. Any suggested course of action? --InShaneee 16:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain he's been doing just that anyway, in similar earlier cases too. And his behaviour is being rewarded: there are in fact around a dozen new keep votes on that AfD by now, almost all from Iranian users. It's exactly this sort of behaviour that has made pages like Misconceptions about the Shi'a (even worse piece of POV writing) survive up to three successive AfD's, apparently. Probably nothing much than an Arbcom ban would be able to stop him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've issued a 48 hour block for the moment, and if I ever see that his 'groupies' show up mysteriouly in any more AfDs, I'll be more than happy to block again for longer. --InShaneee 18:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Aminz Request :

Aleged Injustice: Can other admins please have a look into this: ** Is 48 Hours block appropriate for such violation of policies? ** I seriously doubt! Zereshk has remained civil and hasn't done any vandalism. He has spammed some pages and this was his first time. Later, he has said to a particular user that he will inform him next time via email (please note his tone in that comment which seems not to be serious though it was very improper). I have seen all the relevant evidences & I personally find this block as it stands to be injustice (48 hours! for doing something once!). --Aminz 01:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Another evidence: One reason that I like another admin to look into this is that when InShaneee first warned Zereshk of not spamming, InShaneee warned Zereshk of getting blocked. I was completely surprised when I saw that. I've been around in wikipedia for awhile and have got a sense of the warnings. Nobody gives a {{test4}} to a person who has done vandalism for his first time. --Aminz 01:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am requesting again. Can any other admin for the sake of God have a look into this case. Thanks --Aminz 07:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Another evidence : User InShaneee believes: "As I said, policy is policy and if you break it, it's broken. Sure, he didn't vandalize, but spamming is a policy too, and such flagrant disregard cannot go unnoticed... Showing such disregard for policy is the mark of a troll, and users who show no willingness to follow policy are often blocked indefinatly."

I personally think InShaneee is not taking the required steps one by one in dealing with user Zereshk. Blocking a user (particularly for 48 hours) should be only taken as the last resort. InShaneee, on the other hand, is trying to identify Zereshk's comment as a mark of being a troll. This is a very quick judgment based on a single comment and I believe InShaneee is over-generalizing the situation. Furthermore, this block doesn't serve in a constructive manner. I am still confused why InShaneee didn't warn Zereshk of not showing disregard for the policy. Much worst things happen in wikipedia all the times, but the admins are much more tolerant (and they are supposed to be). Just put yourself in Zereshk's shoes: He is going to be accused of having the mark of a troll and getting banned for 48 hours in his first violation of a policy!!!!! (well! two policies) --Aminz 07:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Unregistered editor impersonating others.

After a messy content dispute, an unregistered user (IP changing, last seen one user talk: 24.205.142.99) is making all manner of havoc on Firebender, specifically talk page. He’s pretending to be other editors, making insults and so forth and signing the post fraudulently. He’s also inserting random spelling errors in other editors talk-page comments. Furthermore, his talk page had several attempts to talk to him about it, all of which he removed with a notice saying “+ Whateva' I'll do what I want!” I know I and others would like this to stop, for obvious reasons.--Fyre2387 03:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours, though as you've said, the IP rotates. I've s-protected the Firebender page, so at the very least it won't be the target of further vandalism from the IP for now. JDoorjam Talk 03:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Tribalwar AFD Page

Has gotten lots of hit with personal attacks -- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tribalwar -- and has nothing to do with the subject matter. -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 04:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend the personal attacks be removed, but would rather have clearnce to proceed. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 04:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty grotesque. There has been a huge influx of red accounts and IP's, all showing up in an instant and uttering nonsense. I'm not sure that anyone will be able to close the thing and feel secure about the decision, so I'd guess that DRV will be necessary. At any rate, actual personal attacks can be stricken through (the old <s> </s> tags), as that leaves them where they are but shows that the remarks are clutter and insults. Geogre 10:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Very nasty business, though inevitable - after all, it was nominated by a Wikipedia user with some sort of previous personal dispute with some (possibly many) of the forum members (see here and here). Nothing good was ever going to come of this - in fact, I suspect the only reason the AfD hasn't been closed as bad-faith is either that the editor is sufficiently well-established to get away with it, that the admins reckon a reasonably proper AfD process can still be salvaged from this mess (and I hope it's this one), or that no-one has noticed yet. - makomk 20:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Administrators pushing their own POV

This is a serious problem. Take a look here and you'll see that MONGO and tom harrison are pushing their own POV's and also not being civil (using terms "conspiracy theorist") How long is it going to take for wikipedia to ditch them already? They (and others) are nothing but troublemakers. CB Brooklyn 04:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where MONGO or tom harrison called you that. Mind providing a diff to an actual edit instead of the whole freakin' history page? Additionally, I don't see why you need to take an editorial dispute to ANI. Shouldn't you handle it with an RfC or something? Kasreyn 08:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks more like a case of administrators pushing policy to me. Just zis Guy you know? 14:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if they are pushing policy at the expense of unsourced crap, something should be done! Barnstars? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a STERN barnstar. You have been awarded this as a warning that you are doing something right. Please continue. If you do, you may find yourself being severely complimented without further warnings.

STERN barnstars. --InShaneee 17:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

*dies laughing* ^_^ Kasreyn 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's too good an opportunity to miss! <heads for Photoshop> Here you go... :-) -- ChrisO 20:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You're my new hero, ChrisO. :) --InShaneee 20:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Great barnstar, I agree.  :) --Elonka 21:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone going to award it? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism, removal of talk page warnings and minor incivility. Could escalate.

