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

Durin & his uncivil remarks:

Recently I opposed the user Moralis on his RfA. This RfA is controversial as it is the first to be done with an open format & lack of tally as described on WT:RfA. At first, I commented on the RfA about the use of the new style & how I found it distasteful in an intended humourous way ([1], which was later supported by an admin [2]), as well as replying to other's views on both the RfA & Moralis & opposing ([3], [4], [5]). I'm usually used to having my oppose votes respected on RfAs, without someone arguing with them - However, Durin saw fit to do so with both me & other opposers ([6], [7] as well as others before me - [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], as well as discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Moralis). Durin may have a valid point, but it is lost on because of his uncivil & combative bahaviour. Thorughout my discussion with him he often employed the use of the CAPS LOCK (After which another user politely asked him to stop with [14], but the advice wasn't taken), the usage of *asterixes* & Bolding, often used all *ALL AT THE SAME TIME*. As per my above links, I grew tired of Durin's high octane approach to the RfA & his overprotectiveness to it, as well as the ever-so-often seen ploy of replying to every single oppose vote. I left a message on his talk page ([15], User talk:Durin) & stated his actions were uncalled for & I didn't want to talk to him further in his combative mood. He then replied on his talk page ([16]), stating that he had no intention of calming down, & that I was "*WAY* out of line" & that I owed Moralis an apology. He said I should be ashamed & said "If calling a person accusing another of "stunts" way out of line is uncivil, then take it to WP:AN/I and have me banned from the project." I then replied ([17]) that if he told me to be ashamed once more (which he had done already on numerous occasions), then I would infact report him. I had no intention of doing so as I had no idea Durin would continue the argument again by replying ([18] with the edit summary of "Fine, report me." & [19]) once again that I should be ashamed & that I should go report him. In his second reply he made a personal attack by saying "After reading the intro to your talk page, your attitude makes considerably more sense now. You're argumentative by nature." - this hurt my feelings (I don't know why but it did... sticks & stones etc...). My notice on my talk page is because I don't like arguing & wanted to stay out of trouble, not so that someone could use it against me & critisize me. I never got personal, I never attacked either Moralis or Durin in anyway other than stating that his demenour was combative & that I believed Moralis of subjecting himself to this experiment as a kind of stunt. That is my opinion & neither one had to agree with it - infact, the discussion Moralis & myself was rather pleasant, unlike my discussion with Durin. I don't care whether you agree or not with the RfA style, if Durin had replied kindly to me, I would not have had a problem - I actually enjoy the meeting of two minds & discussing important topics civily. Coming from an ex-admin, this behaviour is unacceptable - Because this is at the lower end in my view of arguments on a scale, I'd settle for an apology. However, I doubt I'd get one out of him & I don't want to post on his talk page in case I get attacked any more. I've managed to stay out of arguments for a while now & I did not engage in this one - I don't enjoy arguing & I remember a time when I did indeed look up to Durin. Any comments would help. Thanks, Spawn Man 06:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the formatting of this particular RfA has led to a significant amount of criticism, warranted or not. Durin seems to have received a great deal of it. I'm sure no ill-will was meant by his statements, which look as though they are borne more out of frustration than anything else. Sorry if you were hurt by things; I'm sure that wasn't Durin's intent 74.12.80.240 07:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the condolensces, but I doubt Durin shares the same view. Frankly, I'd prefer Durin to say it, but thanks all the same. :) It just hurt my feelings by his last personal attack towards me - I've been trying hard to stay out of arguments & haven't been in one for 45 days now. For him to simply quash all that & make a quick judgment of me based on one of my notices is upsetting. I'm a man of far more facets. Thanks anyway. Spawn Man 07:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a small dispute. I doubt any administrative action is necessary, although Durin needs to maintain his civility at all times. It's better if you leave him alone for a while, and I'm sure he will apologize in time. I'm sorry if you didn't mean it, but your discussion with Durin could also be potentially be very upsetting on his part, when warning him of AN/I. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 08:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I thoguht that was common policy (like FAR, where you tell the creator of the article)? Sorry, but this is my first time reporting at AN/I. As I stated before, this is a very small despute & was hardly a definite breach of civility - it just hurt my feelings is all & hoped someone would talk to him. Maybe this wasn't the palce to go, but I provided a well worded & calm argument in any case. Thanks - I'll take your advice & leave him alone for a while (which I've done already...) & hopefully he'll come to me. Thansk, Spawn Man 08:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have no intention to apologize for my remarks and I stand by them. User:Spawn Man ruthlessly attacked the guinea pig (User:Moralis) in the RfA experiment and shows no remorse in his behavior towards him. He's accused him of performing a stunt, of weaseling his way around process, and disrupting RfA to gain publicity. You can see it for yourself [20][21][22]. If saying Spawn Man should be ashamed for his behavior towards Moralis is a personal attack, then Spawn Man has made 10 times the personal attack. Subsequent to Spawn Man's "warning" that he would report me, I read the intro to his talk page. I noted that it says, in part, "I get in a lot of arguments with other editors. When I argue, I argue for a long time & don't usually back down". It's no surprise he won't back down and admit his behavior towards Moralis was improper. It's further no surprise that he should go out of his way to attack a person who calls him on it. I stand by my opinions and offer no apology to Spawn Man. He most emphatically owes one to Moralis. --Durin 12:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing the diffs, yeah, it looks like Spawn Man is attacking Moralis, and Durin is just standing up for them. Spawn Man should think about what he has been saying. I do believe Kat Walsh even took the time to correct him [23]. --Kim Bruning 14:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As they say, if you can't take it don't dish it out. Spawnman your remarks and subsequent outrage are part of the problem here. Take responsability for that part and walk away, no one will win this argument. David D. (Talk) 15:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how I "ruthlessly attacked" Moralis? Nor my "subsequent outrage"? I have remained calm through this whole ordeal. I made a point to Moralis, but I was never uncivil - You can't tell me that Moralis had no part in the format of his RfA - he could have quite easily said no, but he said yes, so in a way he is responsible. I'll quite happily say sorry to Moralis if Durin apologises to me - after all, Durin is taking the high road isn't he? Puh-lease... Spawn Man 06:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, Spawn Man, have you read the diffs presented by Durin? I'll post the relevant parts right here just in case: "In my opinion, any editor who is ready to try & disrupt & weasel his way around process in bad news," "This is every bit a stunt. The only reason that a crat hasn't withdrawn it is because of it & the fact they can't be bothered looking for a solid tally in all this mess...," "The only reason I believe this user got so many supports was because he went against the grain & used this format. A user with under 800 edits would never get this far without this stunt Moralis has employed!" I'm sorry, I just can't believe that those aren't uncivil accusations and defamation of Moralis's character. Durin responded to incivility uncivilly. So? Retract your statements or live with it. --Iamunknown 06:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[24], [25], [26] The use of the word stunt and the implications of trying to game the system may not be a ruthless attack but they are outrage. And the latter continues by your presence here rather than sorting it out with Durin on his talk page. David D. (Talk) 06:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Spawn Man's "talked" to Durin before reporting here...so it kinda didn't work. --Iamunknown 06:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess i was implying not enough. There are other avenues too, such as the RfA talk page. I suppose he is there too. But this venue just seems like the wrong place to be discussing this issue. David D. (Talk) 06:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I just don't see how this needs administrator intervention and, as such, why it needs to be at ANI (user talk pages and talk pages directly to the disputed article/project page / the article/project page where the dispute is are usually an excellent place to start!). --Iamunknown 06:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I was only endorsing what numerous other editors had said on the RfA. If anything, it should be Moralis who has the problem - Durin just came charging in making it worse. It doesn't really matter any more, I'm going on a Wikibreak - I'm not going to let Durin stand ther e& judge me, when he isn't telling about 50 of the other editors who opposed for the same reasons to be ashamed. He's targetted me out, & I have bigger problems & things to do in my life than waste it on arrogent editors like Durin. If you all want to defend him, that's fine, but if it was you in my shoes, then you'd understand. I stick by my comments fully & I can make a judgement on Durin on my own - I can clearly see why he denounced his adminship; because he's obviously a very combative & uncivil person & didn't want to be threatened with his adminship. I don't see how he shoudln't be punished any different just because he gave up his privilages - it gives him no right to continuously name call me & provoke me. I'm only taking a break so I don't say something to him that I may regret, but I think I've summed him up perfectly. Arrogant? Check. Combative? Check. Argumentative? Check. Somewhat like myself? Check. ;)... Thanks guys, you've been somewhat of no help, but thanks all the same. Cheers, Spawn Man 06:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat of no help? But you're taking a break and that sounds like a positive thing to stop the escalation. Or are you saying we didn't frustrate you enough with indifference to cause you take a break ;) But seriously, come back cheerful, life is too short. David D. (Talk) 07:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• On my talk page, I suggested Spawn Man just walk away [27]. He chose to ignore that advice. That is still the best advice available. From Spawn Man's talk page, it is blatantly obvious that by his own admission he won't back down. His continuance here on this page with this issue further supports that conclusion. In fact, even worse, he's continued his assault now calling me "pig headed", "acting like a 3 year old" and that I am up on a "high horse". Read it for yourself [28]. And above, he's now calling arrogant, combative, and argumentative. --Durin 12:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Sigh. --Durin 13:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather disappointed with this editor... He was attacking another RfA candidate in a similar manner. RfA isn't easy for everyone, and I'd rather not have someone potentially drive away contributors by continually insulting good-faith RfA candidates. Grandmasterka 10:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I have disagreed heavily with Durin in the past, and have had heated discussions to that effect, I must say that I endorse Durin's 12:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC) comment. Spawn Man has a history of acting very immaturely in his pursuit of his ideals (I cite Riana's RfA), and this is just another instance. Spawn Man needs to calm down, or be blocked; period. Daniel Bryant 01:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Spawn Man has a history of acting very immaturely in his pursuit of his ideals (I cite Riana's RfA), and this is just another instance. Spawn Man needs to calm down, or be blocked; period." - I'm not the only one who has complained about Durin & his conduct on the RfA - Check his user talk. I can't believe I looked up to you when you're exactly like all the rest - not looking at facts & seeing that I'm not alone in my complaints about Durin. How dare you cite my behaviour at Riana's RfA - I haven't acted badly at all in over a month & I haven't acted badly here either. I've kept my cool up until now when I saw a respected admin lower himself to what you've said. If Durin's allowed to say it, so am I - Daniel, you should be ashamed! "in his pursuit of his ideals" - I don't know what you're talking about. I've had it up to here - I bring a complaint about his behaviour to AN/I on his advice & you all abuse me because I complain about being told to be ashamed. I've given nearly 2 years of my life to this project & you're talking the side of Moralis, an editor with under 800 edits, over mine. If this is how I'm appreciated, then I'm afraid I can't edit here any more. I have not acted immaturely - If I had, I would have sworn, left message after message on Durin's page abusing him & it would definitely have been reported to AN/I by Durin; The fact is it's the other way around. If I deserve to be blocked, block the other people who have complained to him. He's the one answering every single oppsoe on the Moralis RfA; Does that sound like non-combative behaviour? I'm ashamed that I even bothered briging it to a court of Durin's peers - I might as well have been complaining to Sadam about his the National Gaurd's conduct. Thanks gentlemen, but you've proven my ideals.... Spawn Man 03:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We're leaving again; I rest my case. "How dare you cite my behaviour at Riana's RfA - I haven't acted badly at all in over a month & I haven't acted badly here either"; how dare I? How dare you try and tell me what I can and can't say. When you attack someone (Sarah) and act like a twat over filing an RfA, and restart such behaviour one month later over a similar issue, I'm not going to forget. I consider Durin to be making a valid point, and acting far better and less disruptively than you were. However, this is my opinion, hence why it is on a noticeboard for everyone to add their input. Daniel Bryant 03:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That argument wasn't about the RfA, but I asume you've read every single post which transpired between us to gain a full knowledge of the situation? Or did you just come in halfway through & asume that's what it was about? I've apologised to Sarah (Geez, everyone has a crush on Sarah don't they?) & this argument is nothing like the one over a month ago - This is about me & other users complaining about Durin's remarks on the Moralis RfA. Don't call me a twat. How was I acting in any way disruptiveley before today? I Opposed the RfA because Morlis had 800 edits - Sure I said he may have made himself a guinea pig as a sort of stunt, but I oppsoed for legitimate reasons. Durin took that I was opposing solely on the grounds of his RfA format. I told him to calm down. He told me to be ashamed 3 times. He suggested I report him. I said I would if he continued to say I be ashamed. He did once more. I reported him & told I did (I thought it was part of the process). Then everyone says I'm being disruptive & that Durin was justified. So I say I'm going on a break. Then Daniel comes in & says I should be blocked!? THat's why I'm leaving. That's the end of story, because it's just crazy how we get from him to me just like that. Spawn Man 03:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I said if you continued after the significant opposition to your behaviour in this thread, then a block may be needed. Again, you continue with the circular personal attacks (regarding Sarah), and fail to recognise the grave insult that you cast upon Moralis by accusing him of using a stunt to try and create a consensus that you believe wouldn't existed.[29][30] If you're going to leave, just do it; if you're not, then you have proved my point. Daniel Bryant 03:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I never thoguht you'd try & run me off Daniel. Remember when I said I looked up to you? Yeah, I do too. Funny thing respect, you can lose it really quickly. Fine, if you want me to go, then I'll go. I wouldn't want to prove you right or anything Daniel because I'm just so darned uncivil. Spawn Man 03:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The message above forms People's Exhibit B. Trying to play the "respect" card doesn't achieve anything, because my analysis of your behaviour in the last 24 hours, especially the last couple, has made it something I'm not terribly concerned about because it has been devalued. Yes, that was uncivil, and I wouldn't object to a short block if someone believed it justified, but now you'll see how it feels when you devalue someone else's contribution when accusing them of "faking the process" at an RfA. Daniel Bryant 03:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting you were uncivil Daniel, it was very big of you. A lot of people appreciate my respect, you are unaware of it's cost simply becasue you do not have it. I never said Moralis was faking process, merely trying something new. Of course a new format is going to draw attention - If I knew I had no chance of getting through RfA, I'd try using something cotroversial. Heck, & I'd be a bad admin if I couldn't lie & say "No mister, this isn't a stunt, no sir!". "Aw, wellk okay, I believe you now then since you said it wasn't...". Okay I'm sorry for questioning the integrity of Moralis's stunt. It was a very good stunt - As I said, I'd have used it too. I'm interested to hear how I have been uncivil to everyone before this morning, because that is when you made your statement that I should be blocked. You create a list on your comment & I'll create a lsit of how you've been uncivil too & let's see if they compare? If you don't you'd just prove my point... Spawn Man 04:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Durin & Allies: 1)Replied to every oppose vote on Moralis RfA. 2)Told Spawn Man to be ashamed 1, 2, 3 times. Erm, sorry, 4 times. 3)Daniel Briant called Spawn Man a quote "twat". 4)Daniel Briant goaded Spawn Man to leave by saying "If you're going to leave, just do it; if you're not, then you have proved my point...".

Spawn Man & erm, no one...: 1) Your turn...

I gave Spawn Man a 24-hour cool off period. I could be considered mildly involved in this, so it's open to review. But I think many different editors ("Durin and allies"?) have made it abundantly clear what he's doing wrong. Grandmasterka 04:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Re "He's the one answering every single oppsoe on the Moralis RfA": Spawn Man's not the only one to make this accusation. It's blatantly false. When the other person made the accusation, I bothered to count. At that point, there were 46 opposes. I'd replied to 10 of them. The accusation is false on the face of it. As to the rest of this, meh. Time to move on. --Durin 13:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Requesting WP:POINT and WP:HARASS blocks

Several editors continue to pester me about two weeklong blocks I issued over violation of WP:MEAT. Neither editor posted an unblock request, several uninvolved editors have supported my decision, and both of those blocks have long since expired. I had to block one of these people from gmail chat after he ignored my repeated explanations and referrals to WP:ADOPT. I have treated this matter quite conservatively until now, but this amounts to WP:HARASS and the "clarification" they request looks like a query into what methods two people who volunteer at the same workplace could use to manipulate WP:AFD and other voting discussions without getting blocked. I hope that decisive action will prevent a need to repeat the same remedy that the community imposed here. Durova^Charge! 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• User_talk:Durova#Need_Clairfication
• User_talk:Durova#Conflict_of_Interest_re:_User:William_M._Connolley
• User_talk:Durova/Archive_25#Zeeboid_block
• User_talk:Durova/Archive_25#COI_Opinion
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_6#William_M._Connolley_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs_.C2.B7_logs_.C2.B7_block_user_.C2.B7_block_log.29

Durova^Charge! 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's probably also worth noting that one of the editors in question, User:Mnyakko has a link to an off-wiki attack page on his user page, and now states on his user talk page that he fears real-world stalking by his on-wiki opponents. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Said attack page being here. Reading the edit summaries (and, of course, the context) here also is enlightening. --Stephan Schulz 18:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that link just went login-only. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one reason they keep inquiring is because Durova never answered them. Just my thoughts. ~ UBeR 19:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova did, however, suggest that they get an outside opinion at AN which, IMO, would be a lot more satisfying. I wonder why they never did? --Iamunknown 19:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It can still be examined via the Google cache [31] links. --Kim D. Petersen 02:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Kim, thanks for the link. I was able to look over the "attack page" and I certainly did not see anything wrong with it. They are simply tracking and categorizing actions they felt were inappropriate based on Wikipedia policy. I am still learning about this stuff but it seems to me this is exactly the kinds of "diffs" administrators look for when they want to evaluate a claim that people are not complying with policy. I am not certain that ALL of the entries will be found to be inappropriate but I am certain some of them are. So, how is this a problem? RonCram 14:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:uBeR was doing a similar thing in his userspace. The pages were deleted, you can see the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBeR/WMC. The consensus there was that it's fine to collect diffs in preparation for an RfC or arbitration (or other attempt at dispute resolution), but a page collecting a user's "misdeeds" with no specific end in mind is an attack page. That's what Race to the Right is doing, with pages on 8 separate users. If this stuff were on wikipedia, it would be speedy deleted just like uBeR's pages were. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, what makes you think they had no specific end in mind? It looked to me like they had several possible ends in mind. Was it just the fact it was extensive that it was a problem? If so, what does that mean? Is it okay to build a case but not okay to build a good case? If this is spelled out somewhere, please let me know. I don't understand the thinking here. RonCram 01:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I also am unclear on why they were blocked. In the quote below, the reason given was WP:POINT. I had never seen WP:POINT applied to a discussion board like COIN before. I thought that was reserved for articles. Above, Durova says she blocked them for WP:MEAT. I am very unclear on the concept of Meat Puppets. It appears to apply only if one of the people is not a real person, which is certainly not the case here. Tony and Zeeboid found key evidence that Durova cited when she ruled that Connelly should not ignore COI. I truly believe Durova is doing her best to remain fair, but I also think Durova is under a tremendous amount of pressure from the AGW crowd to punish those who oppose William Connelly's edits. Since I posted the complaint about Connelly on COIN, it makes it difficult for me to speak out in behalf of Tony and Zeeboid. But I do not wish to look like a coward. Isn't there some way we can bring this to a resolution without further blocks that will only open Wikipedia up to additional criticism about suppressing valid viewpoints? RonCram 00:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

RonCram, you should probably take a closer look at WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets, which begins "A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion." --Akhilleus (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, so Could someone please (like the person who blocked us) point out how they believe how multiple individuals (we) created brand new accounts specifically to particibate in, or influence, the particular vote that Durova banned us for violating WP:SOCK for? Also, I can provide the gmail chat if you want to see it.--Zeeboid 01:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see. You both work on the radio show Race to the Right, and both voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race to the Right. In fact, Zeeboid, your first edits were to a related discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThePete (a page about you, apparently), and on the same day you edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race to the Right--a pretty good indication that you began editing "to influence a particular vote or area of discussion," to wit, to promote (or document, if you prefer) your radio show. After that time, you and Mnyakko supported each other in controversial discussions, namely on Talk:Global warming controversy and related discussions.

Furthermore, you and Mnyakko are maintaining an attack page together on Race to the Right's wiki--the link is above. Obviously, that site didn't play a role in your previous block, but in my view it ought to play one in any future block you may receive. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Akhileus, I was looking at this. [32] But the citation you provide, while different, still does not apply. They did not create brand new accounts to vote on the issue of Connelly's COI AfD. I do not know anything about the attack page you mention, so I cannot comment on that. I am only saying that I did not understand exactly why they were blocked and I still don't. RonCram 01:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Define (a) what specifically qualifies a site as an "attack site" so we all can work from the same definition instead of demogoguery, and (b) what policy gives jurisdiction over Gmail chats, private websites, etc? I noticed she did not provide these "harassing" chats. Zeeboid, you should post them. I also noticed that the questions I asked to better understand the foundation of this retalitory request are still unanswered. Frankly, considering how vague everything is in Durova's complaint the questions will not be directly answered for the very reason that this whole process was started: because someone (durova) really did not like being asked to clarify her blocks. Arbitrary decisions are indefensible, thus questioning them results in retaliation. Truth is, she was begging for 'someone' to take action against me as more solid proof came into the COI discussion against the subject...knowing that there was more to come it was becoming too difficult to achieve the protection of fellow admin, so specious blocks were performed. Of course, the protected admin and clique applaud, but ask an objective editor to explain precisely what was infraction was made and I doubt one could. As a result, the questions build up and all the while she knows there were no solid answers to give. So, how do you stop the questions? First by inviting Zeeboid to open a request in AN...no doubt in my mind his doing so would be the justification she would use for claiming POINT violation ('using AN to prove a point, yadda, yadda). He didn't take her bait so she did it instead and for what reason? "open a thread at WP:AN where you can see whether administrative consensus agrees that I did a reasonable thing and I can see whether administrative consensus agrees that you deserve a new block for WP:POINT. That would satisfy both of our concerns in an impartial forum." First, this is not an impartial forum. Second, since we have not been given any clear and specific indication from Durova how she concluded a violation of POINT, her comment AND her actually opening a request in AN was clearly an action specifically purposed to "prove a point" rather than "stating" it. I'm not sure, but I think that might be important when considering a block for a guideline where a section is titled, "State your point; don't prove it experimentally", but, I'm not an admin so I'm obviously missing some nuance to explain why Durova is not close to violating POINT while providing the proof she claimed to require in a COIN is a violation of POINT. In fact, I would almost bet my mortgage that some juicy rationalization will fabricate some reason that hypocritical double-standard is a justifiable 'exception'. Makes objective wonder if other's assertions have more merit than initially thought. And, of course, when one side is making a valid point, a valid case, a valid justification...they are accused of 'wikilawyering'...which means, "You're right, I cannot refute what you have said, but I still have to find some way to denigrate you so people will not pay attention to you." -- Tony G 03:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Harassing" conversation. Everything is included here except the origional e-mail I sent Durova asking for her help in clairifying what she had done. Durova, could you please provide this to make this conversation complete? Also, I too would like to know what you are defining "Attack Page."

