Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive165

Dragonball socks?

• Krinzad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ladyfighter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Myer Link (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Tojira Ikonoka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 24.3.28.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Looks like Deskana (talk · contribs) recently blocked Fat Buu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for being a "self-admitted sockpuppet." Shortly after, those four accounts have all requested unblocking, all from the same autoblocked IP address, which for the record doesn't appear to be shared (see contribs and WHOIS). Now, it also looks like all of these accounts have made edits to DragonBall Z pages, and some of them have had relations with Zarbon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), also recently blocked for sockpuppetry. I figured it couldn't hurt to run things past AN/I -- am I the only one who smells a sockfarm? Luna Santin 09:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems the bunch was unblocked by User:Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh (probably wasn't aware of this thread, asking them to have a look over here, in a moment). Luna Santin 10:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like they may be socks; however, until officially declared suspected socks, these accounts should have edit rights unless blocked for some other reason.Eli Falk 10:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Being suspected as a sock to evade an indefinite block on an account is reason enough to block until it is proven or disproven, if I remember correctly. But as these were all autoblocks, then good faith should be assumed, until proven otherwise.—Ryūlóng (竜りゅう龍りゅう) 10:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A sockfarm is likely; feel free to block specific usernames. I'd give them more time until they give themselves away. All I did was to unblock the IP. Kimchi.sg 10:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it's also possible that this is a family with several Wikipedians, who happen to be interested in DragonBall Z. If this is the case, one would expect them to all have the same IP address and have edited DragonBall Z pages. Eli Falk 10:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Deskana seems to have blocked the IP address; unblock requests are up again. Will ask Deskana for a comment here. Luna Santin 09:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I will look over the unblock requests to attempt to determine which ones are socks and which ones aren't, but I think it's likely that they ALL are socks. Taracka is persistant, if nothing else. --Deskana (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Every single one was showing the signs of being a sockpuppet of Taracka. Hell, several users admitted that they'd been on Wikipedia before. This guy is persistant, ANY accounts coming from that IP address should be treated with extreme suspicion. --Deskana (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that this discussion should be moved to WP:SSP. Eli Falk 16:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

With due respect, this discussion is over. --Deskana (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Mindless deletionism

Denni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) nominated Solveig Fiske for speedy deletion[1], apparently feeling that a bishop in Norway - and the fourth female bishop in the Church of Norway is so un-notable as to warrant a speedy deletion. When confronted with this [2], he reiterated his view that this was not a notable person. To me, this crosses the line of debatable nominations and way into vandalism. If Denni thinks that articles about bishops should be deleted on sight, unless they - in his view - have done something notable (beside making it to bishop), we need a broader debate on what's notable here. --Leifern 22:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article doesn't state why the person is notable. But when in doubt, send it to WP:AfD. --TheFarix (Talk) 23:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, where in our notability standards does it state that all Church of Norway bishops are inherently notable? Also, please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles you have created. Metros232 23:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

1) I reserve the right to delete material that constitutes vandalism; 2) I suppose if you want to interpret the guidelines so narrowly as to exclude anyone who isn't explicitly included, you're going to have get very busy here; 3) There are eleven bishops in the Church of Norway, and these are responsible for about 3.5 million parishioners. This should be self-evident to any reasonable person. --Leifern 23:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of unfounded allegations of vandalism being made these days. Please don't bandy the term around unless you actually mean it because its simply devaluing a terms that should be used for real vandalism. --Spartaz 23:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for other allegations, but attempting to speedily delete an article about a subject that has prima facie notability clearly - at least in my view - amounts to disrupting Wikipedia. Maybe people here believe that Norway's too small a country to warrant articles in Wikipedia, or that bishops are not really all that important leaders - but that would undoubtedly be a fringe view in the general public. --Leifern 00:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article should have been sent to AfD. A bishop of a national church should be sufficient assertion of notability to pass CSD. If there's even vague doubts about CDS - send to AfD. However, Leifern should have challenged the CSD through the proper process rather than removing the tag Bwithh 23:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting vandalism on sight is acceptable policy. Speedy delete - even AFD - is way beyond the pale here. --Leifern 23:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so precious. Its not vandalism to stick a speedy tag on an article no matter how attached to it you are. Frankly, responding in such an extreme way is only denigrating your own complaint and if you don't follow the consensus for delaing with disputed speedy tags you are being disruptive. Spartaz 23:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A good faith effort, even if ill-conceived, to improve the encyclopedia is NEVER vandalism. Unless the user was deliberately mass tagging articles for deletion as a WP:POINT or something like that, this isn't vandalism. Your reaction, IMO, was over the top. A WP:CIVIL request on the user's talk page that they reconsider their position is much better than starting off with a threat. The better way to contest the tag is to (1) add {{hangon}} to the article page, (2) explain on the talk page why the person is notable, and (3) leave a civil note on the talk page of the person who tagged the article. BigDT 00:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Saying stuff like Speedy delete - even AFD - is way beyond the pale here. + the loose vandalism accusations are not helping Leifern's case here. Making a mountain out of a molehill and not following process Bwithh 00:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Bwithh, even if you disapprove of the way I present my case, the issue of whether Solveig Fiske, one of the highest officials in the Norwegian government warrants a speedy delete should be considered on its own merits. Second, it is my well-considered opinion that rampant deletionism amounts to vandalism. It would be a waste of time to even vote on the deletion of this topic. What bothers you so much about that? --Leifern 00:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not rampant deletionism - in saying this you are accusing administrators who see speedy tags of blindly hitting the delete key on sight, which is patently absurd. Please take a moment to regain your composure before continuing in this conversation, Leifern. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This is silly. A good faith speedy tag is not vandalism. The article isn't going to be speedied. Obsession with deletionism OR inclusionism is destructive - evaluate articles on their own merit, not based on your cabal affiliation. In any case, be civil and move on with life. BigDT 00:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take it to AFD to draw the heat out of this. --Spartaz 00:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Refactor to make sense but the AFD is here. Spartaz 00:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