Deletion vandalism by User:Crossmr, on Furry Fandom article: [86]; then removes warnings from talk page: [87] [88]. User has history of previous similar behavior and was recently given a temporary ban. - 81.178.86.15 04:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

legitimate revert. User knew the content was disputed by his edit summary and the sources are dubious at best. Article has a long history of anon IPs trying to push negative content into the article, usually with no or dubious sources. --Crossmr 04:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

A second revert. [89] Article has a history of POV-pushing from all sides (although my edit wasn't POV and had citations). - 81.178.86.15

Your sources are disputed. Discuss them at the appropriate place. Running to ANI to protect dubious sources isn't proper procedure.--Crossmr 04:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleting content from articles because you believe the sources are disputed rather than discussing it first is not proper procedure. As I said on your talk page this isn't why I mentioned the incident anyway; your constant deletions and reverts of anything that doesn't meet your standard of verifiablity, and hostile behavior and attitude in general are damaging the article. You have a history of doing this and have been warned by administrators for it in the past. [90] [91] - 81.178.86.15 05:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It was considering you were already aware of the disputed nature. Adding content without proper citation is seen as vandalism. You might also try and keep the discussion to the topic at hand rather than trying to dredge up something to discredit me. It shows the weakness of your point, and the block was inappropriate. Do you have anything to actually suppor the material you want to include or are you just trying to sling mud to cover your tracks? --Crossmr 05:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Continuing to throw around accusations of vandalism is a poor way to address this situation. If we can shift the conversation away from who's "guilty" of what and towards what the contents of the article should be, that will be good. Nobody is vandalizing here, because we are all out to improve the encyclopedia, so be definition, no vandalism. The only disagreement is over how to improve it, and you won't resolve that by throwing accusations at one another. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The contents of the article should focus on furry fandom, a genre which focuses on anthropomorphic animals. The dispute, in a nutshell: The Furry Fandom article has long been the target of so-called "humor" websites who think it's funny to attempt to get misinformation incorporated into the article because they think the editors who fix it are "taking the internet too seriously." Deliberately adding misinformation to Wikipedia does in fact qualify as Sneaky Vandalism. This has been a chronic problem with the furry fandom article.

User:Crossmr has been helping to improve the article quality by requesting references for material. User:81.178.86.15 is trying to cite dubious so-called "humor" websites as serious references; they are not.

As always, I welcome any suggestions of possible remedies to ongoing Sneaky Vandalism. SOP has been to delete it when it occurs, but this is generally an uphill battle against people whose main goal is to make editors waste their time for entertainment. —Xydexx 05:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Labelling Disinfo as a humour site is your POV - its Wikipedia entry doesn't refer to it as such. The source wasn't a humour site either. Again you refer to my attempts to balance the article as vandalism. This is exactly why I lodged the incident - it's an uphill battle trying to make any kind of edit to this article that goes against the grain of the opinions of the small POV group of editors controlling. It seems regardless of how many citations you use, they'll always take some issue with it, whilst completely ignoring the citations regarding content that validates their POV. - 81.178.86.15 05:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky Vandalism is defined as: "Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos." It'd probably qualify as "Silly Vandalism," except after dealing with it for a while it ceases to be funny. The article has a long history of edits from people who enjoy adding non-notable, irrelevant, and even completely fabricated information to it for humor value. This is Wikipedia, not Uncyclopedia. I refer to your attempts to incorporate misinformation into the article as vandalism. —Xydexx 06:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Xydexx, you may be right, that our IP friend is deliberately adding misinformation, but it doesn't appear to me to be remotely obvious that that's the case, and in my experience, deciding that someone else is acting with bad faith intentions is a good way to guarantee that the discussion doesn't go well. Let's put the "v-word" aside and focus on the content, and explaining very clearly for anyone who wants to read just what's wrong with the IP's edits, preferably at the article's talk page. This is a content dispute, and there's no reason the people involved shouldn't be able to resolve it without an AN/I thread over who think's who is a vandal. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

My addition was cited, and it's not actually vandalism to add content without proper citation anyway. You've yet to fully explain what you felt was inappropriate about my edits or sources in any case. - 81.178.86.15 05:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have on the talk page of the article. Maybe you should visit there as that is where the discussion should be taking place. --Crossmr 05:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

155.72.100.4 and 24.34.73.135

These IPs (probably one person) had been vandalizing the Crispa Redmanizers and the Toyota Super Corollas pages. I've notified 155.72.100.4 on his talk page when he notified me on my talk page. Then 24.34.73.135 sent me this:

Hoy Putang ina ka na! tigilan mo na 'to pabalik balik natin. wala ka namang na-contribute sa article na 'to

Which rougly translates to:"Hey! <bleep> Stop reverting my edits. You don't contribute anything in the article." I'm requesting an indefinite block on these two IPs. Or any block will do. Even a sem-protect on the two pages. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 04:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Bonnieisrael

I'd appreciate another administrator stepping in here. Ever since I took a hard line against User:Israelbeach, I have been targetted by his sockpuppets and friends both on and off the wiki. Israelbeach crossed the lines and is effectively under community ban, but his puppets are still allowed to edit. user:Bonnieisrael is now trying to engage me in another personal edit war. As in: [92] Which I foolishly corrected: [93] And was of course reverted: [94]. I know I have a part in this too, but I'd like to point out Bonnieisrael's history. She was blocked by Slimvirgin as a suspected sockpuppet of Israelbeach, for this sort of behavior and worse. She was unblocked by Jredmond. Jredmond promised Slimvirgin to keep an eye out [95], Slimvirgin said she would reblock Bonnieisrael for continuing this kind of behavior [[96]. Bonnieisrael has since contributed almost nothing but more Israelbeach-type edits. Jredmond has ignored my protests about Bonnieisrael's continued disruptive editing [97]. I'd also like to point out that as an administrator, I could easily block any one of Israelbeach's sockpuppets myself, and I believe I would by fully justified in doing so - but I excercise restraint because I am personally involved. I count on other administrators to use clearer judgment. But mostly I think other administrators can't be bothered to check what these sock/meatpuppets are up to. --woggly 05:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know about the rest of your dispute, but generally it's considered more polite to dispute someone's claim by replying to it saying "That's wrong" than to edit their claim to what you think is correct. --Improv 13:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And this my impropriety was the only aspect anyone thought worth responding to. Fine. I'm sure Israelbeach will be happy to continue populating Wikipedia with his sockpuppets, including the new baby: User:Jerusalemrose, and make many useful contributions to his self-promotion campaign wikipedia. I will no longer stand in his way. Heaven forbid, I might be tempted to be impolite again. --woggly 19:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Woggly, I've left a note for Jredmond, [98] as he should deal with it in the first instance as the unblocking admin. Please keep me posted, so I know that it's being looked into. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Wp willis

User:Wp willis [99] has done some strange stuff. Reverts following his edits don't work - bring up edit conflict with unrelated pages. When I tried to block the account - the record shows no block. WOW attack? Vsmith 11:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK - the block shows up on [100] - hmm. Still cannot revert his changes to Age of the Earth [101] - and when I try to view next change I get an error [102]. What's happening? Vsmith 12:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Trying to revert to older version of Age of the Earth brings this [103] ?? Vsmith 12:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There was an issue with the database earlier today, I think this may be screwed. Just zis Guy you know? 12:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There was a similar problem on Earth which was fixed? by a vandalism edit by user:Wo0sh [104] - seems an odd coincidence. Vsmith 12:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems some of the the diffs above show something different now - maybe it was just a databas screwup. All those Ws gave me the willys :-) Vsmith 12:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Some sort of database screwup is crossing the streams. Make a null edit to uncross them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Dance Portal?