Durova to me - April 12

There's no need to discuss an infraction of WP:MEAT as obvious as that one, yet I did discuss it at the COIN thread. And yes, if you showed me evidence of other users who voted within 5 minutes of each other and who also both admitted to doing volunteer work together and who also both actively pursued the same side in edit disputes I would also block them. Durova

ThePete to Durova - April 12

So as this informaiotn is well known of tony and I, would a 6mn gap between votes be enough to keep us from being banned in the future?

ThePete to Durova - April 12

Also, COuld you please forward me where this was discussed in the MEAT thread? Thanks for your help.

Durova to me - April 12

I don't advise you to try that.

ThePete to Durova - April 12

Its not about trying, or your advisement. its about knowing the rules. If two people who know eachother get banned for voting within 5 mn of each other, then what to the rules state is the acceptable amount of time two users who know eachother can vote? Clairify for me please. Also, Could you please direct me to where this bann was discussed in the MEAT thread? Thanks for your help. Pete

Durova to me - April 13

The amount of follow-up that you have requested regarding this block is unreasonable. Direct your questions about rules to the WP:ADOPT mentorship program.

April 13th

9:49 AM me: Hey, Could we talk here to clear up the questions I had?

10:01 AM Durova: I doubt there's anything left to be said that a mentor from WP:ADOPT couldn't do equally well.

10:01 AM me: I am looking to find out form you what the accaptable amout of time for two people who know eachother is to vote on the same topic

10:02 AM Because I can not find a polocy that voting within 5mn of each other violates

10:03 AM Durova: You can find that out from any mentor.

10:04 AM me: I am looking to find out from you, the person who banned us, as such, you should have that info available. I just want to understand it better

10:04 AMDurova: And I have given you that information in sufficient detail ad nauseam.

10:04 AMme: no, you said it would "take too long to explain"

10:05 AM Durova: My responsibility as a site administrator is to apply policy, not to explain its principles in minute detail. For that we have other volunteers.

10:07 AM me: I just don't want to break policy in the future, and not to break policy in the future, I need to know spicifically what I violated. What specifically warranted the block? you listed the polocy, but didn't go into it any more then we admited to know eachother. I just want to understand better here, as from what I understand from the info listed, we were banned from voting within 5mn of eachother.

--No Reply by Durova--Zeeboid 12:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• There really is not much point addressing any of this. I have no faith in this process of being fair and objective, the aforementioned block being the latest example. Seeing that making quick and incomplete links/quotes is the preferred method of response or support, there is no legitimacy in the belief that this process seeks the facts. Providing complete context is called wikilawyering and ignored (in the case of the referenced block by Durova, that was one of the reasons listed for the block). So, this will be a partial list of relevant items...and they will be shortened as well.

For the record: the text that Durova refers to as "explanation" for the blocks:

This subthread, however, is...about the actions of two of his accusers. Zeeboid's defense is a false analogy: Connolley and Mann do not participate in the same Wikipedia WP:AFD discussions, but Tony and Zeeboid both voted within 5 minutes of each other at the same AFD and both admit to being close associates. Whether that work is volunteer or paid is irrelevant to the meatpuppetry and vote stacking clauses of WP:SOCK. Also, unlike Connolley and Mann, Zeeboid and Tony have aggressively pursued an editor with baseless claims of malfeasance and have extended this...discussion to absurd lengths through logical fallacies and wikilawyering. That's WP:POINT and you're both blocked for a week.

So, rather than give a defense that is not going to be considered anyway, I will pose these questions (and hope these are not ignored by Durova).

1. Obviously there is not a distinction between private and public correspondence (based on Durova posting a private e-mail on a public page), in light of such strong allegations that she makes which include off-wiki chat, can you provide the full text of "harassing" chats?
2. Where is the exact wording that you interpreted to mean that 5-minutes between votes is SOCK? Would that include reverts done by different people on a regular basis within minutes of each other?
3. Is one week standard first block timeframe when the justification is so broad that understanding the specific violations are difficult to determine?
4. When was the opportunity to "defend ourselves" offered? Was it after I mentioned I would be offline for about 2 days (which was posted at 18:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC))? The only one I see was posted at 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC) with the block occurring at 15:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (which, btw, would be overnight for me had I even had access to the internet at the time).
5. The five links provided with bullet points are to demonstrate what? One is to the archive containing the COI where the blocks were announced. The other 4 are talk pages, one started by Zeeboid, one by BlueTie, one by Childhood's End and the other started by UbER. What is the harassment? Who are the harassers again? If that many different people do not understand a rationale, shouldn't that be an indication of how poorly it was explained?
6. Does GMail chat count in a Wikipedia discussion? If the supposed harassment exists outside of Wiki then that is a police matter...or does Wikipedia policy include non-wiki e-mail? If you are not starting some off-wiki complaint for harassment then it must not be harassment to begin with.
7. Based on what you have presented here how is my or Zeeboid asking an admin that block us to explain why "behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person"?
8. If the 4 links Durova provided above are examples (and as of the writing of this the ONLY examples) of harassment, why are only Zeeboid and I the only ones with notification of this request?
9. It seems that this is request from a defensive posture with having a number of people (not just the two who were blocked) asking for clarification on the blocks. Why we are being targeted? The reasons, patterns and connections are pretty clear...but I would not want to be accused of violating AGF without providing proof and then blocked for wikilawyering for providing proof. However, a partial summary was sent to Durova at the very outset of the COI where this all originated to help keep the page from being cluttered with background information. That message was ignored leaving no choice but to try and explain online everything that was relevant.
10. Final item...this one is rhetorical. The COI was against an admin that was, at the very root, editing article text about a colleague and then requesting the article to be deleted outright. The result of the COI in a nutshell was (1) The initial COI was baseless as the connections were not strong enough (co-authoring a blog, presentations, research papers, etc), (2) the connections between two people providing the links to the blog, presentations, etc (and providing responses to every "evidence presented does not meet newly stated nuance" by Durova) were enough to block them simply for voting within 5 minutes of each other, and (3) the same two people, upon seeking clarification from "the horse's mouth" being targets of a selective request for action. -- Tony G 20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this gives some relevant perspective on Tony's contributions. --Stephan Schulz 07:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How so? What relevance and how does that matter at all? Is there a policy that says what portion of a person's edits must be where? Tony G 12:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC) (Corrected signature since I did not notice that I had timed out before saving page previously...an offense I have no doubt will be somehow warped as a blockable and disruptive offense, like asking for understanding why someone blocked me. Interesting reaction, obviously designed to imply denigrating claims without being held accountable for such personal attacks). -- Tony G 18:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Was that Mnyakko or Zeeboid just now? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless they share IPs, Tony. --Stephan Schulz 14:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeeboid's behavior towards User:Durova is one instance in a larger context of his ongoing disruption, personal attacks and the like in articles related to global warming. He hae a long history of abusive or dubious comments in talk pages and edit summaries (some examples of the latter here [33] [34] [35]). He has persistently attacked User:William M. Connolley regarding Connolley's affiliation with the Green Party and environmental organizations. [36] [37] Such attacks are in blatant violation of the injunction at WP:NPA against "using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views." He also filed a clearly vexatious WP:3RR complaint against Connolley [38] This is only a small sample of an extensive history of harrassment, abuse, and attacks. The patience that Durova, Connolley, and others have shown in the face of Zeeboid's disruption is commendable in a personal sense. But allowing such behavior to go unchecked is damaging to the project. Raymond Arritt 15:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Quick clarification...THIS complaint is about harassment by "several editors" (still, Durova has not clarified any specifics and all of the following commentary and attacks are presuming who she specifically means by "several editors"). This has nothing to do with anything before the alleged harassment. And, as you (Raymond) and others engaged in personal attacks here have previously demonstrated, prior history is not relevant...and is in fact nothing more than Wikilawyering. Or did the standards of what is acceptable change? -- Tony G 15:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I can only learn by using the examples of you, the more seasoned wiki editors. When I lay out examples of what I feel are violations of rules, and relevant history you call it "wikilawyering" and say i'm attacking people and history does not matter, we should AGF. so by using your previous examples you are attacking me personally and you should stop wikilawyering. i mean, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, no?--Zeeboid 15:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh...those 2 edits were within 15 minutes of each other. Does THAT violate whatever policy we were blocked for? I do not know because there was no explanation to show the timeframe was not created by Durova. I saw nothing in her text or the text she claimed her actions were based on that mentioned or implied anything about a specific timeframe. How can anyone know? Yet is it somehow "harassing" to request such clarification of the person who fabricated the vague criteria. -- Tony G 18:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You're focusing too much on the timeframe, and too little on the fact that you and Zeeboid work together. Try reading WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets again. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, after reading the guideline it appears to me that the fact they work together and are friends is only pertinent if they are truly single-purpose accounts. Do you think I am reading it wrong? RonCram 01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Mnyakko and Zeeboid look a lot like single-purpose accounts to me, but that isn't the main issue here. You might want to read the CN discussion that Durova linked to in the post that started this thread. If two users are coworkers/friends/family members and vote the same way in AfDs or advocate the same position in controversial discussions (like, say, making frivolous and absurd arguments that an editor should be restricted from editing because of an alleged conflict of interest), they're going to be seen as meatpuppets. When two users jointly contribute to a website whose stated purpose is to collect "data about admins abusing their power, etc." it's clear that they're communicating off-wiki about editing Wikipedia; such users are going to be seen as meatpuppets.

In my opinion, the meatpuppetry alone merits another block for both users; add the on-wiki harassment and WP:POINTyness, plus the attack site, and I have a hard time seeing why we allow the users to stay around. To be quite frank, I'd block them myself, except that I've been in several discussions with these users, and might therefore seem too involved. So, would someone else like to step in here? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree that the coordinated wikilawyering and harrassment by User:Mnyakko (a/k/a Tony G.) and User:Zeeboid must be stopped. These individuals are engaging in a campaign to create endless debate, to wear down, frustrate, disrupt and prevent productive users from building a neutral encyclopedia, as evidenced by the length and tone of this thread, and the evidence presented by Durova. I think further blocks under WP:POINT/WP:HARASS are necessary to protect the project, and if the disruption resumes after that, this matter should be taken to WP:CN. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 09:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second. Are you saying that two people who know each other cannot vote the same way on the same issue? Doesn't that seem as ridiculous to you as it does to me? There are plenty of editors and admins here who email each other. Wikipedia provides them the opportunity to "Email this user" on the Talk page. This looks like you are trying to punish them for their viewpoint ("vote the same way in AfDs or advocate the same position in controversial discussions") and not because any guideline has been broken. Intolerance of minority viewpoints is not encyclopedic. This attempt to punish Tony and Zeeboid appears to me to be another example of why Larry Sanger criticized Wikipedia as a "an often dysfunctional community." [39] Admins should be more sensitive to appearances and more tolerant of other viewpoints. When you admit you are punishing someone for their viewpoint, that is really going too far. RonCram 14:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

RonCram, I see that you are very active in the Anti Global Warming controversy. That's fine. I have no position in that controversy whatsover. This thread isn't about WP:SOCK. This thread is about user(s) who abuse process to create endless debates and disrupt the encyclopedia (WP:POINT) through wikilawyering. It's about harassment of community member(s) (WP:HARASS). Everyone has had a chance to comment, and I think the comments fairly represent the opinions of all sides.
Can one or more sysops please make a decision on Durova's request? Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 16:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Is all of this ink really about a block that expired a week ago? The best approach at this point is for User:Zeeboid and User:Mnyakko to move on and demonstrate, via contributions, that they have something constructive to add to the project. Wikipedia's policies, while intended to be fair, are primarily concerned with facilitating the construction of an online encyclopedia, not with creating a fully functional judicial system. Blocks are subject to review by the community, but I don't see any indication that anyone feels they were unjust, other than those directly concerned. Demanding proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" for an already-expired block which the community has endorsed is wikilawyering. Going on endlessly about an expired block and harassing the blocking admin are disruptive. MastCell ^Talk 18:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this ink is really about two blocks that expired a week ago. And no, I was not pressured into it by advocates for William Connolley. I consider it WP:POINT that it remains an issue and request that an uninvolved administrator implement appropriate blocks because of the harassment against me. If the aggressors continue to wikilawyer the issue, any editor here may propose a community sanction modeled after the one I linked to at the opening post of this thread. That should settle the question definitively. Durova^Charge! 19:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not taken the time to read all the ink above, but let me just give some further evidence regarding Zeeboid. After the block following a discussion in which Durova was quite patient (in my opinion), Zeeboid responded by insulting Durova [40]. Soon after the block expired, Zeeboid returned to one of the global warming related articles and made a series of 3 reverts in a space of 26 minutes, carefully going as far as he could without going over the limit [41][42][43]. These reverts inserted POV material, removing material that (1) was fully supported by evidence referenced on the page, via a link to this page full of evidence and (in the 3rd revert) an explicit citation; and (2) was finally stable after a protracted debate on the talk page. He also commented on the talk page on a different topic, in what I would consider effectively a troll [44]. I say "effectively" because trolling has to do with intentions, which are impossible to know; but certainly, his suggestion is laugable to nearly any scientist and exhibits either a lack of knowledge or a lack of sincerity about the topic. Specifically, he suggested that "having at least one publication in the natural sciences" is too strong of a requirement (!) for determining who is a scientist for a GW-related article.

Thanks for your time. --Nethgirb 07:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My arguement for this change was made in the associated talk pages.[45][46].--Zeeboid 13:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The community's reluctance to act in cases such as this continues to amaze me. Are we here to build an encyclopedia? Or are we a sociological experiment in trying to reform those who engage in destructive behavior, by giving them unlimited chances to prove themselves no matter how much damage they do in the interim? If the former, then people who continually abuse process, abuse respected administrators, abuse other editors, and create general havoc need to be politely but firmly directed to apply their talents elsewhere. Raymond Arritt 10:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Does it? What about the questions that we have asked that go unanswered? I would still like the one who banned us (Durova) to answer the simple questsions we have asked. I have included our chat history above, and it is quite obvious there was no harassment involved. the questions asked of the person who banned us are not beond the scope of acceptable, and i'm not the only one who think so[47]. this whole thing has come up because an admin is unwilling to explain her actions. What message does that send to wiki editors? It would appear more like this whole issue (the origional ban and the talk of this one) is to scielence debate when it comes to the improvement of articles.--Zeeboid 13:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Question: Nethgirb said, "carefully going as far as he could without going over the [3RR] limit"...is THAT a problem? If so then there are a number of people on those same pages (admins included) that do that on a near daily basis on many articles per day. Follow-up: If this is a problem, why are you not mentioning this (non-germane) WP:3RR issue when dealing with someone you obviously disagree with...IOW, why is it only an issue worth you mentioning on a selective basis?

Question: Nethgirb said, "removing material that (1) was fully supported by evidence referenced on the page"...is THAT a problem? If so then there are a number of people on those same pages (admins included) that do that on a daily basis on many articles per day. This is sounding like a textbook example of WP:OWN on behalf of those including Nethgirb. Follow-up: If this is a problem, why are you not mentioning this (non-germane) WP:AR dispute when dealing with someone you obviously disagree with...IOW, why is it only an issue worth you mentioning on a selective basis?

There are more comments from Nethgirb's last comment like this, but I know the questions posed will be ignored, and being that Durova is an admin and brought forward the complaint (without naming anyone) and Nethgirb's comments are on her side, he only needs to make claims of wrong-doing (no matter how factless they are, how misleading the statements are, or how incomplete of a picture the diffs show) and it will be taken as end-all-be-all fact. It is also clear from past history in matters like these that no matter how solid the documentation is in the other direction it is dismissed...either as not being sufficient enough, or if a lot is presented it is dismissed as wikilawyering. The process is a sham.

It is not even worth the time to actually present the documentation that the preceding blocks by Durova were beyond a normal length of time of other blocks by Durova (and other admins). Nothing will be done about THAT either. Longer than normal blocks by an admin on suspiciously underexplained grounds followed by a more vague and less legitimate allegation of harassment simply because "several" people asked for understanding (so a similar Salem-like process could not happen to them in the future). That is just the surface of inappropriate admin actions...and nothing will be done. It was clear to many how this whole thing would end at the beginning which had a very suspicious timeline (using the block rationale's logic and precedent) by the people involved here. -- Tony G 13:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The blocks in question expired a week ago. You've solicited community input here, and no one seems to feel that the blocks were particularly unjust. It's time to let it go, move on, and contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. The community tends to give people who contribute constructively a bit of leeway, whereas editors who seem more interested in arguing a case than contributing tax everyone's patience. Continuing to argue at such length about an expired block which no one else seems to feel was unjust is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. The best advice is to let it go and get back to editing, because continuing in this vein is likely to result in another block. MastCell ^Talk 16:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the behavior already deserves additional blocks and leave the accounts and the durations to the discretion of other administrators. In particular I find it troublesome that one of these parties responded to the identification of eight connected off-Wiki attack pages not by deleting them but by password protecting them. This has the very strong appearance of a POV-pushing clique intent on gaming Wikipedia's system in pursuit of their political goals who dogs any administrator diligent enough to set limits on their activity. I've bent over backwards to be scrupulous, just, and patient in this matter and have gotten nothing but grief from this group of people. Durova^Charge! 17:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ernham editing as anon while banned

68.187.115.195, which appears to be User:Ernham, is revert-warring and POV-pushing (eg here) while indefinitely blocked since 11 April 07. Can someone take this through Checkuser and then block the IP address? Ta, JackyR | Talk 22:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

duck test Navou ^banter 01:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Ernham editing from 68.187.115.195 and then logging in a few seconds later to sign his post. But I guess it's real effort for you to click the link rather than be facetious. JackyR | Talk 23:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he was agreeing with you, and that there is no need for a checkuser because if it looks like a duck etc, then it is a duck (Wikipedia:A spade is a). --Ezeu 03:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That's him alright. Blocked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry Navou. Cheers for sorting it, Blng. JackyR | Talk 14:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Newman

I spent a little time with Wikipedia a couple of years ago, using my real name, and now want to resume my identity. However, the password does not work. I am happy to give my e-mail; I am happy to meet an admin in UK; I just do not want to start all over again with a name that is not me, please! I actually do not believe, with a little common sense (qv Hannah Arendt) that it is difficult to judge that I remain the same person with the same interests! I shall look for replies here, please. 85.210.255.81 02:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have an email address set on your account, you can click on the "Email new password" button at the login page. Naconkantari 02:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid if you cannot recover your password using the e-mail function then there is nothing we can do. This is a technical restriction. Apologies. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 02:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Regaining_Identity.21_User:Jeffrey_Newman (would there be a simpler way to make an internal link to this?) gives me some further suggestions and help. I am still not prepared to give up as 'impossible' but I will accept 'very difficult', 'highly unusual', 'nearly impossible', 'pain in the xxxx' etc. Who, what, where, is 'a developer' and is it possible to contact one? That appears to be a route that might be necessary. And I do apolgise for all this but I believe Joe Mabel user:jmabel (who suggested I tried here), perhaps User_talk:Gadfium and User:AmiDanielpossibly understand why it is important - and I do apologise if I have quoted them/you inappropriately. Perhaps if I could find one or two other senior Wikipedians with a similar outlook, we could find a way through. Thank you. User:Jeffrey Newman 85.210.255.81 08:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• See m:Developers. Uncle G 11:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem - create a new account eg User: JNewman make the signature Jeffrey Newman, and make your old account user and talk pages a redirect to the new ones. Then your old work and credits link to your new name - no difference really unless you are into edit counting. Giano 08:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

More Cow tipping

Can someone please explain to me how we can justify this caption? Not a dog 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Because we're not Encyclopedia Brittanica. Why does it need to be 'justified'? Seems not only harmless, but I'd argue that it makes the article a bit better too, so why not? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a long debate which ended with no consensus (which usually means 'leave it as it was') Talk:Cow_tipping#Request_for_Comment:_Inclusion_of_image_of_cow_.26_related_caption. It's probably too soon to invite everyone back for a re-match. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No need for a debate. The article says cow tipping is unlikely if not downright impossible, therefore a caption saying "a potential victim" cannot be considered correct. I boldly reverted to the caption of "A cow". --kingboyk 15:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Bold, sir, very bold... Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There has been so much discussion on this already... just let go. --Sn0wflake 15:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's really okay. It's just a cow. Let it go =)GavinTing 16:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

May be bold, but it's been done before, and rejected as being redundant. Of course it's a cow. Prior to the RfC held on the subject of this caption, there was a good amount of debate, and the general feeling is that the original caption "An unsuspecting potential victim" is the most accurate descriptor. -Amatulic 16:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A lack of consensus (the result of the RfC) is not a "general feeling". Not a dog 16:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree there was a lack of consensus. Get over it. =Axlq 05:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:LAME? Corvus cornix 18:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It has my vote for WP:LAME. It even edges out some of the other edit wars already listed there. =Axlq 05:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: It's already listed. Seems to have been so for a while. =Axlq 05:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is now continued edit warring on the page by Chowbok (talk · contribs) and Atlant (talk · contribs) with wanton disregard for the talk page. Chowbok has never said anything more than "there was prior discussion on this", and Atlant continues to resort to purely personal comments which, while not really insulting, are entirely irrelevant to the merits of the caption. At what point is someone going to chime in and support what's best for the encyclopedia instead of saying "don't make waves" and allowing this absurd soapboxing to succeed? Milto LOL pia 16:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This guy has racist stuff on his userpage!