On the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Dance, the Featured article is replaced with the sentence "ina hamash kose shere raghs kiloee chande baba sare karemon gozashtin ba tashakor". I guess its Persian but I haven't a clue to what it means, so I don't know if I should remove it or not (and besides I don't know what to replace it with). Annaxt 14:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been there since the page was created. I'd leave it or leave a message with the portal's creator. Naconkantari 14:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind about that, it was a template used on the page. Naconkantari 14:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both! Annaxt 14:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

DangerZoneYes

I blocked DangerZoneYes (talk · contribs). Someone is jerking us around. Just zis Guy you know? 14:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yay. *cough* I mean, it is with sincere regret that I concur that this user has exhausted community patience and endorse this indefinite block. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Self Promotion

The following was previously posted: On the Attachment Therapy page user JeanMercer continues to add as a reference a book she wrote with two others, Sarner and his spouse, Rosa. Mercer receives royalties for this and is a leader of the advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy, which financially benefits from the book sales. She has been warned once about this and I put a note on her talk page as a second warning. I'd appreciate your advice and interventionn here. RalphLender 23:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's bad form, but is it against policy? How is the book regarded by others? Would it ever be cited by someone not involved with it? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC) If it's self-published (or otherwise small circulation), it's not considered a reliable source. --InShaneee 00:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Since mercer has financial interest in the book and her group ACT has a financial interest in the book, I'd thought that mercer's promoting and posting her book is a violation of Wiki policy. Furthermore, the text is really more of an advocacy and publicity piece than a professional publication. If you can respond here or on my talk page, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. SamDavidson 16:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Myrtone86 blocked for a week for (repeated) disruption

I have blocked Myrtone86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a week for adding an angry emoticon to the end of Template:UsernameBlocked [105]. He also added an 'autosig' which also needed reverting, as sometimes extra commentary can be inserted after templates - I could almost swear that he's been reverted and warned about adding autosigs before, but perhaps that was someone else.

If it needs to be said, and I really hope it doesn't, this is a completely inappropriate edit to a high-visibility template which regards a very sensitive issue - blocking users indefinitely who may not have been expecting it. It turns a rational and clear explanation into a statement that we don't take permanent blocking of users who may be editing in good faith seriously. The edit stood for several hours until I used the template on a user's talk page, had to edit my own edit to remove Myrtone's crap, and then revert him. For all we know some editors used it without noticing (the template is designed to be substed so whatlinkshere won't be any use in checking). Silly edits to templatespace are many times more damaging than silly edits to article, user or projectspace.

My block of a week takes into account Myrtone's 5 previous blocks, albeit two were later undone. Given Myrtone86's history of silly edits which have got him blocked several times in the past, I don't feel any more such edits from this user should be tolerated. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I've been involved with him before because he had an incredibly stupid signature that used {{PAGENAME}} in it. --Cyde↔Weys 16:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I briefly blocked Myrtone in June for persisting in that after multiple warnings. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the autosigs, the editor I was thinking of who had been doing it before was actually User:Flameviper12, not Myrtone. Flameviper had a similar history of mixing good edits with phenomenally stupid ones (more stupid than Myrtone, it has to be said), including disruptive signatures, until he was eventually indefinitely blocked (for the third time, after being unblocked twice after promising to be good). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Myrtone86 has a history of constant disruption which he attempts to do in a way that he can pass off as an innocent action. Check a classic example here Requests for adminship/Jesus on Wheels. Suspect JoW is a sockpuppet of Myrtone86. Tyrenius 18:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am truly baffled as to why this user has not been blocked indefinitely. He is an incredible nuisance who has contributed virutally nothing to Wikipedia.--SB | T 21:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say the next time this nonsense happens it's permanent. --Cyde↔Weys 02:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#How_it.27s_done_on_OrthodoxWiki might be of interest as well. Essjay (Talk) 07:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Self Promotion

Pm_shef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the son of Vaughan Councillor Alan Shefman, and habitually edits Vaughan articles either by removing relevant information and claiming there is consensus for that, or adding complimentary information. When he doesn't get his way, he gets involved in edit wars and complains to an/i as well kissing the ass of his vast network of allies and admins.

Within the last month alone, Pm_shef has been busy. He has not only removed corporate donations from the list of election issues in Vaughan in this edit [106], but also removed compromising information about Michael Di Biase, including those 3 traffic tickets that mysteriously disappeared a few years ago [107], his $164,074 salary that is one of the highest for a politician in the country [108], his being appointed without an election upon the death of Lorna Jackson [109] [110] and the fact that he, along with father Alan Shefman, is being investigated for corruption and receiving.... corporate donations [111].

Pm_shef has in the past been warned by bearcat and mangojuice, and this did slow him down for a few months. But now he is starting again. He's even gained the attention of the local media, who have left him a message on his talk page, wondering why he believes corporate donations are not an election issue, and if this is the campaign of his father's. Can we have a temporary ban or some other measure to indicate to him the nature of this neutral encyclopedia? Energyblue 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is your second edit to Wikipedia. Don't you think you're diving into the politics and conflicts of the place a little quickly? JDoorjam Talk 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Flaming/Vandalism by anon user

Hello, I had a comment about an IP user that made a trolling comment to me: here, and I believe it is vandalism to get me to flame him (i.e. trolling). It's discouraging me, and he/she/it has been trolling other users as well, among vandalism. Thank you for your time. --VelairWight (my discussion) 18:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparent GNAA troll at large

Werto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

New account just created but contribs indicate an apparently experienced (banned?) Wikipedia editor. Makes some sort-of-reasonable typo corrections, tries to get Klerck biography speedied [112], uploads Rush Limbaugh screen shot with GNAA data in the form fields (Image:Freelimbaugh247.png) and posts racist trolling at [113] and [114] etc., still actively editing. -- Phr (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

2007-07-21 SPUI

SPUI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone off the deep end. S/he's been edit warring on Freeway-related topics all month. There was the WP:POINT move of Freeway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to Highway with full control of access and no cross traffic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). That took weeks to fix (that was prior to my involvement).

But today, s/he's gone hog-wild WP:POINT creating:

• Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),
• Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and
• Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

And making hundreds of re-categorizations. Categories take even longer to fix than mere moves.

After losing the renaming of Category:Freeways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Limited-access roads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and then losing the July 1 CfD to rename it back, a Deletion review, a re-listing for more comments, and losing the CfD relisting, and on the way to losing another Deletion review. I've posted two notices at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, should I make it 3, 4, 5?

Please stop this quickly, it's gotten ugly!

--William Allen Simpson 19:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is too complex for me to feel comfortable doing anything about, since I have no previous knowledge of this issue. However, a quick glance at the block log shows quite a colorful history. If there really was ill behavior here, I would suggest a somewhat long block - probably at least a week- as there sure seems to be a history of other disruptive behavior. Friday (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

See the arbitration case from a couple weeks ago (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways). I recommend an immediate block to stop further damage if the editing is still in progress; decide afterwards how long to make it. Phr (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no "ill behavior" here. Most people in the deletion discussion begun by William do not wish to see these categories deleted. --SPUI (T - C) 20:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Still you can't deny you've made disruptive edits to some of these pages in the last 4 days all in violation of your probation. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I do deny that. Not that you'll change your mind based on said denial. --SPUI (T - C) 20:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Repeatedly deleted the speedy deletion tags on the 4 categories, followed by {hangon}, gaming the 3RR.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic&diff=65092468&oldid=65088300
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic&diff=65096312&oldid=65094565
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic&diff=65106914&oldid=65097292
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic&diff=65109444&oldid=65108412
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic_by_country&diff=65092502&oldid=65088398
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic_by_country&diff=65096307&oldid=65094639
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic_by_country&diff=65106904&oldid=65097342
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Highways_with_full_control_of_access_and_no_cross_traffic_by_country&diff=65109433&oldid=65108477
• etc.

  --William Allen Simpson 20:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandal SPUI edit warring continues at Limited-access road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

--William Allen Simpson 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Simple removal of uncited material that has been uncited since I tagged it about a week ago. --SPUI (T - C) 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandal SPUI edit warring continues at Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in Canada, where none of the subcategories or articles applies. According to their own main articles, these are expressways and controlled access roads, and therefore do not have "no cross traffic". For example, Ring Road (Regina) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has signals at railroad crossings.

--William Allen Simpson 22:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

William has added improper speedy deletion templates to the categories several times, and has tried to empty Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in Canada. --SPUI (T - C) 22:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on whether WAS is right or wrong as I think it could go both ways. However what is a fact despite your denial is that you've been edit warring with him. That is disruption. Disruption is an immediate block per yours and my probations. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked William Allen Simpson for personal attacks for repeatedly referring to SPUI as "Vandal SPUI". That's unacceptable. More explanation on William's talk page. --Cyde↔Weys 22:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ill-advised words, sure, but a blockworthy personal attack? A warning first sure wouldn't have hurt. Friday (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That was inexcusable language. A three-hour cooler sounds sensible here. --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait. You guys block WAS for being mildly uncivil yet don't block SPUI for two days worth of shirking his ArbCom imposed probation which specifically forbids edit warring on highway articles and incivility, both of which he was proven to have done??? How the hell does that work? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

(ec) He's been blocked so many times he's got more than one page of block log. Is referring to him as "vandal" THAT unreasonable? I'm all for being very conservative with the use of that word, but let's be reasonable. Friday (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the block of William Allen Simpson. He is clearly out of control on this issue (unlike SPUI) and needs a breather. If he doesn't tone down the unwarranted rhetoric, he will find himself getting longer blocks. SPUI has a checkered history on Wikipedia but that doesn't mean he's fair game. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

None of SPUI's blocks are for vandalism, so yes, referring to him as a vandal is entirely unreasonable. SPUI may have some problems dealing with content disputes, but he does a lot of good work and he's certainly no vandal, and I know he doesn't appreciate being called one. --Cyde↔Weys 02:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Energyblue blocked as sockpuppet

I just put an indefinite block on Energyblue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for being a SOCK of VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). My reasoning for this is:

• His first edit was to "out" pm_shef, the apparent archnemesis of VaughanWatch [115]
• His second edit was to report pm_shef here [116]

This seems like a pretty clearcut case for sockpuppetry of a blocked user, but I did want to post it here to make sure that no one sees any issue with this. -- JamesTeterenko 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm cool with it. Even if he's not VaughanWatch, he's pretty obviously a sockpuppet. JDoorjam Talk 19:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Would surprise me if it wasn't a VaughanWatch sock. Good block. Syrthiss 11:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking for some more eyes/peacemakers at William H. Kennedy

Got a page of a living person, with two editors with very strong views holding an edit war over the page. One pro-Kennedy, one anti-Kennedy. The page was semi-protected a few days back, at the request of the pro side warrior (User:617USA). On the anti side, there had been several IPs followed by a user account, (User:Suture). I'm pretty sure this is all one person. The anti warrior has been pushing to have some serious derogatory claims included in the article. I've been trying to reason with him on the talk page about the need for WP:RS. His account appears to have just passed the age for getting around the semi-protection, and the fight is on again. And I'm about done for much of the weekend, with little time to deal with things. It would be great if another admin could keep an eye on this page, as I can see things getting out of hand again there very easily. - TexasAndroid 21:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Kelly Martin/B