Okay I'm sort of new to this so I hope thisis the right place. I came across this guys userpage and he's got a list of countries hes visited there. But he's got a Nazi flag next to Israel! Thats just totally wrong so I deleted the flag but then he put it back and called it vandalism! He's User:Saintrotter. You have to go to the bottom to see the flag and heres a link to his edit [48]. The Parsnip! 15:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no rule against being an ass on your own userpage, unless it's disrupting the project because it's a personal attack or something. It's a 22px image, and dumb, yes. Does it threaten the stability of Wikipedia? Probably not, but that's just an opinion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't see any evidence that you've tried to talk to him about it on his user talk, did you discuss it with him elsewhere? Fighting it out via reverts always leads to grief, try discussion. - CHAIRBOY (☎)

Are you kidding? For the record I'm Jewish and think it's crazy that someone can put a flag like that next to a country of people whos ancestors were butchered! The Nazis killed 6 million Jews! Hey I went to his talk page and someone else already asked him to get rid of the bad stuff on his userpage and he didn't do it. This is so wrong! The Parsnip! 15:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

While Wikipedia isn't The United States, and there is no first amendment here, the country I come from has a celebrated tradition of supporting the rights of other folks to be raving assholes as long as they don't hurt others, so I'm afraid I can't quite muster up the same outrage over a 22px flag on a userpage. If you feel that the image is disrupting the project, or can make a good case for it being a personal attack, then it absolutely should be removed, but I guess I don't see that yet. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Per FayssalF's pointer up the page, this is an editor who has a history of disruptive activities. The deliberately offensive little flag on his userpage – and I can't AGF about that no matter how hard I try – is just the tip of the iceberg. Given his history as Rastishka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he ought to be on a very short leash. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to show my disagreement w/ Chairboy opinion about the matter. It is just provocative and has nothing to do w/ the community's mutual respect. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No disagreement that the user is a jerk, and his disruptions have been dealt with pretty vigorously. My assertion is that the 22px image on his user page doesn't really disrupt the rest of the project the way his other tendentious editing has. We are still talking about that tiny flag on his user page, right? Because some of the other comments are concentrating on all the crap he's done elsewhere on the project, even though the flag was the origin of this complaint. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem Chairboy is not limited to this user. The real problem is when others would argue (they have done so in fact) about the usage of some infoboxes and stuff which others see as provocative. Some of the cases involve User:Embargo (see the edit warring at his userpage), User:Politicallyincorrectliberal (see the edit warring at his userpage) and the list is long. It is just time consumming if we have to deal w/ each case at a time. My opinion is that we have to be very firm in dealing w/ those kind of problems. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The image has been now removed; I fully support this action. Tizio 16:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted the original complaint that FayssalF pointed out. I have to state for the record that while the first amendment is a lovely thing, it doesn't apply to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for airing personal grievances, which this person's user page is a form of. He pretty clearly feels he has a bone to pick with Jews and with "liberal bias", as well as people who he seems to think haven't posted enough pictures of victims at the Holodomor article. It doesn't make a difference to me what Saintrotter thinks, but I think that if he wants to complain about how "moderators show pro-Jewish bias" and put up deliberately inflammatory pictures, he should go start a blog or a myspace page. The question here has to be: "is this person going to change his ways?" It sure doesn't seem that way, considering his longstanding issues under his Rastishka account, as well as those under his static IP, and now under his "new" account. Like I said above, he's sneaky and , but I don't think there can be any question that his behavior and his userpage are disruptive (complaints to this noticeboard should indicate disruption). TheQuandry 16:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The recent Billy Ego ArbCom case makes it clear that this sort of thing on a user-page isn't allowed, especially pro-Nazi stuff. - Merzbow 18:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. This user put a Nazi flag by Israel, and you are going to say he can do that? What part of WP:SOAP don't you understand? I swear to God, if we don't disallow this, I will quit this encyclopedia in protest. Seriously, if I put on my userpage that "all faggots go to Hell" or "fuck the niggers", wouldn't it be removed? This is ridiculous. Part Deux 18:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that, while the initial complaint dealt with one (small) aspect of this editor's disruptive behaviour, we are not compelled to put blinders on and ignore the rest of his conduct. I'm not sure where the impression comes from that his disruptive behaviour has been dealt with 'vigorously'. Under this account, he's received one block for 3RR; about the only other censure of his conduct has been of the "Stop, or I'll say Stop again!" variety. Given the very WP:POINTy behaviour that has been noted in the other thread, I'd say he's been let off lightly indeed. I will block him if he engages in any further behaviour which violates WP:POINT, WP:NPA, WP:CIV, or is just plain trolling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll support such an action in case he reverts this. So no big deals about this case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Part Deux already said it as well as I could. This user page is too disruptive. I have given the user fair warning that they will be blocked if they revert to the Nazi flag. If they do, they know what will happen, and I support a block for POINT disruption. I suggest one week. — coelacan — 21:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

He didn't revert it, but instead he (quite POINTly) added a Palestine flag, describing the prior reverts as vandalism. It appear that ToAT has already blocked him for 24 hours, though I would strongly endorse a further block if he doesn't cease his disruptive behavior. Michaelas¹⁰ 15:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for POINTy flags

He decided to start putting the flag of Palestine next to the name Israel ([49]), rather than the Nazi flag. Since this is very nearly as inflammatory, and clearly engineered to test the bounds of WP:POINT, I have blocked for 24 hours and rolled back the change. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

?? Why is it "as inflammatory"? Are you comparing Palestinians to the Nazis or something? I think some people have really lost it in this PC or I don't know what madness. Nazi flag, yes, we can see - but Palestinian, no. Someone must really make an effort to see it "as inflammatory as the Nazi flag" - I don't know about the block, but I am reverting your change. There are tons on userboxes out there who say "independence for this, independence for that" - which all can be seen as "provocative" since they concern secession from existing countries. I suggest another admin to roll back this zealous block. In what friggin' way is the Palestinian flag as inflammatory as the Nazi flag? Baristarim 15:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Unquestionably soapboxing and disrupting to make a point. Heimstern Läufer 15:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Block maybe, I didn't follow that story all the way, so it might be appropriate - but what about what tenofalltrades just said? Baristarim 15:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You are misquoting him in the edit summary, and quoting with insufficient context here (there is an "almost", even emphasized, in Ten's text). In this particular context, the use of the Palestinian flag is certainly inflammatory. I don't see how this could improve Wikipedia at all. If it doesn't, there is no reason to have it. And after the Nazi flag, the action clearly violates WP:POINT. I endorse the block. --Stephan Schulz 15:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed. Also, I removed the blurb about "under occupation" as we have no idea if he went to areas occupied or under the PNA. Regardles, userpages are not for political statements. To say you went to Palestine is fine; to then drag in the entire Middle East political turmoil is also fine...but not in wikipedia. There are plenty of free webhosts for that. -- Avi 15:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the block - fine. I am hundred percent behind the decision to remove the Nazi flag. But would the admins who have been so zealous in removing the "blurb" about "under occupation" show the same zeal in removing "independence for X" userboxes in Wikipedia? Come on, or are we talking about double standards here? Don't worry, I have been following this thread pretty closely even though I didn't get involved, and the only thing I noticed was people getting hyped up and showing somewhat different standards when it comes to political statements which have been plastered all over user pages in Wikipedia. I even created a userbox to mock all this :) But, the point is, why aren't you all involved in removing other userboxes which are equally provocative in many instances?? I am not going to be PC about it, the thing with the Palestinian flag and some of the comments are really venturing into the "different standards" territory, that's all I am saying. Baristarim 16:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed that you reverted my change without discussing the matter with me first.

The flag of Palestine, in and of itself, is not at all inflammatory. It's a perfectly reasonable pattern. Kind of stylish. Good use of colour. Easily recognizable. Everything a flag should be. If the editor in question had put the flag of Palestine next to the name Palestine, there wouldn't be any problem at all. It's a reasonable thing to do, and you wouldn't have heard a peep out of me. I wouldn't be bothered by an 'Independence for X' userbox, either.

However...Saintrotter didn't do that. (Context is key!) He's been engaging in a pattern of disruptive behaviour with regard to Israel. First, he put the flag of Nazi Germany next to the name of Israel on his user page, and edit warred for a bit over that until he was told in no uncertain terms to stop trolling. Coupled with his past behaviour as Saintrotter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Rastishka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), where he has engaged in a long history of trolling – see [50], which includes comparing the Holocaust to the Loch Ness monster and edit warring over the image on mammary intercourse – he is justifiably on a very short leash with regard to conduct. (He has had four previous blocks on those two accounts for personal attacks and 3RR violations.) Attaching the flag of Palestine to the name of the nation of Israel is obviously and clearly intended to be inflammatory and obnoxious. At best, he's making a WP:POINT, at worst it's plain trolling.

To be clear, I have not rolled back Baristarim's change, as I don't want to get into an edit war over what I thought was a clear and reasonable admin action. I would appreciate clear, neutral, third opinions. (Ideally, I would hope that following this explanation Baristarim will revert his own edit, now that I've made clear that my action wasn't meant to be some sort of overzealous partisan attack on Palestine.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. I also put a post right above - my main point is also something different: I have been seeing all sorts of political statements on user pages, and I feel that in this situation we applied a different standard, that's all I am saying. Please have a look, I am also a bit more subtle than "defend Palestine!!" - Palestine is not at all in question here. Baristarim 16:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"I support the independence of ..." is something very different from "Israelis are Nazis" or "Israel should be all Palestinian", the most plausible interpretations of the flag game. And WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good reason to tolerate crap, anyways. --Stephan Schulz 16:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope - they are the same thing. In any case, see my post below: I have met Palestinians who sincerely believe that the land upon which Israel resides is Palestine proper. So? Are we supposed to go on a "truth patrol"? I am also leaving a note about another user below. Baristarim 17:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask to avoid misunderstanding. In your POV, "Israelis are Nazis" is the same as "I support independence for Palestine"? --Stephan Schulz 17:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course they are not the same thing in the way I suppose you are asking - no need for a misunderstanding. I mean they are both political statements which are at varying degrees aimed at "someone else". If a user says in a userbox "I am a Communist" - that's only a statement of his outlook in the world (I suppose you can argue that he is calling all the rich people pigs subconciously, but before we get there let's finish this thread :)), however a "independence for X" thing is inherently attacking someone! If "something" is not independent, then "someone else" is not letting it be independent at best, or downright "oppressing" it at worst. There is still violence which is inherent in that message and it really doesn't help Wikipedia except allow people a platform to declare to the whole world their thoughts and etc. The worst thing is, not all of those independence templates carry the same weight: Tibet might not be comparable to Cascadia for example.

Now, "Israelis are Nazis" is not even a political statement really: it is dangerously streaking on hate speech on a conservative approach or a very extreme political statement on a more liberal one. But again, if we have to sift through all sorts of templates on a case by case basis, we might as well create a whole new department to deal with all of them! For example, I mentioned a user below who has a "I support the PKK" userbox. So, where do we draw the line there?

All I am saying is, when we actually sit back and consider this in light of Wikipedia project goals, they simply don't serve any purpose, but have loads of trouble and tension potential. Most people these days already have MySpace accounts or blogs, or Youtube channels, so let's just get rid of them on Wikipedia and direct people to those sites. The worst thing is, I know for a fact that certain users have joined Wikipedia just because they saw user pages which they considered was provocative. The very first time I joined wikipedia I also ended up getting into a horrible dispute with two users who had posted stuff full of praises for their country and, for one of the two, downright insults for another country. (second was User:Mitsos, don't know if you know him - his userpage was later taken down by other admins). We really need a ironclad rule really about political soapboxing. Baristarim 17:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The key phrase here is at varying degrees. Free speech is ok, persistent shouting in my ear is not. Lighting a candle is ok, lighting a building is not. Supporting independece for Tibet is ok, but supporting genocide on the Tutsi is not. Yours is a fallacious slippery slope argument. And by your reasoning, Gandhi was one of the most violent persons in history. Independence does not have to involve violence. --Stephan Schulz 18:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just protected it until the issue is sorted out. I appreciate once more Avi's action. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do remove all those "independence for X" userboxes as well - I find some of them provocative and they are all political statements :) Baristarim 16:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a Moroccan and never felt offended by "this user supports the independence of Western Sahara". Why? Because i can make a difference between rightfull things and trolling or making a point. Putting a flag of Palestine w/ the name of Israel is plain WP:POINT. Nobody would be offended if he had used "this user supports the independence of the Palestinian territories". After all, why are we here? This is not the UN Baristarim. We are building an encyclopaedia and we i don't think we have time to waste on things like that. Indeed, i find the version of Avi as representative an neutral. If he's been to Israel than he has to use the flag of Israel. If he has been to Gaza or the West bank than he has to use the flag of Palestine. Is this silly? I don't know if you have had a look at Userpages Vs WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:POINT again and again below but i am really fed up w/ the stuborness of a few users here and my patience is almost gone. What else can i say? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have definitely taken a look - I cannot stand political soapboxing on user pages, believe me. Nevertheless, I don't think that the example you give can be considered as "rightful" - it is still trolling. What does it mean "independence for X"? That's a political statement in its ultimate form. Not to mention that it is probably offensive to the person from the country who is supposedly "oppressing and colonizing" the "other one". You say, "if he has been to Israel, he has to use the flag of Israel" - uh, nope, that's a matter of appreciation: many Palestinians sincerely consider the land upon which Israel currently resides as Palestine proper - so are we supposed to sift through all that wad of political statements and dictate people what the "truth" is? You are right, we do not have time to waste on things like that, and all those lame independence for this, occupation of X must end, I support Greater Y, Z is that userboxes are simply annoying, not helpful to the creation of an encyclopedia and have the potential to create unneccessary tension or aggravate ethnic disputes by making people bypass the AGF rule by saying "oh, that X@# supports Y, eh?" To the garbage with the bunch of them is all that I am saying. You are right, 1st amendment doesn't apply to Wikipedia if it gets in the way of the project and I have yet to see what "benefit" they bring. Right? :)) Baristarim 16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually the problem of political userboxes is a bit complicated. Yes, but what can admins do at the absence of clear policies? One of the main recent problematic issues in wikipedia has been userboxes. Now, can we make a difference between making a point and being rightfull? Personally speaking, yes. We have to add to this argument the fact that trolls, disruptors and stuborn editors? take advantage of this lack of policies. Many users accepted to remove innapropriate userboxes w/ a smile. The editors? never accept and engage in edit warring (their behaviour is not limited to that but to the articles they edit?). So i have to ask myself: Why i am here? Using common sense, i can (as many admins can per consensus) do recognize disruptors. What we have is WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. The main problem is not limited in having the right or not to use X userbox but the disruption and pointy arguments of their users.

Now, let's talk about "independence for X". Although i am not personally offended as i explained above, i would certainly be against their usage if i had a chance to participate on a poll re them. I am not a fun of them anyway. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This user has a "I support the PKK" userbox. PKK is recognized as terrorist in many countries, including in the US where Wikipedia servers are based. I am sorry, but is that ok? If a newbie Turkish user stumbles upon Wikipedia and sees it, I am pretty sure he will go right off the bat at him - all these lame independence this, Greater Y, I support all-sorts-of-fringe-groups-and-ideologies-out-there userboxes are not helpful the Wiki Project in general.. I really would like to see all of those independence boxes as well: they are "passively agressive" since they contain the inherent "attack" that "the other(s)" are some sort of evil oppressors. Baristarim 17:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem with putting the Palestinian flag next to the name "Israel" is that Palestine and Israel aren't the same thing. While they both (depending on who you ask) rest whithin the same territory, the Nation of Palestine is an absolutely separate entity from the Nation of Israel. Telling a Palestinian that Palestine is the same as Israel (or an Israeli vice versa) would be as smart as walking through Compton in Los Angeles and shouting racial slurs. Saintrotters/Rastishkas purpose was absolutely WP:POINT, deliberately disruptive and should not be tolerated. I'm glad to see he won't get away with this garbage anymore. TheQuandry 19:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

82.33.32.160 is Saintrotter's static IP

(reset indent) FYI, here is the evidence that 82.33.32.160 is a static IP used by Saintrotter/Rastishka [51]. A quick look at his contributions shows the connection to Rastishka. Perhaps worth watching in case he decides to circumvent his block. TheQuandry 19:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You really shouldn't be putting that on a public forum, c'mon!! Gatorphat 02:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You must be new... TheQuandry 14:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Coffee Beans

I used to have [this] on my user page, but removed it (anon as I was on another machine) in deference to the recent Virginia episode. Did anyone care it was there? Did anyone care it went? NOPE! Can't we all just go back to creating something worthwhile rather than wasting time in a pointless dicussion about some bloke who wants to fanny around being inflmatory. It seems to me a lot of the above editors just want to get wound up so they can shove there two pence in rather than actually focus on doing some editing!!!!Pedro |  Chat  23:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI on Altimit OS

I hope this is the right place for this, and sorry if it's not, but DarkAkira seems to have it in his/her head that their corporation is the fictional corporation, and that their OS is the fictional OS, for which Altimit OS and Altimit Corporation were created. Their attempts to make these articles about their corporation and OS have been reverted, and a discussion has been taking place about the issues involved, after my reversion. The user seems adamant that their project supercedes the original, fictional OS and corp, even in the face of WP:N and, more specifically, WP:CORP and WP:COI. Their most recent reply to the discussion is particularly worrisome, "And if you don't want me to post, then I'll let my users do it." I would take this to WP:3O or one of the other mediation options, but the last reply there shows, to me at least, that this user has no regard for the guidelines and policies involved and probably wouldn't respond well to a simple third opinion. I've tried to be kind and assume good faith, but their attitude is trying my patience. Any help would be much appreciated! Nique talk 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Added another voice to Talk:Altimit OS, for what little it's worth. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but this user still seems to have things a little confused. I've left a reply, this time on the user's talk page, though their entries on the main discussion still seem worrisome to me. Any other opinions or suggestions? This is getting a little ridiculous, they still seem to refuse to acknowledge the guidelines that are in place for just this kind of reason. Nique talk 03:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And more. User still seems confused as to what I mean, even though I'm trying to explain clearly. I'm trying once again to explain things to them clearly. Mind, they might just not have a full grasp of the English language, though if they're trying to get an office space in the US, that seems unlikely, but it's getting frustrating, I feel like I have to keep repeating myself, but it doesn't seem to be getting through, and they still think they're the corporation, making the OS. This kind of walking-the-line between fiction and reality doesn't seem normal or healthy to me, but maybe I'm just too involved in the discussion. Nique talk 03:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the wrong place. Please go to WP:COIN. Thanks. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 09:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Indian admin blocking non-Indian user in conflict with an Indian user

Resolved

 – nothing more to see here, move along --Iamunknown 03:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am new here, but i have been lurking around for the last few days since I am a journalist writing an editorial on the reliability and neutrality of wikipedia. This case caught my attention, because it looks like an obvious case conflict of interests and bias, an Indian admin User:Aksi great pro-actively blocked a non-Indian user User:ParthianShot for making just 1 revert!!!! on two different pages against an Indian user User:Fullstop [52], [53] to restore sourced information. Now what's alarming is that the Indian user made 2 reverts (far more reverts than User:ParthianShot) on each one of those pages too [54] [55] [56], but this Indian admin did not even bother warning his compatriot for revert-waring or personal attacks (look at User talk:Fullstop#Stop), I think the neutral non-Indian admins should review this case and either block the Indian editor as well, or unblock the non-Indian editor. cause as it is, this looks like a partisan admin giving unfair advantage to one side of a content dispute. --MedianLady 18:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest? Hardly. It was a dispute. If a white admin blocked a non-white admin it means someone got blocked, not simmering racial hatred. Same thing here. I trust the judgement without going to deep. -M^ask? 18:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy this. I am sure you are User:ParthianShot. Please do not evade your block. The next block will be for a much longer time. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ParthianShot should have been blocked by Dmcdevit at the same time User:TheBenham was for edit warring and only escaped because he has managed to sanitize his record as Surena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by deleting Surena's talk page then doing a username change to hide his block log and sockpuppetry. The revert on Shapur I [57] reinstated a copyright violation taken from the Encyclopedica Iranica, and falsely characterized the removal as vandalism. That warrants a block even if it wasn't edit warring, which it was. I was going to investigate last night for blocking but got sidetracked by other matters. I endorse the block, and I'm white as Wonder bread. Are you happier now? Thatcher131 19:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Also blocked. Quack quack. Thatcher131 19:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I could not refrain from adding my comments. Sorry. Unless people prove and declare their true identities and other details (which they are not obliged to disclose}, dividing editors and administrators as Indian administrators/ editors, and non-Indian administrators/ editors look highly childish. We all are here as wikipedians with the same goal. --Bhadani (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Serious privacy violation attack

There's an editor, Darkness of meta (talk · contribs), who obviously has a number of sockpuppets and appears to be launching a coordinated attack on the Wikipedia attempting to blatantly violate our privacy policy by revealing real names of editors without permission. I have already sent in three requests to the oversight committee and have blocked the main editor account and any other accounts I found. The m.o. is to place the user's real name on the user page and/or user discussion page, or alternatively to move the user and/or user discussion page to a new page in such a way as to violate the privacy policy. I have fully protected my own user page and user discussion page and would strongly encourage any other admins to revert any more instances of this against other people, along with contacting WP:OVERSIGHT to remove the edits from the logs. I consider this a serious threat against my continued contributions to the Wikipedia. --Yamla 18:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator but I would like to politely ask, how does he know some editors real names? Does he know them in real life? Tellyaddict^Talk 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It's not that hard to get access to mine as I participate in unblock-en-l and I use my real name and email address when responding to emailed requests to my username. However, privacy policy makes it a clear violation to reveal my real name on the Wikipedia itself without my permission and I have not and do not grant this permission. I need to maintain a separation between my Wikipedia identity and my real-life identity. I may well have to set up a new email account so this does not happen to me in the future. --Yamla 19:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the accounts that are committing this attack generally have names like Wikifalls to Oompapa (talk · contribs) or some other variant on an oompapa name. The user may well have other accounts, of course. --Yamla 19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not doubting your comments in any way and I symapthise for you, if their is anything I can do as a non-sysop, just leave a message. Thank you - Tellyaddict^Talk 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll wager a guess it is related to this email I received a few weeks ago. He fishes for a response through wiki email and then posts the name on the email account if the individual replies.--Isotope23 19:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh god, I recieved that email, so did User:Netsnipe and a few more. It's rubbish, but somethings up. Plus clicking on the link of that user. It obviously shows the sockpuppeteer is User:Mr oompapa So do we create a community ban or not? Retiono Virginian 19:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It is related to that, I'm sure, but I did not respond to that message. The user got my real name elsewhere. --Yamla 19:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That is some deranged shit. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr Oompapa has already been indef blocked. He has been creating sock puppets all day today. I have been blocking them on sight when I see them. He obvioulsy changing his IP. I have requested a check user on the 20+ sockpuppets so far to determing an underlying IP range and block it for a little while. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

An additional report has been filed here [58]. I see no reason why this user shouldn't be banned. Retiono Virginian 21:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I recieved one of these emails as well. As Isotope23 pointed out above, the idea behind the attack is that the person will email you with a downright strange message, and then waits for your confused reply (something along the lines of "what are you talking about?" etc.). Then, he's got your email address. Once he's got that, he can easily run it through Google and look for connections between a name and that email address (using social networking sites such as MySpace, LiveJournal, Xanga, etc.). Do NOT respond to the emails, and the attacks will stop. // Sean William 21:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Setting up a Wikipedia-only email address - even a throwaway hotmail account - can be helpful for security. As long as you don't use it for anything but Wikipedia there's no not-paper trail. Natalie 22:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I also received it, as did two other admins I know. Note that my email address is one that only contains my first name & is effectively a throwaway one. I recommend that others use similar for their own protection - Alison^☺ 22:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I got it, as well, about two weeks or so ago (I think). I killed it with fire the moment I got it, not that my real name is really any secret :) Daniel Bryant 02:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm on the road and can't fill out the "paperwork," but I trust that this is being checkusered? Newyorkbrad 02:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A request has been filed. MER-C 10:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to quickly clear up a misapprehension - the Privacy policy does not anywhere prohibit third parties naming people without first gaining permission. Common sense prohibits that. Shimgray | talk | 17:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I should add, he's now appeared on the MediaWiki wiki as mw:User:Mr oompapa and his userpage is a collection of vile personal attacks against users on the English Wikipedia. He even created an attack page too, which has been tagged for speedy deletion there. No doubt if he's reading this, he'll probably attack my pages.... --SunStar Net ^talk 17:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yah, just saw his userpage over there. More puerile attacks on me and two other admins. WP:RBI applies, or in this case, just ignore will do. What a sad, insecure little man he is. I've semi-protected Retiono Virginian's userpage due to attacks from this guy and RV may have gone on WikiBreak as a result of this harrassment. Can others here keep RV on their watchlists? - Alison^☺ 22:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Yossiea and Avraham