This list User:Kelly Martin/B is of a concern to me. It appears to be a list of a group of users who have little in common other than that, as far as I can tell, all of us found ourselves in opposition to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sean Black 2 for one reason or another. That the administrator largely responsible for the creation of this page stated that its purpose was "It is used by myself and certain others to benefit our decision-making processes" [117], so I can only conclude that its sole purpose is to harass and/or intimidate those with whom this administrator disagreed about the RFA in question. BigDT 21:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I have now listed this page at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Please feel free to help build a consensus there as appropriate. BigDT 21:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, nice guess, but it actually has nothing to do with Sean Black's RFA. That's an interesting correlation you pointed out, though ... Cyde↔Weys 22:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL nevermind, it got a lot bigger since the last time I looked at it :-P Check the page's history though, it's been around since before Sean Black's RFA. --Cyde↔Weys 22:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And it just got a lot smaller since I last looked, Cyde just deleted it. Meh. the wub "?!" 22:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict: I was also going to post that the page has now been deleted by Cyde. I would still like to know what the intentions were. Refusing to say what it is for and deleting it as soon as anyone outside of your clique finds out about it hampers my ability to assume good faith. -BigDT 22:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the fact that people are poking around in my userspace. The purpose of that page is to benefit my ability to make decisions in the best interest of Wikipedia. Just a way of keeping track of people that's more reliable than my memory -- there's a lot of Wikipedians these days and I find that I can no longer manage everything in my head. All it takes to get on there is doing anything that makes you stand out to me -- good or bad, it doesn't matter; being included there doesn't mean I think you're a bad person or anything; it's just a list. I deliberately created it in my user space and at an out of the way location so that it wouldn't be disruptive, but of course someone had to go and make trouble about it. Nice show, people. I suppose I'll move it to my own wiki (which is closed, and I don't give out passwords to many people) where I don't have to worry about people messing with it. Even better, I can put it in a special locked namespace where none of you can see it, either. You should have stopped while you were ahead..... Kelly Martin (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Kelly why not just recreate it? There was no basis for the deletion of it and it can be easily restored through proper channels. I'm confused as to why it was deleted in the first place. Having a list of users isn't against any rule. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Recreating it will just disrupt Wikipedia further. If I maintain this list off-wiki, I won't have to deal with the howling -- or at least can ignore it more readily. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not the explanation you gave for it on IRC. I don't think this after the fact misrepresentation of what the list was for is really helpful. --W.marsh 22:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. I can't believe we're even having this conversation. You created a list of names that apparantly was based on people you and others had disagreed with. You refused to say what it was for - simply giving a reasonable explanation would have sufficed. When you get caught, somehow it's our fault for "poking around in your user space", whatever that means. Still, rather than provide an explanation, Cyde removes the list. Calling it a list of people that stand out good, bad, or indifferent sounds dubious considering that (1) there were multiple substantial contributors to the list and (2) you added a large block of names from Sean's RFA. Now, you play the "drama queen" card of taking your football and going to your own secret wiki. Honestly, this behavior disturbs me. If everything you were doing was above board, then you would not at all be upset at discussing your actions. BigDT 22:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No cookies for you this year at Christmas. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's just as well ... I need to cut down anyway ... BigDT 23:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we're all entitled to know what this is all about. I see other admins adding names to this secret list in user space, then deleting the list (including User:Cyde with the summary "Kill everything"?), and then see my name on it. What is going on? -- Samir धर्म 08:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so secret that she put it in her userspace. Henry^Flower 08:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

1. 23:11, 21 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) (+1)
2. 18:09, 21 July 2006 . . Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) (Kill MFD)
3. 18:09, 21 July 2006 . . Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) (rm. another self-add)
4. 18:08, 21 July 2006 . . Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) (Nope, you need to earn it.)
5. 18:06, 21 July 2006 . . W.marsh (Talk | contribs | block) (I want in!)
6. 17:51, 21 July 2006 . . BigDT (Talk | contribs | block) (+mfd1)
7. 17:45, 21 July 2006 . . The wub (Talk | contribs | block) (seems like a nice bunch, I want in)
8. 13:54, 21 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (add many)
9. 15:04, 20 July 2006 . . SPUI (Talk | contribs | block) (apparently I can help by expanding it?)
10. 14:20, 20 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (+2)
11. 12:11, 20 July 2006 . . Gurch (Talk | contribs | block) (oh, that. So what? I'm entitled to my opinion, no?)
12. 10:17, 20 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (why)
13. 08:16, 20 July 2006 . . Gurch (Talk | contribs | block) (ehh... what did I do?)
14. 18:39, 17 July 2006 . . Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) (Add one)
15. 12:45, 14 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (+)
16. 22:57, 12 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) (1)
17. 13:25, 12 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) (-rfaf, +humor)
18. 11:49, 12 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (+)
19. 09:58, 6 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (+)
20. 09:57, 6 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (add)
21. 10:38, 5 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block) (+1)
22. 12:41, 3 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block) (add)
23. 11:30, 3 July 2006 . . Sean Black (Talk | contribs | block) (yeah...)
24. 11:17, 3 July 2006 . . Phil Boswell (Talk | contribs | block) (Example user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)…or should we use ?)
25. 11:12, 3 July 2006 . . Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs | block)
26. 02:03, 3 July 2006 . . Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs | block)

That's very intimidating intimate, and yet ever so participatory! I'm honoured to grace the list. I think! *Kisses* El_C 09:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am told I was listed on here, don't I have a right to know what it is? Computerjoe's talk 12:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Damn, that's creepy. I appeared on 6 of July, apparently after my vote on User:Mboverload's RfA. User:Gurch who voted "per me" was added shortly thereafter. I definitely don't like the smell of it.  Grue  13:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Friendly Assume Good Faith reminder! Contributors to this mysterious subpage should not assume objectors are "making trouble" and that hiding it in some other place somehow hampers the objectors. They should also realize that people like to see who is linking to their user pages, that such curiosity is perfectly normal, and that an unannotated and apparently random list would obviously stand out as a curiosity. Objectors should accept the contributors' explanations at face value unless evidence to the contrary is presented. The idea that this list is just a list of "people of interest" is at least plausible. =) Powers 13:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that no explanation has been given. If Kelly, Cyde, and others would give an explanation, I would be willing to accept it. BigDT 15:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Probably a "Christmas gift" that we can expect after this RfA. ;) - Mailer Diablo 16:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Man, not even 3000 edits and I'm blacklisted. Argh. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Block Evade: User:McMeaty

Here, I reported an incident with an unregistered user making havoc, and it resulted in him being blocked an protection of the relevant article (Firebender). Well, he must have managed to change his IP, because he’s back at it. It seems he also has a member account, User:McMeaty. I’ve reverted his changes on talk: Firebender, but they are still visible on the page history. He’s also added personal insults towards another editor to his talk page.--Fyre2387 21:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've temporairily blocked him. Sasquatch t|c 02:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Guy Montag banned from Deir Yassin massacre

Nay one quarter of a moon has passed, and I've banned Guy Montag from Deir Yassin massacre under the terms of his probation. Inserting copyvio information from here and general tendentious editing on the talk page.

• Notified here.
• Copyvio diff[s] here.
• AE here.

I'm not particularly attached to this, but I thought it was the right thing to do. I have encouraged him to appeal if he feels he has been wronged. - FrancisTyers · 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You've lost all sense of proportion and ruined an article over a non issue.