I've been under personal attacks by User:Yossiea for adding information to a picture[59]. For the records, I should say that I've used sourced information that were already in the article. See him, threatening me for my obvious normal edit and calling it vandalism, here on my talk page [60] --217.219.236.17 19:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've requested Avraham to be cool and stop posting rude messages to me, but he deleted my message from his talk page. I can't see my edit even in history of the page. It seems that administrators can do this. I think he's trying to whitewash himself. Now I know that he's an administrator. What a good one. --217.219.236.17 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see it just fine: here's the history. The last five edits are all from you. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

He has deleted my message. I've re-posted my request to him. I think administrators can see his deleted things, isn't it? --‍217.219.236.17 21:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The only way to delete an edit from a history (without oversight, which Avraham doesn't have) is to delete a page and then recreate it without that edit. The page has never been deleted, so he never 'whitewashed' himself. I also remind you to assume good faith; jumping to the conclusion that he's trying to make himself look better, rather than that you're not looking in the right place is a bad idea. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has been deleted from Avraham's page. Perhaps you thought you had left a message but you had only hit "preview" instead of "save". — coelacan — 21:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think asking for assistance here made him more conservative. Look at his first messages to me and see how rude they were. Now he became more conservative, and he's talking about wikipedia rules. But the fact is that he reverted my edit, thinking that I will never come back. But I'm insisting on my edit, as I've read the sources that were used, and they use suitable tone, in oppositon of what he states. And about whitewashing his talk page: He's responding on my talk page, even when I asked him not to do so, because in this way it's hard for me to respond. I thinking responding anywhere else other than the place that question was first appeared is a bad idea. --217.219.236.17 21:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

217.219.236.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Kindly show where this user has placed a comment on my page that has been deleted? If anyone is deleting proper warnings from their userpage, it is this IP user, with an improper summary, I might add. Further, per Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Information style and tone, we shy away from editorializing and storyboarding. Kindly explain how my edit here removes anything but inappropriate posturing. If anything, this user's contribution seems to have a specific agenda. Of course, it is an anonymous IP, and there my be a number of editors of wikipedia at Amir Kabir Technical university, Somayeh st & Hafez st, Tehran, Iran, but this IP has already demonstrated a particular animosity towards me before, which when removed by The Benham as trolling, was deemed so important as to be restored by Lixy with denunciations of censorship. It's still in the archives, I might add. -- Avi 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that was not my edit, but I think that that was also a normal edit, that you called trolling. Like my edit that I still support, as it was a sourced content, and you reverted without any description. Now, you're stating different thing, and saying it doesn't use appropriate tone. He called me ipvandal, but as many users on his talk page say, many of his edit are vandalism... reverting and removing others edits repeatedly. --217.219.236.17 22:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oy vey. {{ipvandal}} is the template I remembered off of the top of my head that links to the contribution list. {{ip}} links to {{welcomeip}} and that would not have helped here. Would you prefer {{IPuser}}? -- Avi 22:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, do not assume that everyone that is editing with IP is a vandal. This is not a good opinion. ipvandal is still here. Would you mind changing it? --217.219.236.17 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for changing it, but I think I won't edit here again. It was very stressful for me to edit some pages. Have a good time. --217.219.236.17 22:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies of the IP editor from Amir Kabir Technical university

1. "Look at his first messages to me and see how rude they were." --217.219.236.17 21:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
   • SharedIPEDU template
   • uw-delete2 message due to removal of {{AS}} from article.
   • creating subheading
2. "And about whitewashing his talk page: He's responding on my talk page, even when I asked him not to do so, because in this way it's hard for me to respond."--217.219.236.17 21:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
   • Requested at 17:51, April 17, 2007
   • My last edit on this persons page was at 17:42, April 17, 2007. Regardless, it was only a request.

As I said, this IP has a history of animosity towards me. Compounding with, at best inaccurate accusations, and at worst deliberate mischaracterizations only serves to demonstrate the IP's motives and POV. Perhaps an anonblock is called for?-- Avi 22:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I told him that calling me a vandal is not a good opinion, and because of this I can not assume good faith about him. I still state that he was trying to attack personally on me. He's not even looked at the sources, and tried to revert the page. Isn't it an example of bad faith? Any edit by an IP is vandalism? This is what he thinks, and I don't agree with him. --217.219.236.17 22:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Password hack attempt

Someone from the IP address 217.219.236.17 requested that we send you a 
new login password for the English Wikipedia.

The new password for the user account "Avraham"…

Over the line, for safety, I believe this a block, and perhaps a long-term anonblock of the site. I'll be glad to forward the e-mail to the foundation/checkuser if necessary. -- Avi 22:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC). It's just a way to troll admins and regular editors and generally be a nuisan

Maybe It was me, I wanted to create a user, and I used Avraham as name. I tried it ignorantly. Sorry. If I knew, I never would have done this. Do you want to block me for being a new user? --217.219.236.17 22:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I ignorantly played with the page. I promise not to do this again, and I won't come back to wikipedia. Is that enough? Hey, Avraham, I played on that page, but I'm sorry. Is it enough?????? Please, Please..... Why do you think bad about me? Sorry. --217.219.236.17 22:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I was traveling which is why I did not respond. However, as I said earlier, maybe it is not you personally, but the IP from which you edit has already made unsolicited (and in my admittedly partial opinion) uncalled for personal attacks against me before. I hope it won't happen again and you and your fellow students can successfully edit wikipedia in accordance with its policies and guidelines, and personal opinions (which we all have) notwithstanding, be able to reach a consensus in contentious articles. -- Avi 01:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't stop you thinking bad about IP editors. Bye. :-( --217.219.236.17 22:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're a new user, you should probably think about acting a bit more like one. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just ignore the email, I get them quite often. Unless somebody has access to your email I imagine your safe. Matthew 23:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurrance. I better add another 20 alphaneums to my password -- Avi 01:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I get these password emails on a regular basis, Avri. Sometimes several a day and I know other admins do as well. Some of us have had to set up special emails filters to deal with them. So I agree with Matthew and I'd just ignore it. Sarah 07:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I've blocked the IP for 3 hours. Using the password change device to harass and try to intimidate an editor is absolutely unacceptable. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Beki Bondage

User:Stargtr claims to be a member of the band Vice Squad [61] and be dating the singer Beki Bondage(link). Given his creation of the article Paul Rooney, I surmise this is him. He demands Beki's birthday be removed from Wikipedia and has contacted the wiki foundation [62]. Given the obvious WP:COI and WP:NOR violations (he claims the birthday is wrong, but I have a published source and a bad source always trumps no source, according to our rules) I have felt justified up to this point reverting. See also my WP:COIN post. However in his latest edit he claims the redirect is "authorised by wiki mediator" [63]. I have several questions. First, given this user's massive policy violations (auto-biographical writing, COI, OR, edit warring) why hasn't he been blocked yet? Second, how can I find out what the wiki foundation's response to him was? Third, since I have a properly sourced neutral fact about someone (a birthday for God's sake) what can I do to keep the information in Wikipedia? Removing a properly sourced fact from an article (he admits the source is valid [64] he just claims it's /wrong/) just because the article subject's boyfriend doesn't like it goes against every policy we have. Nardman1 00:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion is not recommended for marginally notable people per WP:BLP, so I've been bold and removed it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Many people are concerned, rightly or wrongly, that publicizing their exact date of birth increases the risk of identity theft or other forms of harassment. Where we receive a request to remove this information from an individual not at a peak of notability, there is little reason not to honor it. Including the year of birth should be sufficient to provide readers with relevant information without implicating privacy issues. Newyorkbrad 03:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's because you're too young to remember her first band. She reached 32 on the charts in the UK in the 70's. [65]. Nardman1 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't suggest a reason to include her exact date of birth in the article in view of an expressed concern about it. Newyorkbrad 03:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether your comment was directed at me or not, but I can assure you I fully remember the band, I spent most of my misspent youth listening to Discharge and Crass. The fact remains that she is hardly a public figure any more, and there is no legitimate reason for including the information under the circumstances in my opinion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ta, yet another case of me being overzealous I think. Withdraw request. Nardman1 10:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• User says the Foundation authorized him to edit this article [66]. Could this be true, given our COI rules? However I agree that as Beki is not a public figure, per se, the information should no longer appear in the article. Nardman1 10:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible block evasion by Maharashtraexpress

I wish to report what maybe a possible block evasion by User:Maharashtraexpress who has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Sarvabhaum.

I had a dispute with him over the wording of Marathi_language#Konkani section following which I put up an RFC and waited for a month. Since no one has commented I had changed the content to this version: [67]]

Immediately after that an anonymous user with IP : 59.95.14.73 has reverted two changes on 17th April: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marathi_language&oldid=123565032 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marathi_language&oldid=123565321

Today 18th April: another anonymous user with IP: 59.95.29.38 has again reverted back to the same changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marathi_language&oldid=123732896

What is even more interesting, is the comment he left on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marathi_language&diff=prev&oldid=123733231

To quote him:

The controversial remarks were edited out and the present contents are full-proof. I request Deepak to not speak on behalf of all Konkanis. I am myself a Konkani and like lakhs of Konkanis in Maharashtra,we do think it is Marathi's dialect.The contents are balanced.

This is similar to some comments Maharashtraexpress has made on my talk page:

1. However u must be aware that there are sizeable no of Konkanis in Maharashtra who consider themselves as Maharashtrians. There are 'sizeable' Konkanis who are more than happy to accept the 'dialect theory of Marathi nationalists'!!

2. Malwani people are proud to be part of Maharashtra

3. Again stop assuming the patent rights of Konkani.

4. There are thousands of Pais, Kamats, Shanbaugs who feel proud about their Marathiness.

5. but dont think Konkani is wholly owned subsidery of Goa/Goans

1. All I have written are facts backed by source. Plz see the source website which is based in Goa itself.

This user has been deliberately trying to evade blocks by pretending to be an anonnymous user(and hence by implication: a new user). What can we do about him.

I can block him. That 59.95..... IPs are him. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocking IPS has its own set of problems, doesn't it. Well, you know better so I leave the decision to you. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

ParthianShot

Recently a admin blocked ParthianShot, later an I.P reverted back to her version while she was blocked, but I requested a check at CheckUser and it said unrelated can someone shorten the duration or unblock her? (See [68]) also since theres two parties here I suspect someone is trying to game the system. Ashkani 07:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Also since CheckUser said its unrelated someone please unblock the anon, [69] Ashkani 07:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Since the IP is not related, I could understand why you'd like to see it unblocked, but why would you want ParthianShot unblocked? As I understand it that block was already in place for something else before the alleged sockpuppetry occured. So the assumed block evasion that lead to the checkuser request can't have be the reason for that block. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No but the block was extended from 48 hours to 5 days for alleged sock puppetry which was actually unrelated. Ashkani 08:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently there was block evasion not just through that IP, but also through a sock account, which was using open proxies (MedianLady (talk · contribs)). By the way, Ashkani, if you want to stick your nose into sock investigations, you might want to tell us first whose sock you are. ;-) You're certainly not as new as your account name, are you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Why jump to conclusions so fast? does it matter, I'm no sock of ParthianShot, my nose is fine where it is. :----) Ashkani 08:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The IP was blocked because it was obviously carrying his edit warring for him while he was blocked. It is more plausible to explain that he drove to a library, logged on, and fought from that IP than to think that some random IP just happened to notice the conflict and side with him. Also revealing is that both the IP and MedianLady focus on the supposed nationality dispute that ParthianShot mentioned as I don't think anyone else aside from ParthianShot would look at this situation in that way. His block should be put back at 5 days for this is obvious sock or meatpuppetry. The Behnam 19:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Unlikely, CheckUser is more than assumptions so it was not her and MedianLady was not confirmed properly. Ashkani 19:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well MedianLady was an open proxy anyway, so I don't think CheckUser would ever be able to find anything. However it is telling that MedianLady was a SPA that was created to carry his fight. The Behnam 19:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

An open proxy can be handled by anyone. Ashkani 19:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd "script" edit

Resolved

I just reverted this ([70]) series of diffs. I don't know what the newbie was trying to do, but it didn't seem to work. However, the word "script" alarmed me. I know nothing about how these things work, but I wondered if it was some kind of attempt to work some kind of vandalism code in. Then again, being quite naive about coding, it could be some harmless html thingy that didn't work. Either way, I'd be grateful for some more expert input. Standing by, ready to blush for my alarmism... --Dweller 08:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a web programmer, myself, but did a google search and came up with this. Check page 6 of this PDF. It clearly metnions a way to attack using a web service and the line is nearly the same: <script>alert()</script>

This guy was definetely trying something funny. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 09:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately JavaScript is only enabled for individual users' skins. --Iamunknown 09:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad I wasn't being alarmist. It may be worth, therefore, blocking or banning the user. Could we also set a 'bot to check for this type of edit? --Dweller 10:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if the script tag was enabled here, this wouldn't do anything but make a popup window reading "beans". No need for a block. —Cryptic 10:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it won't hurt, but let's not give this guy any ideas.It is clear that this chap isn't here with good intent. I suggest a track on his IP too. Dweller's suggestion to have a bot to check for such attempts seems good to me. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a forum for requesting bot actions? I've had experience with bots... and would quite enjoy doing the request and expanding my horizons a little. --Dweller 10:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Found it: WP:BOTREQ in case anyone else wants to know. --Dweller 10:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

writing a bot for this is kinda pointless. why not talk to Tawker or martin about adding that filter to AVB? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Kingboyk just alerted me to the fact that I was mentioned on ANI, which set the alarm bells ringing... :P. Anyway, I'll see if can add the string to MartinBot's "bad words" list. Thanks, Martinp23 16:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The developers blocked this ages ago, so it won't have any effect even if the edit sticks, and there's no reason to be worried (the servers automatically quote any use of the tag in pages they output). I can think of a couple of legitimate uses for writing <script> in an article (for instance, HTML scripting could legitimately contain the string but doesn't), although I agree that it should be &quoted; or nowikied to avoid confusion. --ais523 16:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam war

This needs administrator attention:

• User:AlexRadyushin, User:EarthManik123, User:Voyages, User:Tuddy and others (see User:SpamAssasin/Voyages)
• User:Jokum, User:SpamAssasin, User:Beostarling, User:Beostaerling etc.

Spamming

Moved from AIV at 10:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC), no administrator would act on it between 06:11 and 10:32.

Jokum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) All contributions are spamming [[71]] and [[72]] to owned website ([[73]]) after warnings, vandalism and personal attacks. The use of multiple accounts Jokum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), SpamAssasin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Beostaerling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Beostarling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).EarthManik123 06:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That looks a little deeper than we usually deal with, on AIV. I'd suggest WP:AN/I or WP:SSP. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Moved to ANI, as it appears no AIV administrators will look at it - four hours of inactivity. Daniel Bryant 10:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Apparently Jpgordon declined a checkuser request. I'll ask for clarification. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This is more complicated than a vandalism case. See User:SpamAssasin/Voyages. The complainant is a sockpuppet in a group including User:AlexRadyushin, User:Voyages, andUser:EarthManik. I actually thought declining the case would result in a broader action. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) disagrees with a CfD outcome and is now canvassing what she perceives as her side of the discussion in an attempt to overturn it. [74] [75] [76] [77]. I believe this to be improper per WP:CANVASS. >Radiant< 10:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As the user is not inviting people to an existing !vote, it doesn't seem to me that it technically falls foul of WP:CANVASS. However, that's mere semantics, as in the comment she's pointing to, she clearly states her intention to open such a !vote. Therefore, I think two things: 1) WP:CANVASS could do with a little tightening, to avoid such future tactics and 2) the user should be ticked off for employing such a clear breach the spirit of WP:CANVASS. If this has been done deliberately, such wikilawyering makes me grudgingly admiring of her skills, but wishing they'd be fully devoted to the undoubted positive contribution she makes to this Project. --Dweller 11:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me as a simple communication to users who might be interested, nothing sinister. Zocky | picture popups 11:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Minus the fact, of course, that they are now accusing Radiant! of pursuing a gender-related agenda. --Iamunknown 11:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Zocky, that's the exact argument used by pretty much every person that breaks WP:CANVASS. If WP:CANVASS exists, we need to follow it. --Dweller 11:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

General comment: I haven't thought through all the details but Ikve concluded at some point WP:CANVASS needs some rethinking. The idea that an issue should be resolved by whoever happens to be watching a procedure page, and that it is illegitimate to consult with the most knowledgeable editors on a subject, is understandable but can be applied overzealously. In particular, in the case of an AfD there would have been a notice placed on the article for editors of the article to at least have an opportunity to see, but for a CfD I don't believe that happens, certainly not where anyone is likely to see it, so CfD's are decided by whoever happens to visit CfD that week (a very narrow cross-section of users) rather than by editors who are working on articles within the category, and it's illegitimate to tell such editors the category is under a deletion debate? That seems odd. Newyorkbrad 23:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• While it may need reworking, it should be obvious that if any process is decided by a very narrow group of users, then any one-sided canvassing will almost automatically sway the outcome to whatever the canvasser wants, which is obviously not the point of such a process. >Radiant< 08:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Persistent incivility and POV edit warring from Методије (talk · contribs)

Insistent on POV editing, making personal attacks, threats, slurs etc - all within the confines of less that 500 edits! Here are some examples of his offensive edit summaries:

• if that is orange then you are colour blind. the SMALL orange part shows croats as a minority but the largest single group[78]
• seriously, are you colour blind? and if you bothered to click on the map, you might see the different shades do mean something[79]
• newsflash: world does not revolve around Superbfc. So what if YOU never heard it?[80]
• what a weird leap of logic[81]
• the one that exists in the author's paranoid imagination, right?[82]
• what is the author smoking? the whole section is written like some conspiracy theory...[83]
• one crappy article and a nationalist site = unreferenced[84]

Actually, I've seen him remove some POV and do some good editing, but that does not mean he can go around behaving this way. Please do something.

WP:CN unblock request

Resolved

Navou ^banter 12:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Could an administrator please unblock User:Tobias Conradi per discussion on WP:CN. I do not have the ability. Thanks, Navou ^banter 12:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion there is ongoing. --Dweller 12:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have closed the discussion as it appears to have reached consensus, in the same manner we have closed past WP:CN discussions. Navou ^banter 12:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It appears to have reached consensus that we should talk with Z first (Lar left a message). --Iamunknown 12:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that talking with Z and about it, in general, FIRST, is the thing to do, let us not overturn actions hastily. I disagree that there is yet complete consensus at CN on what to do, and I'd untag the discussion for now, as the trailing stuff being outside the brown just looks funny. Z knows his stuff, let's hear what he has to say. Late for work already or I'd do it myself. ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Methinks the action is already overturned. (Check Tobias's block log.) --Iamunknown 13:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Vtechlol

Resolved

 – Blocked by Steel359, talk page deleted and salted also by Steel359--VectorPotential^Talk 14:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This user's vandalism to Virginia Tech massacre has been particularly vicious. See here and here and has now posted offending material to his talk page. See here. Can something be done? Ronnotel 13:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, already been handled, thanks. Ronnotel 13:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Evan PDX

Interestingly, my user page, not my talk page, was vandalised by Evan PDX, because I have posted on my user page that former President Ronald Reagan is my hero. He doesn't agree, and attacked me personally. I won't delete the comments until an administrator looks at them. Can he be banned, or suspended, or something? Thanks, Happyme22 14:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• It looks like all he did was mistake your userpage for your talkpage--VectorPotential^Talk 14:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon vandal impersonating established user

An anon vandal using the IP addresses 172.130.119.143 and 172.164.50.47 (and possibly others) has been posting insulting (and stupid) messages and then pasting my e-signature (note that posts made on April 18 are still dated April 3.) [85] [86] [87] --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

AOL. Very hard to deal with, as he will appear from a new IP every time he dials in to AOL, and possibly every time he refreshes a page. Unless we rangeblock all of AOL, this is something that unfortunately has to be endured from time to time. Thatcher131 17:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Lacatosias issued a death threat to me

I've been looking around and I really don't know where else to ask for help, but User:Lacatosias has posted what appears to be a death threat. I hope you guys can figure out what to do. JHMM13 16:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but if I were, I'd block him. That's totally inexcusable. YechielMan 16:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really a death threat in my opinion, but ow, that was painful to read. Is there precedent for a block based on persisting to use 3rd grade english? Because between that and general ass-ish-ness of the comments, doesn't seem like an upstanding editor. -M^ask? 16:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I can reasonably agree this was a death threat; in Lacatosias's own words, he threatens "accommodating you in joining him to departure from life". This is a borderline unacceptable remark, and I've given him a 24-hour block as a result. Michaelas¹⁰ 16:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Michael. I'll let people here know if anything else happens. JHMM13 17:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest a permanent block, per the WP:NPA policy against death threats. That was WAY out of line. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Way out of line as suggested, recommends permanant block. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. The user has been a positive contributer for way too long now to be indefblocked over one instance. A 24-hour block may be appropriate for now, but I will not seek for a further block if the user avoids engaging in any such future behavior. He'd learn he shouldn't do stuff like that. Michaelas¹⁰ 18:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Userpages Vs WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:POINT again and again

I hope this would be the last time i'd deal w/ these childish stupidities. My stance on the matter of pointy and provocative userpages has been cristal clear. My question to the disruptors is Are you here to imporve Wikipedia?

Yes absolutely → Then you are more than welcome and many thanks. Your efforts are so appreciated.

Yes absolutely but it is my userpage and please don't censor it → then you move your ass and look for a web space provider.

The issue has been involving, for a relatively long time now, a few editors. I am talking here about User:Embargo and User:Matt57.

• User:Matt57's case: Level-headed editor Proabivouac had already spoken to him about the matter here after removing a quote of Hadith from his userpage before he reverted back under the pretext that [he's] not responsible for actions of other users.
• User:Embargo's case: I had already blocked him for a 24h period on December 11, 2006 because of provocative userpage after warnings. You can refer to his talkpage and userpage history for further info. Now and after the involvment of many admins, he is still posting a Sanhedrin (Talmud) tractate in response to Matt57's case (according to him).

So, what is the problem w/ both userpages? Well, Matt57 wants to make a pointy argument about the treatment of women in Islam by using such hadith. Embargo, on the other hand wants to make a similar point about pedastry in Judaism.

Please note that i've interacted w/ both users in the past w/ a relatively both positive and negative outcomes. My patience as an admin is almost gone (i hope not) and i think my n-time involvment on this matter would make things worse (i.e. harsh blocks). Therefore i hope some admin(s) can deal w/ this matter once for all.

P.S. I am not sure if there are more similar cases as i am not a policeman but please let me know if there are any. We are still dealing w/ This guy has racist stuff on his userpage!'s case above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted both as violations of WP:USER. -- Avi 15:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Avi. Appreciated. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

rv VANDALISM - take it to arbitration committee. Is there an arbcom ruling on this, or is it obvious from WP:USER? -- Avi 16:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the quote from the Talmud, even though user:Prester John still keeps his Hadith quote. I intend to keep my userbox supporting Hezbollah, if you have heard of the debate (scroll down), and to which user:Ryan Postlethwaite seems to ideologically object. Emбargo 17:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John's case is dealt w/. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Avi and Faysal, let me clear this with you - Do you agree with me that ALL religious quotes should be deleted from user pages? See user Itaqallah's page. I'm not trying to be disruptive or proving a point or whatever - the issue is simple. Either religious quotes should be allowed on user pages, or they should not. Please also remove the religious verse on Itaqallah's page. It is unfair and discriminatory to say that one user can have a religious quote to express their approval of a religion, while another cannot have a quote to express their disapproval of the religion. The policies in Wikipedia must be applied uniformly. Besides this user, there are many user pages where religious quotes are displayed. They should ALL be taken down, irrespective of the language, context or nature of the quotation. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That has nothing to do w/ your cases Matt. We are dealing w/ WP:POINT here. You can quote whatever you want as long as it is not provacative and polemical or a campaign for or against anything or anyone. Read the quote below. I hope it is cristal clear.

• Polemical statements:

“ libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea' ”

- Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia co-founder

If you can prove to us that you were not making a point then that would be another matter. If you can prove to us that Itaqallah is making a point then that would be another matter as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Matt57 - no religion prostelyzing or bashing. Wikipedia is not the Free speech corner in Hyde Park where everyone gets to take the megaphone and shout to the whole wide world their beliefs, problems, dreams, nightmares or I don't know what. Use Youtube people, it is much more fun and less stressful for that sort of stuff. Or MySpace or whatever.Baristarim 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide me w/ facts (policies and guidelines) re this? Also, where's the youtube stuff at Itaqallah's page? Did anyone ask you Baristarim to remove the atheist userbox at your userpage or the Ataturk's Peace at home, peace in the world. stuf? No. Why? Do i have to repeat it again and again? Because they are just NOT PROVOCATIVE! Did anyone ask you Baristarim to remove "This user supports the independence of Cascadia" which you were arguing against on another thread? No. So where is the problem? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Cascadia box is just for kicks :) Anyways, I will join in the conversation later. Baristarim 18:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That is reasonable. Itaqallah's slogan is borderline. Arrow740 18:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Borderline or not. The issue is simple: Having religious polemical statements on userpages is not allowed. I can translate my statement into French or Arabic too and could defend doing that but I wont. The simple and correct way is to agree to remove all religious content from user pages and stick to the policies and apply them uniformly. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Faysal, it is irrelevant whether I'm trying to make a point. If I saw a user with a userbox which I also wanted to copy on my page, does it mean I'm trying to make a point? No. I liked that verse on my userpage. It expressed my disapproval of a religion, just like another verse expressed approval of the religion on another user's page. I'm prepared to take this debate to any length so we can be fair to everyone. The quote you mentioned also said "campaign for or against anything ". Having religious quotes on userpages to express the approval of the user's religion means campaigning for the certain religion. Having my quote was campaigning against the religion, obviously. We must remove all religious quotations - that includes Itaqallah's arabic verse on his userpage. I agree to comply with Wikipedia's policies but they should be applied uniformly. Wikipedia's policy states that campaigning FOR is also not allowed on a user's page. Itaqallah's verse must be go as well. I find Itaqallah's verse provocative, because I dont approve at all of the religion he is trying to promote on his user's page. Policies must be applied fairly so please, remove Itaqallah's religious quotation also on his user page.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed ItaqAllah's polemical statement from his user page. Do we all agree on this? thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a strong opinion on which interpretation to favor, but it appears that by FayssaIF's standard, Surah 3 verse 102 is polemical. — coelacan — 20:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User Netscott reverted my removal of Itaqallah's polemical statement on his user page. I want to hear administrator's confirmation (particularly Faysal's) that, all religious polemical text (irrespective of language, text or nature) should be removed from a user's page. As I said, I'm prepared to participate in any amount of debate to make sure that policies are applied uniformly to all users. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly, not all religious texts are polemical. Professing a belief is typically less provoking than attacking another belief. Distinction is possible and discression required. "Make a narrow rule, so that I can (barely) honour the word, but ignore the spirit" is not the way Wikipedia works.--Stephan Schulz 23:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Having a religious quotation from your holy book is campaigning for that religion. Campaigning is not allowed on user pages: "campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea", said Jimbo Wales. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your premise is wrong. Having a quotation from a holy book is not necessarily campaigning. It can be, but it can just as well be a simple profession of faith, or just showcasing a profound thought or beautiful literature. Like a lot of things, it depends on the details and context. --Stephan Schulz 00:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So whats the limit to what we can and cannot quote from religious texts on our user pages? Can I quote anything from the Quran? This would not be a big problem if people said NO to all reliogious quotes on user pages. If a Muslim has a quote from the Quran on their user page, then I should also be able to have a quote from the Quran on my user page. Thats all I'm saying. If somoene can express approval of the faith they belong to, then for fairness, I should be able to express my disapproval of the religion. Why is that a big issue? And if you see below, people are voicing their disapproval for having any religious texts on user pages and this is what should be done, for fairness. Either allow all quotes or dont allow them, but DONT be selective about what can be quoted and what not. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don'y you suggest it on Wikipedia talk:User page and see how it goes.--Sefringle 01:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I aready did that on that page last month, and it petered out after a few replies. Tarc 13:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(dedent)Either allow all quotes or don't allow them, [...] - I guess your world is very black and white. The argument is nonsensical. "Either kill all life on Earth, or don't kill at all." "Either eat all the chocolate in the supermarket, or none at all". "Either allow people to own all kinds of weapons, or no weapons at all." "Either allow driving at any speed, or at no speed at all."...and the list goes on. This world has more shades of gray (and don't let me start about various colours!) than you seem to be aware of. --Stephan Schulz 17:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

An excellent religious quotation comes to mind. It appears in several versions.

1. ""What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man." Hillel the Elder
2. "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them...." Matthew 7:12, King James Bible [88]
3. "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you...." Matthew 7:12, New International Bible [89]
4. "Don't be a dick." Wikipedia [90]

That is all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee rulings from five days ago:

While not explicitly stated on Wikipedia:User page, it is implicit there that users should refrain from creating user pages likely to bring the project into disrepute. Passed 8-0 at 21:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors are generally permitted to include in their userspace a limited amount of non-inflammatory personal expression not directly related to encyclopedic collaboration, including moderate declarations of POV. Passed 8-0 at 21:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

From Billy Ego-Sandstein. Take that as you please. Daniel Bryant 01:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Embargo (talk · contribs)

Embargo insists on re-adding an inflammatory userbox on his userpage, despite numerous complaints over the past few months on his talk page. This is the current userbox which I have removed, it reads This user supports islamic resistance wikilinking to Hezbollah, now I'm no islamic expert, but I know that in many countries, Hezbollah is very controversial political party (I think the USA still class them as a terrorist organisation). The statement is clearly polemical, as all the similar userboxes have been which embargo has been putting up. Please could an uninvolved admin have a look at the userbox that I removed? Ryan Postlethwaite 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Also, the continued replacement of a quote from the Talmud as a WP:POINT against Matt56 hadith quote (which was removed) shoudl also be reviewed. See rv VANDALISM - take it to arbitration committee. -- Avi 16:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• I've reverted back to the non-offensive version. This is getting to be an extreme exercise in WP:POINT -M^ask? 16:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • (Into the hot water) As much as I despise Hezbollah's acts of terrorism (I cannot call actions which intetionally kill innocent civilians anything else) I do not think that the formulation This user supports islamic resistance (wikilinking to Hezbollah) is per-se so inflammatory that it is not allowed on userpages. Go to arbitration if you must, but I feel repeated editon of another user's userpage in such a controversial case is not "good"; also, what would you do if the text in question was not placed inside of a userbox but *gasp* plaintext on his userpage. Would you still remove it then? Or would you allow it to stand? Where does the right to show bias end? People supporting Israel's retributive actions against Paleastinian acts of violence (and vice versa) would have to remove that information too. And people supporting the Iraq war (or opposing it). And people following radical muslim faith. And radical Christians (time of troubles in Northern Ireland, anyone). And Muslems and Christians and Atheists in general. etc. etc. etc. And then were are left with "This is an userpage" (End of File) CharonX/talk 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • However, it's clearly a polemical statement, which are against WP:USER, it's not even margianlly an infringement, it's perfectly clear cut. I'm sure Israeili people will be clearly offended by this statement, I think that says it all Ryan Postlethwaite 17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I went and blocked him for 3RR for a couple days until this clears up. I don't know whether or not it's a problem, if this must be taken to arbcom then do so. They may accept it, they may not.--Wizardman 17:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Technically, you can't really 3RR in your own userspace, but this delightful bit of trolling probably justifies your block anyway.--Isotope23 17:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is something that has been discussed before [91] [92]. The behavior of this user has been discussed numerous times as well [93] [94]. Embargo knows what he is doing. He is intentionally being disruptive. IrishGuy ^talk 17:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

...which is why I support the block. I know this is getting lumped in with the Matt issue from the other ANI post above, but these are slightly different situations. Neither really should be posting polemic statements on their userpages, but Embargo in particular seems to have a history of trolling.--Isotope23 17:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just before his block he created a redirect for Islamic resistance to hezbollah. Would anyone support a longer block due to the amount of trolling that he's done in the past? I'm kinda involved so maybe I'm not the best person to suggest this, but I propose moving it upto 10 days. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

............And block evasion??? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the IP. If someone wants to extend the account block I'd leave it to their discretion.--Isotope23 18:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And 'round and 'round this goes again. As I've said before, Embargo isn't exactly an agreeable person (in a wikipedia editing sense), but can you see where the uneven treatment can make him get a bit steamed? If there's really going to be "no polemical statements" allowed on user pages, then it must be enforced uniformly and this back-and-forth "some admins delete UserBoxA, but a similar UserBoxB is allowed to stay" stuff has got to come to an end. User:Matt57's (not 56 as noted above) quote is at this moment deleted, but when Embargo brought it to Viridae's attention, Viridae responded with "I can't see anything offensive about at all" ? Also note the previous time where Twas_Now was the one who suggested that either "This user supports armed resistance" or "This user supports resistance to hostility" (both with wikilinks to Hezbollah, note) would be, quote, "good for you" to use.

This is really what needs to be addressed; the need fora uniform policy for ALL user pages that will be upheld by ALL admins. Tarc 19:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Many, many things that may be offensive aren't, this is. Use WP:UCS when evaluating these and all is well. Life is unfair sometimes, it's true, and the onesthat can really be offensive can go, but most aren't offensive, just irksome. -M^ask? 20:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly the kind of BS hypocrisy that has gotten this user into trouble in the first place. Tarc 22:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this user got in trouble for spearheading WP:POINT, which is what most people who do these sorts of userboxes end up doing. Also the people who go around removing every piece of religious text end up getting into as well. Common sense, its a wonderful thing, any one who doesn't use it often should try it. -M^ask? 22:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Arabic, Itaqallah, and Matt (arbitrary section break)

I have agreed to the removal of religious text from my page, as long as the policy is applied to ALL, as user Tarc pointed out above. This user Itaqallah also has religious text (it doesnt matter if its in Arabic. It must go as well). I had removed it but was reverted and threatened by a block from Netscott for removing it. Can someone please remove this so it is clear the policy is applied to all uniformly? We're also discussing this 2 sections above this one. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed. This should be discussed with the other pages. -- Avi 01:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I must say I am not in agreeance with the removal of User:Itaqallah's Qur'anic quote for the following reasons: (1) It's in Arabic and (2) it is addressed to "those who believe" and (3) the primary reason that its removal has come about is User:Matt57's pointed addition of a "hadith" (I still am very doubtful as to the nature of Matt57's quote due to the fact that I could only find it mentioned on anti-Islam punditry sites). If the quote on Itaqallah's page was addressed to those who didn't "believe" as though they'd be subject to eternal damnation or some other such nonsense then I'd understand the removal but I don't see what User:Matt57 or (User:Embargo for that matter ) was doing as equivalent to Itaqallah's display. (→Netscott) 05:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It may well be that when all is said and done that such quotes would be allowed for the reasons you mention. However, as it is a point of discussion now, I felt it better to simultaneously discuss it here and try and prevent any appearances of impartiality. I would say, that being that this is English wiki, it would be a prudent idea to, at the very least, have an accurate translation of foreign sayings on user pages to help forestall any misconceptions. -- Avi 05:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Embargo wasn't the only one violating WP:POINT. as i explained to Avi, Matt57 put up that particular extract on his page in order to be provocative, and in particular, bait a response from me [95][96][97][98], despite him believing that scriptural extracts weren't allowed on user pages.[99] ITAQALLAH 15:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Netscott, the language, nature or context of the Quranic verse should not matter. Either all users should be allowed to have quotes from Islamic sources on user pages, or they should not. If I'm not allowed to have an Islamic source on my userpage, then it would be wrong for anyone else to be allowed to have a quotation. My question will then be: Whats the limit to what I can quote and not? I find ItaqAllah's Quranic verse "No one should die except in the state of Islam" as offensive. Please read my arguments above. If someone is allowed to express their approval of Islam, then others should be allowed to express their disapproval of the same. If you apply Wikipedia policies, you will arrive at the right decision which is, to not allow campaigning for or against anything. Having this Quranic verse qualifies as campaining for Islam and is thus wrong. I agreed to have my quotation removed and I expect that for fairness, everyone else including Itaqallah should accept the same judgements for their user pages. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt, my actions should not indicate that I agree that no religious quotations per se exist, but there should definitely be no statements that lead to project disruption. Pointed comments about stoning women, pedastery, killing infidels, ritual murder, theft, superiority of any one religion, race, or creed versus others (to name some hypothetial examples) are forbidden under WP:USER. Things like love your fellow man, live in peace and harmony, likely help the project.

In this situation, I felt that possibly disruptive comments should be removed, especially in a foreign language where the intent of the statement is unknown to 99% of project members. This issue needs to be hashed out and a consensus reached. My own personal opinion (FWIW) is that positive comments, even if religious in origin, are likely not disruptions, and should be permitted, but anything that can be considered disruptive should be removed, religious or non-religious. I removed the arabic comment because I could not be sure as to its meaning, and it was brought into a conversation about disruption, and the fairest result in my mind was to remove it for the time being, and reinstate it if it can be shown to be acceptable. It is not a comment as to the nature of the statement, as of now, since I am not certain as to the exact meaning just yet. -- Avi 15:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. "superiority of any one religion", thats what Itaqallah's verse said: "die not except in a state of Islam.". So not only is this a violation, it is also in Arabic as you pointed out. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"I find ItaqAllah's Quranic verse "No one should die except in the state of Islam" as offensive"- it doesn't say that at all. you are misquoting a religious text, and this is not the first incidence of such. ITAQALLAH 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, please dont falsely accuse me of misquoting. The verse says what I said it says: "die not except in a state of Islam." --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

you've changed your attribution. it's still a misquote though, as per your partial quoting. you strip it of context to forward your own point. ITAQALLAH 15:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, Itaqallah, in your opinion based on context, what does it mean and what is its purpose on your talk page? -- Avi 15:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

it means that Muslims should a) have taqwa (the actual word used in the verse) and; b) die as Muslims. it's on my page as i find it an inspiration, and is one of the most well-known verses of the Qur'an, and it has never seemed inappropriate to quote from religious texts, as a large part of the Wikipedia community currently does. it's in Arabic because, as Pickthall and others opine, no translation can fully encapsulate the meaning of the Arabic itself. ITAQALLAH 16:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, why did you not quote the full verse? It says in addition: "Do not die except in a state of Islam". This means that Islam is a superior religion. I should then be allowed to say "Dont die in the state of Islam", so again - where does it end? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

... please read my comment again. ITAQALLAH 16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Saying that "one should die in a state of Islam" means campaining for Islam. This is not allowed on Wikipedia according to Jimbo Wales. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak

This user keeps on making Russian nationalist POV in the Chechnya page. I have reverted him twice, but he says that I am the not-neutral one. I think he is making a crusade against Chechens on Wikipedia. Al-Bargit 16:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I just looked over the edits in questions and I agree with you. Russian "territorial integrity" is the 500-foot home run version of a POV comment, especially considering his highly inflammatory user page which clearly shows that he is approaching this with a serious bias. Here is the edit in question. JHMM13 16:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Kuban kazak's version is technically true (just like the Al Bargit's one) . This issue should be discussed on the appropriate talkpage, I don't see why it's so important to be posted here. Alaexis 17:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. This doesn't appear to have been immediately addressed on the talk page. Please bring it there first. JHMM13 18:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Kuban kazak is maintaining Russian nationalist POV in all his Chechnya-related contributions. Al-Bargit 18:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Kuban kazak's version IS correct - no one except the Taliban recognized the secession. Al-Bargit's version suggests that even now Chechnya is not de jure a part of Russia. Note the quotation marks he used. In fact, both versions are making a WP:POINT. Since the sentence needed to be rewritten anyway (because the Second Chechen War is now over), I have done so, trying to avoid that "point". Note that simultaneously, there has been something bordering on vandalism at the Ichkeria disambiguation page. For some reason or other, I was unable to restore directly to User:Cdamama 's version, and had to copy paste the whole thing.--Pan Gerwazy 18:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

He is also uncivil, unjust and revert-warrious at Anti-Russian sentiment [100] This time he seems to be crusading UkrainiansAlexPU 18:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is my two cents on this: first and foremost User:AlexPU in his multiple kind statements has been repeatedly blocked OVER and OVER again. So if anything his multiple incivility record is but acceptable and I am surprised why is he still not permablocked from wikipedia.

WRT User:Al-Bargit and the tone in question, I offered him to start a WP:DR process which he refused and continued to edit war. If Al-Bargit is so keen on solving the article in question in a civil and proper way I would suggest for him to withhold from tattling on WP:AN/I. --Kuban Cossack 19:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Are users appearing in user categories disruptive and does it warrant a block?

SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) continues to add his user page to Category:Wikipedians by religion, which was the subject of a discussion [101] at WP:UCFD a couple weeks ago. He was warned by User:jc37 on Apr 16. No comments supporting him appeared in a discussion at WT:USER that he started. Nevertheless, he added it again this afternoon [102]. I am inclined to block for 24 hours for disruption and acting against consensus, but I want to get some feedback first. A more gentle solution would be to protect the page until the user agrees not to make such edits. CMummert · talk 16:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Even though I did place the warning on the user's talk page, I'm hesitant to see a block yet for this. It's obvious that he's trying to make a WP:POINT using an attempt at humour, and "civil disobedience", of a sort... I honestly was hoping that the user would just make a red linked variation of the category, and "let it go". I'd like to suggest that you revert for now, and let's see from there. - jc37 17:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that my reversion wouldn't just get undone, in which case we'll be right back to this page. What about reverting and protecting the page? CMummert · talk 17:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Civil disobedience? Looks to me like this is just about Jc37 asserting his authority, rather than any impact on the actual project. Milto LOL pia 17:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If SchmuckyTheCat disagrees with the UCFD decision, the correct thing to do is to find consensus to overturn it, rather than acting against it. I can't see any good reason why that category should have user pages in it, and "I want to" is not a very strong argument. CMummert · talk 17:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no one who can name a way in which this disrupts the encyclopedia. Milto LOL pia 17:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is. That category is only meant to contain other categories - this is clear from trivial inspection and supported by UCFD. Adding user pages directly to it is clearly just making a point, and preventing the implementation of the UCFD consensus. As I said, the right way to remedy the UCFD decision is by discussion, not by intentionally counteracting it. CMummert · talk 17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Who gave authority to UCFD to define the category? What notice did UCFD give to those who would be affected by its decisions? The answer is nobody and none. Consensus on their decision doesn't exist in the first place; consensus requires discussion, which requires notice. See also, smoke filled room. SchmuckyTheCat 17:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to keep being nosy, but what point is he making by having that category on there? And how does one "disrupt" a user category when they don't even add anything to Wikipedia anyway? But mostly I want to know what point he's making. Milto LOL pia 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is "I have the ability to add my user page to this category even though there is strong evidence that others find this inappropriate." CMummert · talk 17:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

POINT requires disruption. When did the disruption occur - when I put in the category two years ago, or when you removed it based on your own ideal of what the category should contain? SchmuckyTheCat 17:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus or guideline that says a group of users discussing in an obscure location, who do not give any notice to anyone else about their discussion, have any authority to organize user categories according to their whim. User categories are by extension of WP:USER, a rather informal method by which users may choose to describe themselves. I've been in that category for nearly two years. No notice was put on the category that it was under discussion. No notice was placed on my talk page making me aware of the discussion. The WP:POINT disruption is with those who wish to edit other people's user pages based on their whim - again, without any guideline or consensus.

There is an entire encyclopedia to write, and yet we have this group of editors making decisions about other editors user pages. User pages are the only place we allow users free expression, short of being polemic. I'm not doing anything polemic. It's not confusing anyone. Some members of those making decisions have made no namespace edits in weeks, focusing solely on their fixation on other people's user pages.

What's more disruptive to the community - harmless, silly, expression in user space, or coming down draconian and dictating against it? And remember, there isn't any wide community consensus or guideline behind it.