Guy Montag 01:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ruined the article :/ And I don't think you should be describing copyright violation as a "non issue". As I have mentioned, perhaps I was hasty but I think under the circumstances it was the right thing to do. You initially claimed that it was "one sentence", but have since discovered it was several paragraphs. I think you were a bit hasty in your initial response :) - FrancisTyers · 01:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: given an initially incorrect reading of his probation, the ban was set to end at "22 July 2007", this as been amended to "9 October 2006". Apologies for this mistake. - FrancisTyers · 01:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it clearly inflames a situation that was almost over by re-banning Guy. It was already decided that the previous block was inappropriate, and that Guy's actions did not violate the terms of his probation. I am rather uncomfortable with the fact that you would ban Guy for such a similar infraction, I think your actions amount to a wheel-war and I would recomend that you undo the ban, and first discuss the situation here and with other administrators that were involved in the original dispute above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Guy has informed me that he will be requesting permission for the use of the copyrighted text. I have asked another couple of admins to check over my ban, and if they disagree then sobeit. I don't think it amounts to a wheel-war. I don't think you can compare the two reasons for banning as "similar infractions". - FrancisTyers · 01:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis, as you recently commented on some of the issues on that page on the talk page (as an editor, not as an admin), and as you took the opposite position to Guy, calling his position "farcical," it would probably be better if you unbanned him and allowed an uninvolved admin to take a look at the situation. I've also left a note on your talk page that shows one of the alleged copyright violations wasn't in fact copied at all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for the clarity, only a fraction of the copyright violations are reporetd at the talk page. The article is full of it, from at least 3 different websites. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It does seem that the article is/was a patchwork quilt of material copied from different places. Whatever we may think of the merits of Guy's version, it's risky for us to have an article appears to be effectively a copy-and-paste from multiple copyrighted sources. The fact that Guy is saying now that he's requesting permission for the use of the copyrighted text is obviously an acknowledgement that he knows he didn't have permission before. As breaches of probation go, I'd say this was at the high end of the scale; the ban seems reasonable in the circumstances. -- ChrisO 08:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the ban per SV's request. If a things worth doing, its worth doing right. I welcome less involved parties than me to review the ban and reapply it if thought appropriate. - FrancisTyers · 12:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Vote corrupted (again) by user

William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs) closed a vote in controversial circumstances. A list of categories different to the ones being voted on was added to during a vote after quite a few voters had already voted on the original list. He chose to include votes cast for deletion prior to their late addition as block votes for deletion of the late added categories too, even though the original list was of people who speak universal or majority national languages like English (hardly a topic worth a category), while the late additions were of small languages with so small a usage that the ability to speak it was notable (for example, Welsh). His cock-up in counting and in misrepresenting votes led to a decision at deletion review to undelete the categories added in and re-list them, something he grudgingly did, while refusing to accept any responsibility for the screw-up.

In the relist he added in a false explanation (how it was merely that they had not been listed for a full seven days, not that they had been suspiciously added in when a votes had been cast on other categories). He then corrupted the second vote by canvassing users, asking them if their original votes had been to delete the categories.

1. 19:53, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Merchbow (People by language)
2. 19:52, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Golfcam (People by language)
3. 19:51, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Calsicol (People by language)
4. 19:51, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Smerus (People by language)
5. 19:50, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Osomec (People by language)
6. 19:49, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Olborne (People by language)
7. 19:49, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Musicpvm (People by language)
8. 19:48, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Sumahoy (People by language)
9. 19:47, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Yonatanh (People by language) link to diff, all the above are the same notice
10. 19:38, 19 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Syrthiss (some category help) link to diff

Prior to the deletion review, his attention to the error had been drawn by a Welsh user. Instead of paying any attention he attacked her in a manner that suggested he was hardly a neutral observer of the debate. She discovered that he had added in the loaded (and completely) misleading supposed explanation for the revote and that he was canvassing support, and informed the users on their pages that the issue was more complex, to try to undo the damage he was doing to the second vote.

To make a mess of counting the first time could be excused (even if his comments suggested he was hardly a neutral observer fit to interpret the results). To deliberately corrupt the revote through a misleading explanation and canvassing, is unacceptable. At this stage it is impossible to work out how many genuine voters are voting, or whether others were canvassed by other means (email, etc). What do we do now? Wait until they are deleted a second time and then relist a third time? At this stage any chance of a balanced debate had been destroyed by Mr Simpson's conduct. A glance at his edits suggests that this is not the first time that he has been engaged in widespread canvassing on issues he feels strongly about. He is making a mockery, and a mess, of the whole deletion system. User:Jtdirl 01:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen him doing this same sort of thing in other CFD discussions. Sorry, nothing specific, but it's as if he thinks he runs that place. --Cyde↔Weys 01:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually Jtdirl, if you had bothered looking at my talk you would have seen that he most certianly did not canvass me for votes. User:Deb made the same erroneous assumption and then deleted her comment off my talk page when she realized her error. He asked me to do two things: do an unreleated history only undeletion that had sat around for ~20 days on DRV (IIRC), and to undelete the cats relative to the relisted CFD because people in a froth about it had re-added items back to the deleted cats and he didn't want to see relinked categories in articles while it was sorted out. I'm going to go check the other edits listed by you to verify that you haven't misrepresented them as well. Asking users who have participated before in a discussion to weigh in is perfectly reasonable, especially if perhaps he felt he was in error in the original closing...as long as all of them are notified and there isn't any attempt to sway the debate ("its up for discussion again please vote KEEP"). Syrthiss 11:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Linked the notice above, it was a question regarding their intention on the debate. Full disclosure is a nice thing, rather than a witch hunt, wouldn't you say? Syrthiss 11:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Asking users if they intended their vote to be "to delete" is an non-too-subtle way of canvassing. If he had asked then what their vote was meant to would be somewhat neutral. But asking them to deny his interpretation that their vote to delete, at a time when the he wants people to come to a page to vote to delete, is blatent fixing. Deb caught him up to his usual tricks and simply pointed out that the issue wasn't straightforward and showed them a link to a debate. He has blatently now corrupted two votes on the issue. Users have been blocked from Wikipedia for less. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Improper reversion on WP:SOCK

Please take action against FT2 for improper reverting of Wikipedia's policy on legitimate sockpuppets. PooIGuy 02:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It is worth noting that PooIGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edits to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry were the first and third edits under that account name. (The comment above was the second.) Although new users are of course welcome to participate in policy discussions, I think that a major edit to a policy page by a brand-new account is suspicious enough to merit reversion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked as an impersonator of PoolGuy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). --Cyde↔Weys 02:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that PoolGuy is limited by Arbcom to one account. Mackensen (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fake user