SchmuckyTheCat 17:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Commenting on the line: "User pages are the only place we allow users free expression". You are aware of WP:NOT#USER, right? AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 17:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. That is a paraphrase of WP:USER. By free expression, I mean user pages don't have to be NPOV (while avoiding being polemic), don't have to conform to a prescribed MOS, etc. I know very well what the "What can I not have on my user page?" section says about categories because I wrote it [103]. Even after revision, it still says nothing that gives authority to other users to unilaterally decide whether users belong in certain categories. SchmuckyTheCat 17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Jc is asserting the "authority" of the "Categories for discussion" process, which is discussed by more users than him. The category has been depopulated because userpages in it make no sense: The users are listed "by religion," which suggests specificity of religion, which is what the subcats are for. We depopulated all the categories of "Wikipedians by (X)", so no individual user pages should go there. I wouldn't argue for a block (this isn't vandalism), but protecting the page seems okay if the user doesn't feel like going through the process of getting the decision overturned, which is obvious how to do. If there's a mistake made, it will be corrected through the normal process, or not, depending on the will of the community.--Mike Selinker 17:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User Categories for Discussion process has no authority to go beyond guidelines and consensus. Defining user categories and threatening to ban users and protect their pages from themselves for not complying with that definition exceeds any guideline or consensus. It's positively draconian. Your admin tools have better work to do than trying to fit square pegs into round holes. SchmuckyTheCat 19:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually "user categories" are defined by policy/guideline. They are specifically to be sub-cats of Category:Wikipedians. As to "better work to do", how any Wikipedian chooses to contribute to the project is up to them. And I'll avoid the many obvious puns about currently dealing with a square peg : ) - jc37 19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So user-cats are supposed to be sub-categories of the top category. Fine and excellent. That has nothing to do with your banning threat to me.

You're right, I don't care how you contribute your time. I care when your volunteer effort intrudes on mine. If you want to obsessively organize user categories go ahead, until someone objects because that is where it ends. SchmuckyTheCat 20:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is serious doubt that CFD decisions should be honored by all editors; UCFD is the place that CFD discussions for user categories are carried out. CMummert · talk 21:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is doubt when some sub-sub-sub-discussion of users exceeeds the consensus and guidelines that they operate under. UCFD isn't CfD. CfD is the public face of the project containing articles of the encyclopedia. It's the stuff people come here to read. It's the stuff that will be on hardcopy, DVD, v1.0, etc versions of Wikipedia. There are different standards for the main project and user space. Period.

I was the nominator of the UCFD, and I normally do tag categories and notify the original creator if the category is up for merging, deletion, or renaming, but in this case it was simply for depopulating, and we don't have a tag to place at the top of pages for such discussions. Asking me to notify every user in the category is absolutely ludicrous, there are some categories that have thousands of users in them, and we never do that for any other nominations at UCFD. Now to the point, re-adding yourself to this category after a consensus has been reached on xfd not to should be considered disruptive and I'd support a block if it continues. If you think the decision should be overturned, get a consensus to do so. The UCFD was unanimous and I really don't see why you insist adding your page to the category, it doesn't make sense at all, which is why the nomination was done in the first place. VegaDark 23:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You scare me in your fervor to block people who disagree with anything that you disagree with in user space. Really, you scare me. SchmuckyTheCat 01:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You have an interesting way of interpreting things if you take what I said above as a "fervor" to block people for "anything that I disagree with". Mentioning that I'd support a block for disruption = "fervor"? Block someone for repeatedly going against a unanimous consensus of an xfd debate = "block people for anything I disagree with"? Please stay civil, I don't appreciate false accusations against me. VegaDark 02:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus without involving, or notifying, anyone but a small clique of users gauranteed to mirror your views. The authority behind the result of a discussion can't violate the wider consensus under which the discussion occurs (WP:USER). In this case, no consensus exists that UCFD decisions are binding, and especially not block worthy. And yes, I used fervor after reviewing your contributions. UCFD is all you've done for weeks and your talk page comments go way beyond reasonable in your willingness to disrupt other users pages. SchmuckyTheCat 03:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So now you are accusing me of disruption? This is getting ridiculous, I see there is no point in trying to have a discussion with you if you are going to assert that all UCFD decisions don't have to be followed based on not liking the result. I'd like to hear what others have to say about that. VegaDark 07:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you've said in talk pages that you think you should delete non-offensive, user page content without any discussion with the users. That is disruptive. SchmuckyTheCat 17:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In light of the comments above, it seems reasonable to protect the user page, rather than block the user, if the category is not removed in a reasonable period of time. CMummert · talk 02:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that you or anyone involved in this matter should protect the page. WP:PROT: "admins should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute". Further, the protection policy outlines only one applicable reason that this page could be protected: to temporarily halt edit warring. And assuming someone does begin edit warring on User:SchmuckyTheCat, such a page protect would not be done to endorse any particular version of the page, and the discussion would continue, so simply from a tactical perspective, that is not a viable route toward your goal. As to blocking, I would ask everyone to consider how sure they are that a block, for what is ostensibly disruption, would not be overturned at WP:CSN (I'm fairly sure that it would). — coelacan — 06:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's unrealistic to suggest that because I have posted to AN/I before taking action, I am now prevented from doing so. Several other admins (all the ones who have commented except possibly you) support either protecting the page or blocking SchmuckyTheCat, so I would not be acting unilaterally. There has been edit warring, as STC has added back the tag several times after it was removed by another editor.

Let's move the discussion forward. I am taking it as a given, despite SchmuckyTheCat's claims, that UCFD does have community consensus as a process. How would you recommend that the UCFD decision to depopulate the category be enforced in this case? CMummert · talk

Perhaps you should not take that as a given. I note that with the exception of you and I, the only admins who have bothered to give input here are those who close UCFD discussions, who presumably think that the process is important. I don't know exactly what brought you to STC's case, but I'm here because I take a general interest in users' pages. And most "user page is disruptive" cases involve something that is broadly seen as disruptive. Generally that involves polemical statements against a group of people, and indeed I can't think of any case in quite a while that did not (months ago, Jeffpw was asked to remove his then very large picture of Hillary Clinton, and that ANI discussion was an absolute circus, with many people expressing incredulity at the idea that someone thought this important). Now, there was one other admin not involved in UCFD who gave input about STC: Isotope23, who just said at WT:USER#Enforcement of WP:USER, "I don't particularly agree with the way this is being handled by the other editor involved here." The other editor is you, right? (If not then I'm unaware of who else is involved. I haven't been aware of this until you brought it to ANI.) It really does not appear to me that you have any widespread support to use admin tools on this. Maybe a bunch of other uninvolved people are going to show up and tell me that I'm wrong, but this appears to be a case of very narrow interest, which implies to me that the page is not disruptive. If you're going to go outside the usual boundaries of the protection policy, or if you're going to block STC, then you're going to have to make a pretty convincing case that this page's categorization is disruptive to those of us who are trying to write an encyclopedia. Disruption is usually obvious to many people; this is not. Can you quantify the supposed disruption here? — coelacan — 14:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe he became involved in the WT:USER discussion that STC started. - jc37 15:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

While it appears likely that another edit to implement a unanimous UCfD decision will be reverted by the user, it'd be ABF to make that assumption. If, however, the userpage is corrected for its violation of USERCAT rules, and then reverted without going through the proper channels (i.e., DRV), then the user should be warned for edit warring, and the page protected by an uninvolved admin. Xiner (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to remove it? CMummert · talk 14:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

With much love to my friend Xiner, I have to note that regular UCFD admins are hardly "uninvolved". — coelacan — 14:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I was writing my comments below while you added this. (I'm surprised there was no edit conflict.) Anyway, I am wondering at your interpretation of how being involved in a process means that a person's "involved" in a dispute? - jc37 15:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

UCFD is an small and insular process that most of the community does not bother to get involved with. As such, the few admins who decide to involve themselves there have a vested interest in maintaining UCFD's ability to make and enforce decisions. This is not a judgment upon any of you; I like all of you. This is an acknowledgement of your humanity, and it is a feature of human behavior to stake out territory. We all have an interest in fighting vandalism, thus we all encourage each other to do so. If an admin who does not close UCFD discussions were to come along and use admin tools to enforce UCFD discussions, then that would be an outside acknowledgement of those discussions' legitimacy. But if no outside admin steps up to do so, well... — coelacan — 17:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's odd the way that this has "moved forward". There is an established process to determine consensus. An editor (me) was going through the minor tasks of following through with the results of that consensus. Another editor, who in the past has chosen freely to be a part of that page's discussion now states that the discussions on that page have no validity.

And further, the suggestion that, since there is a discussion on this page, admins can't take action based on an AN/I discussion because they're involved in that discussion? That would be like saying that by reverting a vandal twice, and then discuss it on AN/I, perhaps for clarification, then means that you can't then block the vandal... (Not that I'm saying STC is a vandal, just using that for example). That seems entirely contrary to the "Wiki-way", in which we often and do ask for advice and help from others.

It also should be noted is that the user makes it clear at Wikipedia talk:User page#Enforcement of WP:USER: "Any perusal of my user page shows that I parody other user pages. My categories are red-links, I have one single joke userbox, instead of barnstars I repost insults and vandalism." - So the things added to their userpage are not accurate. Which, while perhaps tongue-in-cheek humourous, it is clearly contrary to WP:USER#Inappropriate content as well. (Perhaps MfD is the way to go to deal with the larger issues of the user page in question, though on that, I am not certain.) However, I do find the last comment in that section particlularly interesting in relation to this discussion. Oh, and obviously at least one of the user categories is not a red-link, else we might not be having this discussion...

If STC has issues with the process, fine, there are channels for that, but in the meantime, I believe that this is a case of m:The wrong version. As it stands right now, there has been a consensual discussion, and the category is to be removed per that discussion. If STC wishes to take this to WP:DRV, fine, but right now, the user is merely engaging in, first, edit warring, and second, gaming the system. (If in doubt of the latter, read this page, and the user's talk page. And also note that right now there is a discussion to MfD WP:UCFD in direct opposition to this discussion. "Gaming the rules", indeed.)

As such, I'm going to remove the category from the user page due to the original WP:UCFD discussion, and because there is nothing above showing that it should remain. As I noted on the user's talk page, from going through the user's contribution history, one thing is rather clear, this isn't a case where the user is unaware of policy and guidelines. I am going to give User:SchmuckyTheCat the benefit of the doubt despite the above discussion, and presume that the user will follow process rather than this continued disruption. I don't oppose the page being protected, but unless the user continues to revert, I at least won't protect it. Further comments are, of course, welcome. - jc37 15:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith on my part. I asked SchmuckyTheCat for that user's opinion on an MFD of UCFD because I saw this discussion, but I've been planning to make that MFD for quite some time. I did not know any of the backstory to SchmuckyTheCat's page, and had I known, I wouldn't have mentioned MFD to that user. I should have known someone was going to conflate these two issues. They should not be conflated; my desire to tag UCFD as {{historical}} stems not at all from SchmuckyTheCat's issue. I will not be making an MFD nomination, nor will I be airing my general concerns at WT:UCFD, while SchmuckyTheCat's page is an open issue. I want to keep these issues separate. Since you knew already from reading my comments that I want to keep any possible MFD discussion free of drama, jc37, I cannot imagine why you would now fire the first drama bullet. Can we please take a step back to the time before I was "gaming the system"? — coelacan — 17:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There is an established process to determine consensus.

And it wasn't followed. No notice was given to anyone. It's not like UCFD is widely followed, it has a core group of people who make and close all the decisions. Without notice, and without broad participation, you can't say consensus was gained. You can only say you followed your own processes. Where your processes exceed existing Wikipedia guidelines (which do have wide consensus, and should be instructive on how UCFD makes decisions) you DO NOT have consensus to enforce UCFD decisions.

So the things added to their userpage are not accurate.

And? User pages don't have to be accurate. After the Essjay thing and Jimbo's credential proposal I toned down even the factual things because I don't want anything from my main user page taken as truth or semblance of authority while writing the encyclopedia. If you think parody and humor on my user page matches inappropriate content per WP:USER you've really been living in UCFD for too long. Why don't you leave UCFD and build the encyclopedia for awhile? You seem a little too devoted to witch-hunting user pages you don't like.

I've never had any meaningful participation in UCFD. It is, literally, its own little committee doing its own little thing.

The controlling sentence for removal is "if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption." And you cannot say my user page does that. A committee that goes out its way to hunt down and find things they disagree with on user pages is disruptive to community building and THAT is what is disruptive to encyclopedia building. This was on my user page for two years - you had to go on a witch hunt based on your own ideals to purposefully decide to disrupt my page. That is where and when the disruption occurred. You are standing POINT and USER on their heads if you claim it is my deciding that non-offensive, non-polemic, non-disruptive content can be on my user page. SchmuckyTheCat 17:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

New admin: I may have found a case for merging page histories

• File A is There's a Valley in Spain called Jarama (Song)
• File B is Valley of Jarama

User:Roger Davies created A, edited it over 8 & 9 April 2007, then in 18 April 2007 cut-and-pasted its contents to B and replaced A by a redirect to B, then called for speedy-delete {{db-self}} of A. Nothing seems to point to A except user-pages (and this page). Anthony Appleyard 17:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Every edit in the history of page A and in the history of page B is by the same user. No GFDL history of authorship can be lost. This appears to be a rare exception to the need to keep the original page around in order to preserve authorship information. GRBerry 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem w/ some editors is that they rely merely on google and search engines in general. It is obvious for some users to redirect an article about a song to a geographical place! Maybe because it pops up first on search engines. I've created La Marañosa articles days ago and i am well aware of the Valley of Jarama as La Marañosa overlooks both banks of the Jarama river. So, in brief, Valley of Jarama got to be redirected to Jarama river. I'll take care of that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And the two level redirect has been bypassed now. GRBerry 18:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why the article has been reinstated as There's a Valley in Spain called Jarama (Song) has been reinstated and why the Valley of Jarama page has been snaffled as a redirect? What's wrong with deleting There's a Valley in Spain called Jarama (Song), using Valley of Jarama for the song stuff with a note at the front pointing to Spain? Or, better still, having Valley of Jarama as a disambig page pointing to renamed Valley of Jarama (song) and Valley of Jarama (La Mancha)? Or am I missing something? Roger 18:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I also see that Jarama Valley (song) redirects to Jarama. Roger 18:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Also what the original user done is in bad violation of the GDFL and he should be told.--Dacium 00:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

New admin: I may have found a case for merging page histories (2)

Another case: Template:TSR to Template:That's So Raven. In this case several people have edited it, and the delete request did not come from its creator. Its db notice says "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: No one other than its original author has made substantial edits to this page, and he or she requests its deletion or has blanked the page. (CSD G7).", but it had had more than 50 edits by several people. Anthony Appleyard 17:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Anthony, would you mind keeping me informed about what you do with the TSR related stuff? Cleaning out the cruft in that series is my little pet project. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I page-history-merged Template:TSR to Template:That's So Raven. Anthony Appleyard 20:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

db-author inserted by someone who is not the author

Warranty Records (created by User:Ceo983) has a {{db-author}} which was inserted by User:Quietust (in this edit).

Earlier Ceo983 removed a {{db-spam}} that someone else inserted.

Anthony Appleyard 17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

db-author says, "No one other than its original author has made substantial edits to this page, and he or she requests its deletion or has blanked the page.".

The previous edit was the author blanking the page. I would have done the same thing if I was new page patrolling. --Onorem 17:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ceo983 blanked it so User:Quietust added the db-author tag, Ceo983 then began to create the article with {{db-author}} still on. I deleted it for A7 (non nontable group). Problem solved! Ryan Postlethwaite 17:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I created both {{db-authora}} and {{db-blankcsd}} to address these sort of situations. --ais523 17:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Block request on 216.213.198.2

They're doing some vandalism again on Civil war in Iraq. Thanks Publicus 17:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

They haven't edited for six days and, seeing that it's an educational IP address, the person who was vandalising may well be long gone. That said, if they start vandalising again you could warn them and, if they keep going after a final warning, report them to WP:AIV. Will (aka Wimt) 18:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Block request on 165.139.160.103

Resolved

Apparently he decided today was 'Vandalize Jack London Day.--Fizbin 17:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

School-blocked for a week. Michaelas¹⁰ 18:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Incivility, personal attacks and removal of comments

Over at Talk:Christopher Michael Langan I left the following comment:

"There is way too much MegaSociety PR copy-esque fluff in the CTMU and ID sections, they both read like promotional pieces, and there's been a lot of obstructionsism going on to keep it that way. It's becoming increasingly obvious that progress isn't being made here because a group of editors are intentionally holding things up. Wikipedia provides methods for dealing with this and it's time to use them I suggest." [104]

User:Otheus responded with:

"Reminder: Don't feed the trolls." [105]

Not being a troll, I felt his comment was incivil and a personal attack, so I followed the policies and removed the personal attack and replaced it with a reminder that editors should be civil [106] and note on Otheus' talk page about being civil and personal attacks [107] which was promptly removed by User:Chrislk02 who called me a troll in his edit summary as well [108]. I restored my comment [109] as I am not a troll and would like to have my opinions considered and be treated civilly, but User:Chrislk02 removed it a second time [110], again calling me troll in his edit summary. Since User:Otheus and User:Chrislk02 are determined to discredit, label and silence me they have left me no way to address their incivilty other than to bring it here.

Update: Chrislk02 now claims my comment to Otheus was an "inappropriate warning," again called me a troll, and is threatening me with blocking despite the fact that I have not trolled or violated any policy [111]. 151.151.73.170 18:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand by the call that this editor acts like a troll. I have not blocked them, and have assumed good faith int he process, however throwing around NPA attacks, when mentioned he might be a troll, having long rambling complaints of admin and other editor abuse, and obvioulsy experieced in the ways of wikipedia (not discrediting anons) but from an ip address. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, on the face of it I agree with ScienceApologist's analysis that this user is not engaging in trolling. Perhaps there are diffs that demonstrate otherwise? — coelacan — 18:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the second opinion. This is from an ip so i cant really substantiate other than what he claims to hvae written. I have a feeling that this user knows what they are doing (which is not a bad thing), and I feel that otheus did to. However, I cannot substantiate it, and will agree to not block (which i had planned on not doing anyways). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That still leaves unaddressed your incivility in labeling me a troll here User_talk:151.151.73.170#innapropriate_warnings, as it does that of Otheus in the link I provided above, and the fact that my comments to Otheus were removed from his talk page, which I'd like him acknowlege and address. 151.151.21.104 18:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, in regards to me, i still believe that you exibit troll like characteristics. Being a troll is hard to define, i cant prove cold hard evidence for the such, so i will drop it. I will also not call you a troll again until i do find evidence of the such. In regards to otheus, if he does it again, come to me or another administrator and we can discuss it. As of now, it is in the past. Lets work on enhancing an encylopedia, not going for blood. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Request to IP editor: let the concern about incivility go now and don't hit up User talk:Otheus again. I will ask Otheus to use the normal dispute resolution channels if they have a concern with you in the future. I ask this of you also: don't leave vague statements about how "Wikipedia provides methods for dealing with this". If you have a specific issue that you believe is not being addressed by the editors on that article talk page, go ahead and open a request for comment, or don't, but don't insinuate that you just might. As to this ANI complaint, nobody is going to get blocked right now, no matter how much you ask for apologies or retractions, so it's best to let it go. — coelacan — 19:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Please keep in mind this comment of his: [112] 151.151.21.104 19:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I already have considered that. It would also be great if you would register an account. You don't have to, but it makes things easier for everyone else you interact with. Please consider it seriously. — coelacan — 19:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Otheus's characterisation is 151. out of line and seems to be a clear violation of NPA. Chrislk02's actions are totally unacceptable - not only does he repeat the personal attack, he does so wilfully (one could argue that Otheus's PA was a poorly-thought out comment, but after 151. pointed out that it was a PA, Chrislk02 went ahead and repeated it). In addition, Chrislk02's threats violate WP:BITE - they are designed to try to win an argument through fear, based on his presumption that the other party was a newbie who didn't understand policy. I suggest that Chrislk02 should strongly cautioned about his actions, and that a block would be appropriate if he continues with such inflammatory actions. Guettarda 19:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, i was very well aware that the user was experienced, as can be seen in several of my posts. Also, if you look, i made an open apology on his talk page, explained why I believe him to be a troll, and why I redacted it. Before you come in with your guns blazing, please look to see if the situation had been resolved! Thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, here, i openly apologized, and explained why I believed the editor to be a troll. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers is mainly related to newcomers. I was fairly aware that this editor knew what they were doing. Please try to understand the whole situation before passing jdugement. Thanks again! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism from 206.78.38.66 (repeated)

The edit log of this IP shows no constructive edits, and the talk page shows multiple warnings for vandalism. No block log present. Nickm78 18:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

To report persistent vandalism or spamming, see WP:AIV--Knowpedia 18:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Also they have only made one non constructive edit in the last 3 weeks and haven't been given a warning since last year so there isn't really a case for reporting it to AIV at this time. If they continue, you can warn them and report them if they persist after a final warning. Will (aka Wimt) 18:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam Website

Which is a live mirror of Wikipedia. Real96 19:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So much for Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not give medical advice... – Gurch 19:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything you ever wanted to know about prescription drugs... or rather, my userpage – Gurch 19:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

They did that with my userpage too. Suggest adding to spam blacklist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, it was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jan#Some_of_you_are_famous_now_in_the_prescription_drug_business. I don't see any mention of a decision being made. I have removed it from the one article it was in (see [113] for a list of links to that site) --BigDT (416) 19:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just imagine if they had mirrored this... MER-C 03:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Attack user page and implied multiple user account

Resolved— coelacan — 20:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Spamjaguar (talk · contribs)'s user page is dedicated to attacking Larry Dunn (talk · contribs). It also frequently uses "we" and even says "All of us that used this user name to "make fun" of Larry Dunn," which IMO strongly implies that more than one person has used the account. Furthermore, the name "Spamjaguar" could be a WP:U violation despite the explanation on the user page. While the user is temporarily blocked now, I think it best that the user be blocked indefinitely on account of having more than one user and being dedicated to disruption. The Behnam 19:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Support indef block as shared account. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What is this about? Adding a lengthy diatribe to an archived talk page? Shenme 19:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't notice that! Definitely a multiple user attack account. I'm surprised that there is such anger... In any case an indef is called for. The Behnam 19:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What's an uncivil manor? A house that talks back to you? Corvus cornix 21:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have indef blocked. — coelacan — 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Raul654's failure to assume good faith for good-faithed edits

I'm here to raise my concern with Raul654's behavior as of late. Most of this has to do with his failure to assume good faith for good-faithed editors, such as myself (and probably others).[114] Also are the personal attacks he has resorted to.[115] While, of course, this is a result of his recent incivility and disruptive editing[116] and subsequent block[117], this is no new problem that he has had. His actions with respect to his status within the Wikipedia community should be questioned. ~ UBeR 19:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not find that there is any concern with Raul654's behavior as of late, or at any earlier time. He understands his business well, and is able to understand and implement the spirit of all the instruction creep. We can not run the wikipedia by making it look and sound like court deliberations. Certain decisions are always required to be taken very promptly to protect the integrity of wikipedia, and good faith does not mean a license to do whatever one may desire to do here! Perhaps, final rule is to IAR and move forward to protect and value add to the project. --Bhadani (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 is one of the most trusted people on Wikipedia. He is not only an admin, but a bureaucrat and an arbitrator, and has Oversight privileges. You're going to have to go some to get him removed from those important, and well-earned, positions. Corvus cornix 21:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Uber has been a problem user on Wikipedia since about 5 minutes after he got here. He's previously been warned for it, both on his user page and on this noticeboard. His edits to the global warming article have been detrimental, and then have been done in conjunction with a cadre of other users who share his anti-science POV. Using tactics I've outlined here, they repeatedly attempt to whitewash the article, water down the science, and play up the skepticism. While giving lots of lip-service to good faith and a desire not to revert war, they do exactly that in spades. Uber himself has been warned about this repeatedly: [118][119][120][121] Or, to put it a bit different, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." - Wikipedia:Assume good faith In short - Uber's privilege to edit Wikipedia deserves re-examination. I think a community-ban is in order. Raul654 20:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is yet a further example of how Raul654 is perniciously attacking me, and in a very deceitful and ignorant manner. Raul654 is wrong on many factors. For example, his report of "incidence" against my "trolling" was without foundation, despite repeated request for evidence of any such behavior on my behalf. Needless to say, this was not forthcoming. Next is his attempt to demonstrate my "detrimental" and "repeated attempts to whitewash" the global warming article, while having "been warned about this repeatedly." But lets look at his examples (none of which demonstrate any such behavior) he provided: Skyemoor's contribution to the FAR. The edits that this user provides were found to be in accordance with the consensus of the editors of that article, brought about through discussion on my behalf. Of course, Raul654's involvement in actual discussion to amend that article are nonexistent, and instead he chooses to assume bad faith for every edit I make, despite near unanimous agreement among those who actually choose to involve themselves in discussion, rather than disruptive revert wars. So thus it appears Skyemoor's edits were the ones that were contentious, and is a further demonstration of bad faith in my contributions, which have overwhelmingly been beneficial to that article. Of course, then, is YFB's innocent inquiry on my talk page. He came to me asking about a specific edit I made, and I replied with my response and reasoning. He, nor anyone else (save, maybe, Raul654), disagrees with me regarding that edit. So what Raul654 was trying to demonstrate with that example, I do not know. Third is Mr. Salsman's unfounded and retracted attack on me. He believed I unfairly deleted content, but of course I did no such thing. Perhaps this is why Mr. Salsman withdrew his comments?[122] Of course, Raul654 wouldn't like that to be mentioned. (Also note Mr. Salsman is now banned from editing that article for a period of three months.) Last, then, was Dmcdevit's discussion on my talk page. I'll leave this one for the reader to interpret.