I really hate it. User:Wizkid357 wrote a message on my talkpage and signed it as Ral315. I thought I ought to report here, as he is clearly faking his sig, but still...he is trying to be Ral315. Treebark (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that Wizkid357 was trying to impersonate Ral315. I assume that you're talking about this edit to your talk page...? It seems that Wizkid357 was just copy-paste quoting Ral315's remark from Ral's comment here. Wizkid probably should have made more of an effort to set off his remark as a quotation, but he did sign the edit with his own signature. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Note Based on the user page and edit history, it appears that Wizkid is a pre-teen, so may be a little careless in some areas (like the barnstar that doesn't seem to have been put there by the editor whose name is signed to it). Fan-1967 20:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

New user requesting help may be a sockpuppet

When a bot at #wikipedia-bootcamp notified users that RumDuck (talk · contribs) was in need of help, he was asking why his IP was blocked. He used {{helpme}} prior to any welcome message posted there. It appears that his IP is blocked because of the indef block put on Werto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Based on the way that he is signing his messages as well as the use of the template with no knowledge how to, I believe he is a sockpuppet of Werto. I believe that the IP address that it came from should have a block on account creation, now that he's used it to try and get unblocked. Ryūlóng 05:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The talk page of the IP in question is peppered with {{blatantvandal}}, and appears to also be involved with racist remarks that Werto was blocked for (24.83.203.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)). Ryūlóng 06:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

When I did block, I checked to make sure the account creation was disabled, but I have no idea how it works out, since I am still somewhat unfamiliar on the new blocking system and how it "works." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

216.164.203.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

It appears that the "Nanook vandal", known by such registered names as Raptor30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Rappy30V2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (V3, etc.) and Nookdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is asking various people to be unblocked. If it can be demonstrated that there is collateral damage at other IPs (strangely, starting with 64) or because others using "Google Web Accelerator, which assigns a small set of proxy Ip's [sic] to it's [sic] users" as claimed (despite the seeming impossibility, as this user's IP has been static from the start), then any such damage certainly should be mitigated. Given the massive evidence against 216.164.203.90, however, this IP should not be unblocked under any circumstances for the foreseeable future. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This user (who previously impersonated me in IRC and on Wikinews) has created wikt:User:Radio Kirk (where I already have an account, without the space) and wikispecies:User:RadioKirk (where I didn't) to impersonate me again. Fortunately, it's painfully obvious... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Easyrider roo (talk · contribs)

User:Easyrider roo has a total of four edits, consisting of only copyright violations. The user has posted the entire afterword ("Author's Note") to Philip K. Dick's novel A Scanner Darkly in two places: User:Easyrider roo/AScannerDarkly and User:Easyrider roo. Note, this is not just the list of names that appears in the movie. I have just blanked the pages, but I think the history should be purged. Could someone take care of this please? —Viriditas | Talk 07:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Next time, I suggest following the procedure at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. These things usually are not an emergency. Basically, you blank the page, use the {{copyvio}} template and then list the page at the copyright problems subpage that is on the template after you save the page. Anyway, I deleted User:Easyrider roo/AScannerDarkly, since it does not have much purpose now that the text is deleted. It is not necessary to remove copyright violations from the history unless there is a complaint. Therefore, I would have saved the user page, except for the fact that there is a good chance that he or she is not coming back based upon my experience with copyright violators - all of the edits were copyright violations, they were all made on the same day and no edits have been made since, which is classic copyright violator style, at least for text (as opposed to images). -- Kjkolb 08:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The reason I wanted to bypass WP:CP was due to the fact that this was showing up in recent Google search results, which I just found. The text was uploaded by the user around the time the film was in limited release (July 7), however the film is going into wide release on July 28, so I felt that a quick response might be needed. As I recall, WP:CP has a backlog. —Viriditas | Talk 08:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Molobo (talk · contribs), Sciurin%C3%A6 (talk · contribs)

These two were edit warring over articles that concerned Poles in Germany or similar things. If you check this diff: [118], you will see that both versions are sort of biased, Molobos was at least sourced. The blocking admin (Dmcdevit) said he was tired etc. and wouldn't do the same thing (evidence collecting) for Sciurinae, but that probably someone should do it, because it was always him who pursued molobos edits and warred over them. However, Sciurinae was blocked for 72 hours, (despite warning for months), and Molobo for 1 year. I don't think that Molobo should be unblocked, he surely did what he shouldnt have done, but why is his sparing partner only blocked for 72 hours? Azmoc 07:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Dmcdevit thought that there was still hope for Sciurinae, and that a shorter block might drive home the point that we're serious about not tolerating edit warring. Checking the block log, I note that this is Sciurinae's first block, whereas Molobo has been blocked many times over the last nine months for edit warring.

Molobo was nearly blocked indefinitely a couple of months ago – see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive89#Molobo_blocked_for_disruptive_edit_warring – and was only allowed to return after a shorter (1 month) block on the condition that he refrain from the edit warring conduct that got him in trouble in the first place. Molobo has had ample opportunities to reform his behaviour, and has failed to avail himself of those opportunities.

I assume and expect that should Sciurinae fail to modify his behaviour, he too will face additional warnings and escalating blocks—however I hope that this 72-hour block (which, for a first block, is far from short) will discourage further edit warring. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Vestal Senior High School

Could some more people watch this article? I've removed some slanders from it - but it is still full of trivia which (even if true) is of no value to wikipedia, and is likely to attract more nonsense. This is a good example of why schools' articles are a Bad Idea. --Aoratos 08:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Added. This is a very nice high school article. Iolakana|^T 11:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

question

[119] is this a personal attack or not? Azmoc 11:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been suggested that User:Azmoc was User:Ackoz. This pretty well confirms it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

user:Gamesmasterg9 --- case of trolling on Vote Bank

This user has been found persistently indulged in Moving the page to different Titles after being unsuccessful in AFD for which he nominated the page .He has created new page Votebank and have done vandal redirects to this one which have now been fixed by redirecting to the old version.PLZ also see relevant talk on the page Votebank politics in India which has been shifted to this title by this user from Vote Bank.I recommend some admin action in this case.The user must recieve block for these disruptions.Holy---+---Warrior 17:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Laser Tag and WP:EL

On July 6 2006, I made this revert with VandalProof and has resulted in some problems. 65.78.112.37 (talk · contribs) then made this comment on my talk page and re-added the link here. In response and based on criteria at WP:EL, I cleared out links here with the edit summary of removed a great numer of links based on WP:EL (specific companies; dicussion-only forums; niche or small area tag sites, ect. that reported on other aspects and companies and clubs dealing with Laser tag. The IP then reverted my edits [120], commented on my talk page [121], and started commenting on the dicussion at Talk:Laser tag#External Link Discussion [122] [123] [124]. I started stating some reasons why the links were removed in detail [125] (IP responded [126] and I responded to this with [127]). The IP then gave reasons for each link here, and I responded to each with this edit as did Sugarskane (talk · contribs) here. Both me and Sugarskane took a break and since then, the IP has responded with this, using our sleeping/work/ect as a reason to re-add the links. Even before this, Sugarskane had implored the IP several times to express why these links are needed [128] [129].

Finally, I returned last night, saw the reentries to the ELs on the main Laser Tag page and reverted. The IP then left me this message, then user Whateverpt (talk · contribs) (most likely the IP, based on talk page comments and articles of interest) left this message, and the IP then left this message. I believe this is all to make a point by the IP to push his webpage that was the starting point of this mess.

I would VERY much like someone to take a look at this and respond. I am going to walk away now, because the time I spent on this the other night, and the time I am spending now reported this, could be used for most important things like creating articles, WP:CVU, and helping to wikify articles. Thank you for who ever can respond. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 17:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, User:Whateverpt created the article Actual Reality, which seems not to be notable enough for inclusion, but since I have mentioned all of the above, I will refrain from "prod"ing or "csd"ing it. They have also include the webpage I have brought into question above in the article as a external link. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 18:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Moeron, you've done a great job removing all those external links. That other user(s) is QUITE in the wrong here. Simple case of overlinking. --InShaneee 18:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I originally commented out the entire external link section and asked someone with more experience to the topic to look over the section. There were a few links that, during the discussion, I thought might be good to keep around. Could a non-biased, more experienced, admin look at the following and consider them for inclusion?

• Miles Tag DIY Laser Tag System
• Laser Forums
• Frag Tag

"Non-biased, more experienced"? --InShaneee 20:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Good job Moeron. And shame on whoever is that IP for blatant lack of civility. Pascal.Tesson 20:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Azmoc

Azmoc (talk · contribs) has only one edit to article space, but spends all of his time making uncivil remarks and attacks. I have blocked him for 48 hours (the second time he has been blocked) for this threat of vandalism. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

81.36.29.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This guy simply doesn't follow wikipedia's standards. He continuosly makes edits to Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2 without showing any proof, then when asked, still doesn't until he gets close to breaking the 3rr. Even then, he claims other experienced and respected user's to be idiots or stupid, makes various personal attacks, and blanks user's comments[130]. He ignores all warnings given to him, and has been given countless chances to stop his hostile behavior/vandalism. I am becoming very stressed with this retunring vandal, as he uses different IPs to escape blocking, and is very stuck up. It's becoming a challenge for me to not make personal attacks myself.--KojiDude (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Port scanning

I'm wondering why I'm getting this.

16:55:56 Port Scanning has been detected from 207.142.131.228 (scanned ports:TCP (4749, 4748, 4746, 4742, 4744, 4745))

15:59:46 Port Scanning has been detected from 207.142.131.228 (scanned ports:TCP (3179, 3146, 3181, 3184, 3182, 3183))

(timestamp is in gmt-4) This is a Wikimedia IP. I've been getting this intermittently for the past 12 hours. Just thought I'd make a note of it someplace. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 20:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)}

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) might get more response. --pgk^(talk) 20:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll post it there too. If you feel you need to remove the post from here, go right ahead - I'll be watching both places. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 20:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)}

Skutt Catholic High School suing anon user over Wikipedia edit

The front page of the Omaha World Hearld for July 22, 2006 says that Skutt Catholic High School officials are suing an anonymous user over an edit made on Wikipedia in an attempt to find out who that person is. I have brought it up on #wikipedia and Zscout370 protected the page Skutt Catholic High School, deleted it, and restored it to its stub status. I found out about it merely because it is on the front page of the Omaha World Hearld. I was told to post this incident here.

• Omaha.com
• page 1 scan
• page 2 scan

Tuxide 21:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone told Danny or Jimbo about it? --cesarb 22:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. I removed chunks of the history from that page ages ago; doesn't look like these were the edits in question, but still. Shimgray | talk | 22:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not, I was only told to provide a reference to the news article and post this incident here. I made the above post an hour ago. Tuxide 22:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I dropped an email to the Foundation's attorney. Essjay (Talk) 22:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, by his quote in the article I think that Jimbo is aware of the lawsuit. I think he would know about the article from his interview with the newspaper. FloNight ^talk 22:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the edit was, precisely, that so infuriated the school's officials? The page history is not visible to me as I am not an admin. Kasreyn 22:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. thank god the mass media are on the ball - wouldn't want Wikipedia to get away with it whenever our democratic ideals get us a blacked eye from some vandal. At least they remembered, as always, to avoid reporting on the hundreds of thousands of high-quality pages we have. Wouldn't want to skew things out of proportion or anything. ¬_¬ Ugh. Kasreyn 22:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Democratic is the wrong word. ... There was no popular support for the bad edit. :) And plus wikipedia is not a democracy. --Gmaxwell 22:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone able to host my newspaper scans elsewhere? Sorry, my box is getting the crap beaten out of it and I don't know how much longer I can support hosting them. Tuxide 22:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok; the edits there were highlighted in the article were not purged in April by Shimgray, since the edits did not exist at the time. The edits were made in June, and I used the same tactic as Shimgray to purge the edits that were high-lighted, and then some. I thought Jimbo would have done something already, since I read the article, but according to the logs I read, I do not think Jimbo did anything (or asked Shimgray to do it for Jimbo). I believed Tuxide and the article, which is not from some random website blog, but one of the top papers in Omaha, Nebraska. I felt like the protection was a good idea, since all of the slander edits were from IP's and most of the information just did not seem waranted in the article. I prefer to leave it as a stub for right now until we get some sources. And, as always, if you think I am wrong, please tell me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

User 68.96.102.166 - please unprotect talk page, he's vandalizing again

The block for IP editor 68.96.102.166 has apparently expired, because he is making a mess. He's blanked the Talk:Newbie page, redirected Floob from Newbie to Wright brothers, and I can't warn him because his talk page is protected. Could someone lift the talk page block and/or reblock him? Thanks - Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 22:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected (you know, that's the reason I was one of the few against allowing blocked users to edit their user talk pages...). --cesarb 22:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

personal attack and/or death threat

From [131]

"Now at least I know there are some people who personally cannot stand me here and will do anything to delete any content I enter - even if they are too stupid to notice that the joke is on them. There is only one way to deal with bullies - a gun. If you are collecting my articles, you must to be shot to save humanity, per your own definition - a Darwin Award.".

Phr (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)