So I believe it's quite obvious Raul654's sentiments based purely on personal feelings and misguided vendettas are completely inappropriate and unbecoming, as are his calls for my banishment from Wikipedia. ~ UBeR 21:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Dmcdevit and Raul654 are both notorious POV-pushers and trolls. For sure. And UBeR has never been blocked for edit warring on the Global Warming article, apart from the once. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Zomg JzG is right! How'd that escape us! Someone set us up the bomb! *cough* -M^ask? 21:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your sarcasm here isn't very well appreciated. Your misrepresentations (i.e. straw men) do little to help this discussion. Dcmdevit came to me to noting the ongoing tensions, and I respected and acknowledge his comments on my talk page. I haven't really a clue of what you're trying to suggest here. ~ UBeR 22:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's our way of saying your complaint is ludicrous. -M^ask? 22:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this a violation of WP:CANVASS? --Akhilleus (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Or any more so than this? ~ UBeR 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Uber spent several months specifically targeting his harassment towards WMC (including Uber's now deleted "hit list"; hit list pt 2). That's why I notified WMC. Uber's multiple canvassing notifications [123][124], on the other hand, cannot be so easily explained. Raul654 22:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Whilst I side totally with the well respected Raul I wonder if just two citations really can be used to invoke WP:CANVASS when the policy/guideline itself references the following - Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine.. Just my tuppence worth. Pedro |  Chat  22:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a big deal, I think, but the particular phrasing of the message here isn't appropriate--"I understand that your involvement, albeit recent, has come under tremendous amount of attack, despite acting genuinely good-faithed. Recently, I have raised concern with these editors who attacks those who innocently look to amend the article through good-faithed contributions." --Akhilleus (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed not a big deal. But your cite is better covered by wp:civil so I still feel WP:CANVASS doesn't stand under Raul's comment. But this is pointless and pedantic considering the standing Raul has in the community. Surely time to archive this debate?Pedro |  Chat  23:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a sad day when the administrators have to resort to fallacies, like argumentum ad verecundiam, to defend their fellow peers. Look not at your perceived notions, but rather the content of the issue. Do you mean to tell me these remarks are inline for a so-called "arbitrator?" Since when has Wikipedia allowed for personal attacks. This is not the Wikipedia I know. And to quickly address my "inappropriate wording" to Blue Tie brought up by Akhilleus, it is the same wording Blue Tie has used to describe how he has been treated since the get-go on that article, despite his musing and well faithed contributions. ~ UBeR 01:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That may well be, uBeR, but if your note on Blue Tie's talk page can be summed up as "you've been attacked by a bunch of people, and I started a complaint about one of them--come join in," that's a violation of WP:CANVAS. At least, that's the way it seems to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

UBeR has pulled the rug from under my feet with regards to a couple of edits I've made. And I certainly don't belong in the man-is-causing-global-warming camp. UBeR is consistent in making good-faith edits and certainly discusses possible solutions on how an article should read on talk pages before making the edits, a good example was yesterday on how to formulate an article relating to Global Warming deleting POV and weasel wording. The problem as I see it is that the actual POV pushers who think they know whats best for the Planet naturally feel they know what is best for Wikipedia. Banning UBeR (short-term or long-term) does the community no favours. --Dean1970 22:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, why is this relevant to ANI? What administrator action are you asking be taken, UBeR? --Iamunknown 23:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't you read? It says so right on the top opf this page: "This is [...] the Wikipedia complaints department"! ;-). Seriously, UBeR is a very weird editor. In contrast to most of the other "sceptical" editors on global warming (and surrounding articles), a lot of his edits are actually improving the articles. He is incredibly pedantic (which can be good sometimes, e.g. when hunting typos) and relies heavily on rules (and his interpretation of them). He also seems to have take a strong dislike against certain editors, and tries to needle them with irrelevant or plain wrong complaints. See my editor review of him for a slightly older perspective. I would hate to lose his good qualities, but sometimes he becomes unbearable. I don't know what would be best here. --Stephan Schulz 00:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well to be fair, I went to a different page that read, "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you may do so [at AN/I]." :-) ~ UBeR 01:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It does say that. But it's still a fair question to ask--what result are you looking for? If your complaint is valid, how could it be solved? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had the same experiences as Stephan Schulz, but more experience of the bad side than the good. UBeR consistently engages in abuse of Wikiprocesses in the attempt to push his POV. For example, having canvassed votes (Rameses, Brittainia and the rest of that crew) in an unsuccessful attempt to delete Global warming conspiracy theory he justified dispute tags on the article with reference to a post made on AfD by another editor who later changed his vote to Keep. He uses the rules, but he needs to learn to play by them. In these circumstances, it's unsurprising that his good faith gets called into question. JQ 02:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Uber asked me to comment, so here goes. If I have to choose between the two, I'd take Raul in a heartbeat. I voted for him to be an arbitrator, and I support his arbcom rulings (including, paradoxically, the one under which I currently chafe). I'm a believer in the system.

On the other hand (paradox #2?) I also think that Raul fails to understand the complexity of Global Warming. I have read several books over the years on the topic. And the folks here are simply gaming the system on the subject. It's simply a case of might makes right (which I disagree with), but at Wikipedia "consensus rules". And as the bishop of my church says, "You can't make people change."

Bottom line: the global warming articles will remain biased until "enough" editors want it to be neutral. --Uncle Ed 03:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As others have said, Uber does have a good side but the bad outweights the good. He is one of the worst examples of endless pointless talking that amounts to trolling I've seen - his editor review provides good examples of this William M. Connolley 07:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Message from a bot

Resolved

Umm, your bots are malfunctioning and hurling false accusations at me, thanks 12.168.80.99 19:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The message from the bot is several days old. I have replied on the user's talk page informing him/her that the message is most likely intended for someone else on a shared/dynamic IP. --BigDT (416) 20:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Request to block sockpuppet of banned editor

Resolved

 – indefblocked as a sock of Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Alison^☺ 21:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

HeberMK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Firstly there's these edits to List of notable breast cancer patients according to survival status, which is a frequent target of RMS sockpuppets. Similarly this edit to Royal College of Nursing which again is a frequent target of RMS sockpuppets. Lastly there's the unusual link formatting on Ethel Owen of ([125]) which RMS frequently uses as can be seen in this checkuser. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked. Recent edits show user is definitely RMS again. I'm more than familiar with his style, content and article habits - Alison^☺ 20:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Do you want to take care of Ethel Owen please? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Done :( What a shame he can't work with others. Seriously - Alison^☺ 20:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing is stopping someone else from creating the article though, obviously if you think it's needed ;) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Kurdistan

Content dispute - use WP:DR--Doc^g 20:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a repetitively restoring of two images which are irrelevant to the category page. Both images are captioned as "Kurdish inhabited region" and are not maps of "Kurdistan". -- Cat ^chi? 20:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is not the place for the category page. --Bhadani (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? -- Cat ^chi? 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I recently denied a protection request concerning that category because I had seen only four edits within the last 24 hours. // Sean William 20:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like an editorial dispute to me. Why would administrator involvement be needed? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe anything "editorial" is in dispute. The caption of the images are clear. If someone insisted to put a map to an unrelated category it would be removed. Such insistence would even lead to blocks. -- Cat ^chi? 20:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that; some users (one of them is suspected sock)are in a struggle to fork some false material according to their political agenda.

Some questions arise;

is this category name is appropriate?; is there any country with this name?, is boundaries is definite?, can we draw like a map?

is there necessity to have an image in category page?Must.^{T C} 20:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to stay on topic shall we? -- Cat ^chi? 20:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anyone with oversight available?

Looks like the vandal left real names in the edit summary for the recent vandalization of AN/I]. Probably needs to be oversighted (the user in question has already been blocked) SirFozzie 20:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just looks like simple vandalism, is there a need for oversight? And if there is, DO NOT post a diff here, as that draws attention to it.--Doc^g 21:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought using the edit summary to "out" real names were a no-no, but Ok. I've removed the diff as well. Sorry if I was mistaken SirFozzie 21:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you do think oversight is necessary, the instructions for requesting are at (where else?) Wikipedia:requests for oversight. Natalie 00:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

db-userreq of user talk pages which contain admonishments from admins

User:Squaddiejohn has asked for {{db-userreq}} of his user page User talk:Squaddiejohn. But that would destroy an edit history which contains old versions containing various admonishments to him from Wikipedia admins. Anthony Appleyard 21:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You can blank and protect talkpages of users, but outright deleting them is a no-no. -M^ask? 21:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• User:Stockholmagent has just made the same request for User talk:Stockholmagent. Anthony Appleyard 22:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have not deleted or edited these files. Anthony Appleyard 22:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If the user is leaving WP, there is no reason not to delete the talk page and user page. It's not uncommon for the users to request deletion when they go. If you're worried about the user coming back, recreate the page blank and protect it. CMummert · talk 22:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

HIM-related articles

Every day I have to revert a stack of edits like this: Special:Contributions/86.41.10.183, from various IP's. This kind of changes are disruptive, changing the genre of a band dispite obvious no consensus as to the real genre of the band. The genre should link to a section in the article HIM talking about it's various genres, but IP editors continue to change it. I would request protection, but I wouldn't want 15 articles locked because of this, but I'm not sure what else to do at this point but revert.. Suggestions? — Moe 21:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• The Beatles has the same problem recently. The article was protected for a few days until a consensus was reached (rock/pop, with a footnote), now we can just revert to that. In this case, looks like you have a reasonably well referenced section explaining the difficulties of defining a genre; I should revert to that and invite discussion on the talk page. Changing genres without discussion is, alas, a favourite hobby of anon IPs, there's not a huge amount you can do about it; try and engage in dialogue, if one editor is insistent on ignoring consensus then issue the usual vandalism warnings. People have been blocked for altering genres to suit their own preference before. --kingboyk 21:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• I suggest that both of you read Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Subtle vandalism by User:JJonathan and his sockpuppets.... There is an overall pattern here, and what you are looking at is typical for this particular vandal. Uncle G 23:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sock, but whose?

I wonder if we should go on tolerating the activities of Ashkani (talk · contribs). He is obviously not a new user but somebody's sockpuppet. I don't know whose (ring a bell, anybody?), whether they are banned or anything, but what I see is that this sock is doing all sorts of controversial things: trying to get people blocked ([126]) or unblocked ([127]), voting in controversial deletion discussions ([128]), and so on. I'm not sure he's breaking the letter of the sock policy with all this, but surely its spirit - if his sockmaster is a legitimate user, I can see no reason why they shouldn't be able to do these things openly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppets are only disallowed to evade blocks and skew consensus. It eaither is listed, or was at some point, that bringing a complaint that you fear retribution for is one of those ideal uses for one. Also, the segregating contributions would apply too, one for discussion of policy, where you may tick someone off and one for articles. -M^ask? 21:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

(Edit)If it's participating in deletions, an ideal way to settle this may just be ask a checkuser to see if the puppetmaster participated in the same deletions. If yes, then reveal and block, if no, the Checkuser says so and keeps quiet, might work. -M^ask? 21:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In order to do that, you'd have to guess who the puppet master is, and CheckUser isn't for fishing around. hbdragon88 23:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If theres a problem you guys can address it to me directly. Makalp was being disruptive, I saw ParthianShots edits in Iranian related articles and thats how I went on.... Ashkani 23:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you truly need to do these things through an alternate account, I'd suggest you should at least contact some trusted members of the community and confidentially declare who you are, so that they can then vouch for you that there's nothing improper. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I also suspect a sock of a banned user. Artaxiad, Surena (ParthianShots), GW, Bonaparte? If not, please be careful not to break WP:STALK Ashkani, or whatever :) Baristarim 14:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone please check these edits

No time, going to be away from computer, just noticed edits on Agent provocateur that may be OK, or may be vandalism. Please check, thanks, Richard Myers 21:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not appear to be vandalism. No action is needed. YechielMan 21:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Debatable changes to content and organization perhaps, but not obvious vandalism. --ElKevbo 21:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please block 204.185.91.19

Resolved

 – blocked by Consumed Crustacean after AIV report. Will (aka Wimt) 08:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

IP vandalized Kirby Puckett and intermolecular forces after being warned that blocking would follow.--P.wormer 23:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AIV. hbdragon88 23:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Offline usurpation?

See User talk:Gizwidget and user talk:John Reaves. This user is claiming that they were given the password of the account by the former owner who is perfectly content to let them take over the account. I assume that regardless of the truth behind this, we can't allow this because of GFDL issues. John Reaves (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point; the GFDL is very useful to disallow such things. --Golbez 23:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't do this. Thatcher131 02:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Lauren Conrad nominations for deletion

The page Lauren Conrad has been nominated at least three times for deletion, by User:Danielle at MTV Europe, User:Lagunabeacher, and User:Taniaatmtveurope. Each has claimed to be working for MTV, each has had the same reason for the nomination, and made no other edits. Not sure if this is the right place to bring it up, but this disruption is getting to be a problem. Mister.Manticore 00:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've speedy closed that one and blocked the user. Watchlisted the article as well. Thankfully, it's fairly slow disruption. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

IP addresses User:76.164.23.154, and User:124.120.217.215

Earlier today I asked you guys to do something about User:76.164.23.154, for he left a mean message on my user page, using the account name Evan PDX. My request was dismissed, saying that he mistook my user page for my my talk page. Well, I just checked my talk page, getting this little message from his IP address: "You are an enigma, how can anyone be so enthusiastic about Ronald Reagan? Far too many objective reports on him and his presidency don't at all paint him in a good light. What I remember about his administration was my parents, both of them, working their butts off to raise my younger brother and myself. Where was the tricle-down then?" It was not signed. It appears he also left these messages on Ronald Reagan's talk page, just saying irrelevant things to what was discussed previously.

The second user, User:124.120.217.215, stated on my talk page: "You are easily the most annoying git in the galaxy of annoying gits that is wikiwanderdom. I hope you enroll at Virginia Tech," obviously saying that I should die (and talking in reference about the tragic event that happened there). After checking the IP's user talk page, I see that he was banned, but I was not the first victim of his.

It would really help if someone here could do something about User:76.164.23.154 (User:Evan PDX), because I feel that because I admire Ronald Reagan (which I've stated on my user page), and because of the fact that I have done so much good for his article (and have been awarded the Barnstar and the California Barnstar), I am under fire from those who do not agree with my stance, and my thoughts, which is not right, and not fair. Please do something to help. Much grateful, Happyme22 01:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, 124.120.217.215 is the Cheri DiNovo vandal, who seems to get a kick out of being incredibly verbally abusive. More information can be found at this subpage I created about them. That vandal needs to be blocked on sight without any warnings, and then the talk page sprotected. If they are warned they merely use that opportunity to verbally abuse whoever warned them, and if you leave the talk page unprotected they will use it for the same ends. Alternatively, a different IP address of the same vandal/s will show up and add a lot of nasty stuff to the blocked IPs talk page. Natalie 02:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's equally important to point out that 76.164.23.154 (talk · contribs) is not a vandal, and that there's a big difference between this sort of edit and this sort of edit.--VectorPotential^Talk 11:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandal 207.33.103.103

User:207.33.103.103 keeps vandalizing the Brian Setencich article by removing information about Setencich's felony conviction for tax evasion. A message has been left on his talk page days ago to no avail. It seems to be stepping up its vandalism. Calwatch 02:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've given them a final warning. If they remove this again, report them and they will be blocked. TimVickers 03:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

After repeat performance, blocked for one month. What's the smiley for happy&sad? Shenme 14:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Discipline for User:Meddling

Anyone want to warn User:Meddling for this comment, which he made in response to my edit to his userpage? YechielMan 03:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Meddling has been around since April 2006 with no blocks. He had an acronym which can have an offensive interpretation on his user page. His user page was changed for the first time by someone else. He reacted quite crossly. Imagine this, someone jaywalks across a street and snatches a cigarette out of your mouth, saying "that's not right!". I'm not really surprised at this. Hand them a pamphlet, WP:USER perhaps, and with a smile ask them if they've considered other behavior?   BTW:

Definition: Norp. Unpleasant and undesired activity usually imposed upon you by bosses, society, etc (from now on collectively called authority).

Shenme 04:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Resurgent insurgent

Can someone please look at this admins rollbacks and speedy closures of the AFDs on USA PATRIOT Act titles? I had good reasons for wanting them on AFD, and it's totally wrong for him/her to have speedy closed them like this. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin violation of Wikipedia:Blocking policy

SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) blocked User:Tsunami Butler to gain an advantage in a content dispute. This appears to be part of a pattern of behavior on SlimVirgin's part.

There has been a content dispute brewing since last fall. The background to the dispute is that one week after joining Wikipedia in November of 2004 [129], SlimVirgin authored the article Jeremiah Duggan, which she has OWNed ever since. This article is essentially a mirror for the "Justice for Jeremiah" website. That website is a compendium of libels and harsh attacks on Lyndon LaRouche, issued primarily by Chip Berlet and Dennis King, two former leftists who, twenty years ago, received relatively prominent press coverage for their polemics against LaRouche. Not long thereafter they faded into obscurity and the Duggan affair was an opportunity for them to get back into the public eye.

Jeremiah Duggan was a college student who was a casual attendee at a LaRouche conference in Germany. During the conference he committed suicide, for reasons that have never been explained. The "Justice for Jeremiah" project has implied that the LaRouche group somehow caused his suicide, although no motive has ever been suggested. Also, no reliable source has ever specifically alleged that the LaRouche group caused his death, although as SlimVirgin put it, "almost every single source that has written about this implies that it is somehow involved in his death."[130] The idea of an article for the sole purpose of promoting "implications" of involvement in a murder is troubling from the standpoint of WP:BLP. SlimVirgin has insisted on inserting material from this article in other articles, including: Helga Zepp-LaRouche,Schiller Institute, Lyndon LaRouche, Jacques Cheminade, LaRouche movement, and Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement. Meanwhile, during the latter part of that same year, Chip Berlet had begun to edit Wikipedia as Cberlet (talk · contribs · count · api · block log), and began working as a team with SlimVirgin in POV disputes. Along with Will Beback (who used the username Willmcw) they began to assert ownership over the articles on the "LaRouche template." In June of 2005, Dennis King opened an account as Dking (talk · contribs · count · api · block log), but he did not begin to edit LaRouche articles until November of 2006. His edits of those articles developed into a frenzy of self-citing (see [131], [132],[133])

Tsunami Butler (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) began editing in October of 2006. Among her first edits is a question on a talk page, where she receives a personal attack from Cberlet in response:[134][135]

Tsunami Butler began to put together evidence that Cberlet and Dking were in violation of numerous policies, including WP:COI#Citing_oneself, WP:LIVING#Biased_or_malicious_content, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:RS. This became the basis for a MedCab case (see Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/medcab06-07.) Four days after SlimVirgin first took notice of this case [136] it was closed without any explanation[137]. The essential content dispute between SlimVirgin and Tsunami Butler was over whether Wikipedia articles should be a soapbox for the theories of Chip Berlet and Dennis King, in violation of WP:NOT.

Here is the chronology of SlimVirgin's ban of Tsunami Butler:

• April 1, 2007: SlimVirgin asks for ArbCom permission to ban Tsunami Butler. [138]

I won't list all the diffs for the following section, as the material has been neatly archived here: Tsunami Butler ban discussion.

The reason given for the proposed ban is "acting to promote LaRouche," under the "LaRouche 1" ArbCom case, where it says: "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche." However, SlimVirgin was unable to produce any evidence that Tsunami Butler had violated this remedy. As ArbCom member Kirill Lokshin put it, "The various LaRouche rulings have not really been kept up-to-date with the evolution of policy—even the most recent considerably predates a number of significant policy developments in 2006 and 2007—so I do not think they should be interpreted as providing for broad restrictions on behavior; the main remedy imposed in them that was not applied to specific parties covered only the introduction of LaRouche-originated material into unrelated articles, in any case."

Consequently, SlimVirgin changes her rationale for the ban. Unable to find evidence of a violation of the ArbCom decisions, she falls back upon the old stand-by, accusations of sock-puppetry. Tsunami Butler has informed me by e-mail that she edits using AOL in Los Angeles, meaning that she has a dynamic IP address. As I understand it, this means that any check user evidence linking her to another user is circumstantial at best; I don't know how many people edit Wikipedia using AOL in Los Angeles, but my hunch is that it is quite a substantial number. SlimVirgin chooses her words carefully when she says: "A check user has confirmed that Tsunami Butler appears to be sockpuppeting."

The relevant policy that has been violated by SlimVirgin is the following: Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Admins must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on. (Wikipedia:Blocking policy)

From the time she launches the campaign to ban Tsunami Butler, to the actual banning 10 days later, I count 133 edits by SlimVirgin to LaRouche-template articles and talk pages, mostly of a contentious nature.

• Example: on April 6, 2007, Tsunami Butler requests that quotes from King and Berlet "be reduced to a level that is commensurate with their notability." April 7, 2007: SlimVirgin adds new attack material from Chip Berlet, alleging that LaRouche is guilty of secret, coded anti-Semitism: "You would have to listen over time to a ... set of patterns, and you would begin to hear the echoes of the classic antisemitic conspiracy theories." This material is added to Schiller Institute.[139]

This ban should be overturned, and POV pushing at the Jeremiah Duggan article and related articles should be scrutinized. --NathanDW 05:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is pretty much the same info that was on the now deleted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlimVirgin...it was deleted for a reason.--MONGO 05:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, NathanDW's post appears to be vexatious. As was clearly explained to him already, Tsunami Butler was blocked for sockpuppetry, confirmed by Checkuser. The block is clearly valid. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• I know virtually nothing about LaRouche; he sounds like a political cult figure similar to Ayn Rand, with a small cadre of devoted followers, a few equally devoted opponents, and a majority of the public who has never heard of him. But I find the claims about LaRouche in Jeremiah Duggan to be problematic. There are some weasel words ("The group is widely seen as a fringe political cult"). I'm also not sure whether it's appropriate to mention LaRouche's prison term for tax evasion in an article this distantly related (it is, of course, appropriate to note this reliably sourced fact in LaRouche's own article). I think it's questionable whether allowing significant influence in the LaRouche article from relatively minor figures (Berlet and King) is appropriate under WP:BLP, especially since Berlet and King are Wikipedia editors themselves, and we usually don't allow self-promotion of this nature. While we must be on the lookout for LaRouche POV-pushing (I've seen enough Ayn Rand POV-pushing to know the kind of stuff that got people pissed off here), we must be equally diligent to ensure the articles do not tilt too far in the opposite direction. I would urge Arbcom to revisit their cases on LaRouche in light of WP:BLP, which didn't exist when some of the cases were initially heard. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• tl;dr, and please, cut it out with that funky formatting, it looks like you cut and pasted from a 40 column C64. SchmuckyTheCat 06:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin explained her TsunamiButler block to User:Don't_lose_that_number, another Larouche rep on WP:

  The permanent block was for a violation of the ArbCom rulings and for WP:SOCK. The accounts are believed to be operated by a banned user. The ArbCom does not distinguish between sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, and they made that explicit in their LaRouche2 ruling. However, as I said, I'm perfectly willing to have another admin review the block — bearing in mind that seven admins apart from me have commented already — and then it will be as though that admin instigated it; or they may agree with you and unblock. If you want me to pick one, let me know; otherwise you can choose an admin and ask him or her to e-mail me for more information.[140][141]

  I also see no problem at all with this block. It is very common for ArbCom to not distinguish between sock and meat puppets based on their behavior pattern, and once there is such pattern any admin can block, regardless of any content disputes or involvement. SlimVirgin makes it clear that multiple admins reviewed and supported her decision, both before and after, so I think bringing this issue here, without mentioning these reviews and support, including the certification of the action by an ArbCom member, is misleading at best. Crum375 13:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the block looks good to me, it has received plenty of attention. I do wish you would keep your complaint much briefer though. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have been handled properly. Not a content issue, but rather violation of Arbcom rulings. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Same as this? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think every i's been dotted here. I would also hope that arbcom can make it crystal clear what LaRouche supporters can and cannot do (apologies if they have clarified earlier rulings somewhere already). IronDuke 13:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I know absolutely nothing about the content dispute, but it seems pretty clear that SlimVirgin was on absolutely solid ground here. Let it go. --Leifern 14:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

<--Multiple clarifications have been issued, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche_2, as well as the case decisions themselves, which establish a bright line test. Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles. In other words, sources tied to the LaRouche movement are not considered reliable for use in articles except those that are closely related to LaRouche. I don't see how this is ambiguous, except as you can see from the talk page links, this seems to come up over and over again. Thatcher131 14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And it's utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. SlimVirgin initially posed her desire to ban as an ArbCom violation, but she dropped it like a hot potato after Kirill Lokshin pointed out that there was no ArbCom violation. After that, she had to resort to the all-purpose, "one size fits all" excuse of the ban-happy admin, sockpuppetry (or in this case, meatpuppetry.) But I would also point out that Herschelkrustofsky was banned for very specific reasons, not simply disagreeing with SlimVirgin on content. If anyone who has a content dispute with SlimVirgin is a meatpuppet, then you are giving her a virtual 007 "license to ban" which it looks like she has abused more than once. Please remember that, lacking a valid claim of a violation of ArbCom rulings, the operative policy is Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Admins must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on. (Wikipedia:Blocking policy) If the basis for banning is supposed to be so solid, what is preventing her from having another admin do it? --NathanDW 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So if some other admin just does it, does that satisfy your complaint? --Rednblu 16:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

talk page

Need help with how to leave the talk page of an user who has left Wikipedia: [142]. --Mihai cartoaje 08:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Of course, that is the user's preferred version; it's filled with warnings, but seeing as how they're the subject of an ongoing RFC, I don't think it's the right time to blank this particular talk page. If they were to return unannounced finding the evidence of the previous warnings would be impossible unless you know where to look. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That user is not the subject of an ongoing RfC. --Mihai cartoaje 08:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I stand corrected. I striked out that bit of my comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The user is the subject of an RfC [[143]] and is involved in an RfC involving mihai cartoaje, who has been stalking me and harrassing me [[144]] DPeterson^talk 12:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The usernames are significantly different. Could this just be inattention? --Mihai cartoaje 13:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But the warnings were undeserved. The warnings from RalphLender and DPeterson were for moving threaded replies to comments in a RfC to the talk page, which the RfC rules say we must do.

I think I understand what happened now. At the time I went on a wiki-break to catch up with my income tax filings. Also, I didn't know what to answer the user: being disdainful would be hurtful, but being friendly would make people say "the user wrote a positive comment about you because you are friends." My unexplained wiki-break combined with an user writing a positive comment about me in the RfC made people think that it was an alternate account I had created. That is not true: look at this thread [145]. I'm a guy; I know as little about this topic as MacGyver or the actor who plays him. But the suspicions made people bite the user, and Mr. Darcy write a very vitriolic warning which reads "If you don't alter the way you deal with this user, I'm going to have to block you to prevent further attacks" which may have meant, "if you don't stop complaining, I'm going to indefinitely block you because I think you're a sockpuppet."

I hope you understand now why the warnings were undeserved. --Mihai cartoaje 13:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I find it bizarre that RalphLender and DPeterson were tag-team edit warring to add threaded replies to the RfC, clearly against RfC rules, with similar edit summaries (and similar fake warnings). It's almost as if they were trying to push the user into making a mistake. Here are the relevant edit summaries with a name starred out:

(cur) (last) 13:57, 23 February 2007 RalphLender (Talk | contribs) (→Outside view)

(cur) (last) 15:18, 23 February 2007 Grace E. D***** (Talk | contribs) (→Outside view - moving comment to talk page, it clearly says users who post in other sections should not post here.)

(cur) (last) 16:02, 23 February 2007 RalphLender (Talk | contribs) (I may be wrong, but I don't believe it is the editor Grace's place to edit this Request for Comment page.)

(cur) (last) 16:06, 23 February 2007 Grace E. D****** (Talk | contribs) (rv and stick to the rules, cut out misleading edit-summaries: I did not edit other peoples comments of course)

(cur) (last) 20:12, 23 February 2007 RalphLender (Talk | contribs) (→Outside view - PLEASE do not edit this page. Leave other's comments alone.)

(cur) (last) 20:43, 23 February 2007 Grace E. D***** (Talk | contribs) (stick to the rules and post in appropriate section, and don't yell.)

(cur) (last) 20:54, 23 February 2007 DPeterson (Talk | contribs) (Please do not move or change my comments. That is for an uninvolved administrator to do.)

--Mihai cartoaje 17:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Robdurbar

The user account of Robdurbar has gone crazy. Deleted the main page, blocking everyone in sight. His admin powers need to be taken away quickly. — Lost^(talk) 10:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking where the stewards are. Agathoclea 10:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Desysopped. – Riana ^ऋ 10:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for unblocking me. Agathoclea 10:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about any rude unblocking summaries I may have left. – Riana ^ऋ 10:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What the fuck happened there? Was that someone saying goodbye in spectacular fashion, or did a vandal hack the account? Moreschi ^Talk 10:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt it was a vandal; that user left several weeks ago. A vandal would probably choose someone who is at their peak of activity. — Deckiller 10:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The block of Jeff makes it quite clear that this wasn't a comprimised account, for me anyways. Daniel Bryant 10:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how much this will shake up the RfA reform debates. — Deckiller 10:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's go and see... Carcharoth 10:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Merged from separate thread directly above.

What's going on? --Dweller 10:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Emergency desysopping of USer:Robdurbar??? The accounts either compromised, or he's taking the **** Ryan Postlethwaite 10:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Desysop please ASAP. He is unblocking himself, blocking other users (just got me), and creating havoc. Anyone on IRC? – Riana ^ऋ 10:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Desysopped by Jhs. MaxSem 10:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted all his blocks, hope that's OK. – Riana ^ऋ 10:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You're too fast. A pity, I had hoped I'd get an opportunity of unblocking Jimbo once in my life. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fast? Tabbed browsing, my friend ^^ – Riana ^ऋ 10:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheese needs to be undeleted. MaxSem 10:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Good going Riana!--cj | talk 10:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What now then? Leave him desysopped and blocked, or take it to arbcom to make it official? Ryan Postlethwaite 10:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No formalities needed. He'll just remain blocked until he comes back with a plausible explanation how this was not him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we'll need a rather good explanation... no vandal goes and blocks a bunch of established users, not to mention a user the admin has blocked previously. – Riana ^ऋ 10:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Continue :) Daniel Bryant 10:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Should this be documented somewhere? Has this ever happened before? An admin goes rogue and got in three edits before being blocked, got in 25 blocking, unblocking, unprotecting, and deleting actions. Can someone confirm all the mess has been tidied up? Carcharoth 10:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It has. Good thing he wasn't pissed off enough to do something that's actually damaging. —Cryptic 10:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Shake up RFA? After this, we'll have people saying that the crats should be able to desysop...which will lead to even higher standards at RfB....arrrrrgggghhh....Moreschi ^Talk 10:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm one who thinks the crats should be able to desysop...but then again, I also feel we shouldn't raise the standards either :) — Deckiller 10:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we need more stewards who are highly active on WP? None of the stewards seem to be half as active as the folk you see on ANI everyday. Standards for stewards seem to be lower than for crats... who wants to have a go next year? :) – Riana ^ऋ 10:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Lower? As in, like, needing to speak ten languages, active participation on 50 WikiMedia projects, and accounts on more? Moreschi ^Talk 10:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the criteria are different; because of that, I think it might not be a bad idea to consider giving crats the right to desyssop. But I agree that we need more tools to fight hacked or crazy admins. — Deckiller 10:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Before we get too hung up on the idea that we need more stewarts or drastic measures to prevent a rare sysop rampage, remember that this mess started at 09:57 with the unprotection of "cheese" and was over by 10:14 when Robdurbar got desysopped. I'd say the stewarts (and JHS in particular) did a good job. As to bureaucrats getting the right or technical ability to desysop, I have no opinion.--Chaser - T 10:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah apparently they were alerted on IRC [146]. Will (aka Wimt) 10:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But is it good or bad that it took 17 minutes to deal with this? To be fair, the smoking gun of Main Page deletion (and edit summaries like "I wonder how long I can get away with this") didn't occur until about 13 minutes before he was desysopped. But is 13 minutes a good response time or a bad one? Carcharoth 11:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He got in more than three edits. Some of them remained deleted when I restored only the revisions of the main page from before the incident began. —David Levy 11:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just submitted a patch that disables main page deletion, please vote/comment. MaxSem 10:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WT:RFA thread is here. Carcharoth 10:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow... First case of rogue admin I've ever seen. Have to thank your for your quick actions Riana, before he deletes the whole Project... --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 10:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

RFCheckUser started at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Robdurbar ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 10:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the trouble couldhave been avoided if admins could not unblock themselves or .... there would be a 30 minutes delay in unblocking. Agathoclea 10:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I just said exactly the same thing at WT:RFA at exactly the same time! – B.hotep ^u/_t• 11:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, his autoblocks should also be undone. MaxSem 11:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I just undid the autoblocks. Can someone check if I've done it correctly? – Riana ^ऋ 11:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Done. >Radiant< 11:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Gah! That's a mess. From 10:01 to 10:14 on 19 April 2007, in case it scrolls off the screen. Hang on, they are vanishing in front of my eyes. Weird. How does that list work? Carcharoth 11:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You gotta show me how to do that sometime :) – Riana ^ऋ 11:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Tabbed browsing, of course :) Firefox FTW! >Radiant< 11:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That was a rather freaky demonstration of aberrant behavior... (→Netscott) 11:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser results in - account seemingly not compromised. Moreschi ^Talk 11:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

---

According to someone (I can't remember whom, I thought it was in one of the IRC channels, but I can't find anything there), people in #wikipedia were panicing for quite some time before someone knew whom to contact (e.g. stewards). What is needed for this kind of situation isn't more stewards or ability for bureaucrats to desysop; what's needed is for people to know where to go when something like this happened, which luckily Peter Isotalo did (and also five or six other people who came in too late). When (or, more optimistically, if) an admin goes on a havoc spree like this, you should go to #wikimedia-stewards and write !steward, and someone will usually respond within seconds (there are stewards from many different time zones). If there are none, developers (in #wikimedia-tech) will be able to do a desysopping. Jon Harald Søby 12:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My problem was I couldn't remember the name of the stewards IRC channel: by the time I remembered it, he'd already been desysopped. Thanks for the reminder. Moreschi ^Talk 12:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem

Of course we did not follow proper process here, because Robdurbar should first have gotten a standardized warning template that deleting the main page is considered inappropriate, and that repeat actions may result in deopping. I have taken the liberty of designing this, Template:Uw-delmain1. >Radiant< 12:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well done, Radiant. I'm a bit puzzled regarding the "Welcome to Wikipedia" bit — admins are not new users as far as I'm concerned (unless the RfA reform goes a little too far, heh). Michaelas¹⁰ 12:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

ROFL :D. MaxSem 12:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the assessment. By the time I blocked him he had already been vandalizing on top of deleting. Even though the main page was involved I did check if there was a particular issue that needed an emergency deletion. The subsequent re-creation of the page showed a vandalizing intend. I knew that he could unblock himself, but the block would stop further deletions to bridge the time until a steward could be alerted. Agathoclea 12:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if this shows us anything it is that the whole emergency de-admining system works. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 12:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it's very encouraging. By the time I'd logged into the stewards IRC channel it'd already been done. – Steel 13:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd venture a guess that any admin that deletes Main page will be desysopped (probably emergency desysopped) whether the actions are repeated or not. I see no need for a warning for such actions. -- Renesis (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's not be overly dramatic. As the admin who recently deleted the mainpage said, "Indeed, it was my terrible mistake. Looked at the wrong page, pressed the wrong button. Restored immediately, so no damage was made." They weren't desysopped for it, and rightfully so. Zocky | picture popups 13:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Before today, main page deletions were entirely accidental and were reversed with no warnings. Bad-faith deletions of the main page require emergency de-sysopping. Period. // Sean William 13:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I was referring to bad-faith deletion, not accidental. And I agree with HighInBC below. -- Renesis (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we can all tell the difference between an emergency and something that can be discussed prior to desysoping, this would be the former. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, deletion of the Main Page is such a big deal that, even if it was accidental, it wouldn't kill the offending admin to be desysopped until such time as he explains that it was a mistake. If it appears to be an emergency, shoot first and ask questions later. The desysopping "bullet" does no permanent damage. --Richard 14:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Except, it leaves the "offending" admin with no way to correct his/her mistake. --Edokter (Talk) 14:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a few hundred others willing to correct that mistake, though. – Riana ^ऋ 14:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Availability of stewards and emergency procedures

Jon Harald Søby indicated that there will probably be stewards available at any time, as they are in different time zones, but that seems a little bit like wishful thinking to me. There probably are quiet times when no stewards are available, but the only way we will find out, unless a system is set up, is when something like this happens and we find all the stewards are asleep/away/inactive, or whatever. Can we be sure that stewards or developers will always be available? The other point Jon Harald Søby raised was that the people active in #wikipedia at the time didn't seem to know they needed to find a steward. I'm sure a whole generation of Wikipedians will now have this fact burned into their psyche! :-) But seriously, what other enculturation problems might lie ahead? Is there something that you personally don't know how to handle, and who would you go running to if you encountered something big you couldn't handle? The obvious thing that springs to mind is the dark mutterings made by people who, always invoking WP:BEANS, say that there are really destructive things that a rogue admin can do. I have no interest in knowing what those things are (and please don't try and guess), but can I ask if the solution would be obvious if the unthinkable started to happen? Carcharoth 14:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

More Stewards are not necessarily the idea. After all, does it make sense for an incident on the English Wikipedia that lasted only a few minutes warrant more Stewards to cover all time zones? Short of designing a new protection policy where only Bureaucrats can edit a certain page so that people know what to do when an Administrator goes wild (ugh) or a Steward-power bot that desysops Administrators that unprotect the Main Page (ugh), the easiest solution is, of course, make sure it doesn't occur again. Either way, Stewards are a meta thing and whether or not more Stewards are needed will be a meta consideration. x42bn6 Talk 16:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Libraball - another sockpuppet of indef-blocked User:JJonathan

Looks like he's back again. See Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Subtle_vandalism_by_User:JJonathan_and_his_sockpuppets... for more info. --Kurt Shaped Box 11:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Also using User:209.244.43.34 today too. --Kurt Shaped Box 11:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack by IP 61.9.219.49

See see diff here

Anon wrote Don't worry Iwazaki, Raveen is a certified racist who hates the Sinhalese and tries to demonise the Singhalese in all of his Wikipedia contributions. Thanks RaveenS 12:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Warned. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked user Mmbabies evading blocks, making threats

User:Mmbabies was indefblocked and later community-banned.

User is IP-surfing to avoid blocks, and has been for weeks. List of IP addresses:[147]

Last night his edits included two death threats.

He is exhausting the patience of the community. I recommend a block of the entire IP address range. -- Gridlock Joe 12:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Reporting continous insertion of unsourced material

Sc4900 (talk · contribs) has been adding unsourced and unverifiable movies to the filmography of Hrithik Roshan. The trouble started from here - one, two.

Sc4900 (talk · contribs) again added it, with this edit - three. Please note, Sashank-part1 isn't verified and he added Sashank-part2. Moments later zie repeated that - with this edit.

It was after this that he made the page Sashank. Sc4900's added in whoever zie feels like - Arnold S, Hillary Duff, Jackie Chan, and Cameron Diaz! Not a single reference on the entire page, seems like fantastic fictional writing on the part of Sc4900.

A search on Google, such as this one. The only result on the first page that even mentions Roshan is this page, which in fact is an older version of WP, with this rumour attached. Another Google search - this, reveals all the sites which suggest Sashank as a real film are in fact copies of older versions of the WP page of Hrithik Roshan.

I requested Sc4900 to stop adding it, by posting messages on zir's talk page - no response. Instead, these edits were made - again, again, and again, this time reverted by another user.

Recently, Sc4900 has made Killer (hindi film) which also seems to be entirely made up, as noted by Shakirfan (talk · contribs). An entire string of edits to London Dreams, The Time Machine (hindi film), Kabhie Jeene all show the user is trying to propagate rumours.

All of us working on the Bollywood bios would be grateful for any help in this matter. Regards, xC | ☎ 12:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The only positive entry I could find was one that said that Illeana(allegedly to star in Killer) has signed for a Hindi Film(it doesn't metion what and opposite whom). And how can this guy give a definete release date for a film whose Muhurat has not taken place? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 14:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The user is clearly disruptive and totally uncommunicative. I'll leave a stern warning on his talk page and block him upon next violation if I'm online. A Train^talk 15:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Long {{Schoolblock}}

I just blocked 216.213.225.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) with a 4-year softblock. A 6-month softblock had just run out and vandalism restarted immediately. Since this is unusually long, I thought a post to ANI would be appropriate. I considered an indefinite softblock: IMO particularly bad school IPs like this one would be good candidates for an indef softblock, but since we normally don't do that, I opted for 4 years. Mangojuice^talk 14:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the last 50 contribs, I don't see any good edits. I also note that one of the (ahem) contributors managed to misspell 'poop,' which makes me sad for the education system. Non-admin comment: there probably won't be any great loss from this one. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cracker989 and slander

Cracker989 (talk · contribs) recently inserted this slanderous accusation in the Virginia Tech massacre article before being reverted. I posted a note on his talk page which, in retrospect might not have been stern enough. His response was this and a reiteration of the slander on the talk page [148]. Help... Pascal.Tesson 15:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Cracker989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours given previous incidents and previous block-on-sight warning. --Shirahadasha 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wayne Crookes lawsuit, FYI

Crookes is suing Wikipedia over this article. Infodmz 15:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User:81.196.150.157 uncivil and inflammatory diatribes

Recently an IP user by the designation 81.196.150.157 has been adding some strange, unsourced, and provocative statements to articles (for example this one, a big irrelevant political polemic here, another rather provocative statement here (the worst part of that one is the last line), and on Talk:Revolutions of 1848 in Hungary he's completely lost his head, he's screaming at the top of his lungs (or in all caps, which is pretty much the same thing I guess) being quite uncivil, provocative, inflammatory, etc. etc. etc. What should be done here? K. Lásztocska 16:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User behaviour

The Edits of User:Sleep On It (contribs) seems a bit peculiar to me.

• The account have exsited for five days.
• Its only contributions is voting.

-Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 16:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No issues here. A new user still acclimatizing deletion processes, but certainly doesn't appear to be single-purpose account created for one debate or another. I've given him a welcome note. Michaelas¹⁰ 17:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Dasevergnini

This user has repeatadly vandalised the Hillary Rodham Clinton page with libelious and defamatory comments, and has sent me this abusive email, after I asked him to stop.

Dear Gareth,

I d'ont think I have to listen to you, this is a public domains and everything I added to the Hillary Clinton page are pure facts. If you wish to resolve this dispute, please contact Wikipedia and tell them I'm syberbullying you. If you have any more idiotic comments in which you abuse you power, please feel free to refer...

Sincerely,

Damian.

PS : Burn in Hell. Gareth E Kegg 17:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User blocked indef. Naconkantari 17:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)