1) There's a process in place for challenging speedy delete tags and for reviewing deletions. Why not use this? 2) Your "well-considered opinion" about this situation being "rampant deletionism" and an afd being "a waste of time" may be a very fine one, but it doesn't amount to consensus or policy or process. Bwithh 07:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Bah, humbug! Only hours ago "Criteria for Speedy Drama" was userfied by MfD, and here we have a case where it applies perfectly! Guy (Help!) 19:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Page deleted without review or notice

My wikipedia page, titled "Other Minds," was suddenly deleted today. I have searched the deletions log and have found nothing. I deserve to have an explanation of why this page was deleted. Please respond.

Notnotart

No, actually it wasn't. Other Minds already existed as a redirect to Problem of other minds. User:Notnotart modified it to be an article about an organization that presents music festivals. [3]. Then those edits were reverted and the page is now a redirect again. Fan-1967 23:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, WP:V stipulates "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it"; none of the references you provided were from reliable third party sources... Addhoc 23:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please also see WP:OWN. It is not longer "your wikipedia page". User:Zoe|(talk) 23:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It never was his wikipedia page :) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the "culprit" here; I reverted all of User:Notnotart's edits and warned them when I saw them spamming eight musicians' articles with the same external link. The return of the poor article to being a redirect was merely a happy accident. --Guinnog 01:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Libel by Matthead (talk · contribs)

Recently a user previously unknown to me has started to revert nearly all my edits after accusing me of an "anti-German crusade". There is no Anti-German_Crusade, I am merely trying to get rid of surplus and unneccesary German terms in the English wikipedia. All my points are valid and logical. Nevetheless, after explaining my point of views in my edit summaries and on talk pages this user refuses to discuss. Instead he adds comments refering to my "crusade" and to the fact that I'm on a revert parole (which I am but that's another story). Could an admin please tell him that he must discuss his changes and stop his accusations and libel? Thanks in advance.Rex 22:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Rex has a good case on this one. Although I'm not an administrator, just an interested party, I'll say something on Matthead's talk page. Cla68 23:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In my entry on Rex Germanus (talk · contribs)' talk page, I had given links to 9 of his edits. I invite everyone to look what has since happened on these (and other) articles and talk pages, and judge whether his accusations (libel, refusing to talk etc.) are valid. And yes, I have repeatedly pointed to a quote of him, stating he's "on revert parole for cleansing this wiki of german nationalists". I do consider the term cleansing unacceptable as it compares Wikipedia editors to dirt.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Rex, you are correct that Matthead is being incivil, and should not be following you around undoing your edits, but I'd give some consideration to the magnitude and scope of the edits you're making. Matthead's last revert on Pennsylvania Dutch appears to be mostly sensible (though he took out a well-sourced statement and replaced it with an unsourced one). Wikipedia is not paper; while we should edit for concision, we should not sacrificy accuracy in the name of brevity. There's always more room on the servers to explain in a little more detail. Argyriou (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Argyriou (talk · contribs) has copied this entry to Rex's talk, and added "Note: I wrote that reply before I saw your talk page, and the stuff about the ArbCom case. Given that, I'd be very, very careful about making hasty accusations about others." [4]. In the ArbCom case mentioned, Rex Germanus was placed on standard revert parole for one year. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Rex's has recently made another entry [5] in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, titled "Matthead (talk • contribs) continues his libel, after admin warning."-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Bobabobabo - again!

I received an email off a user claiming that Bobabobabo was a group of people. It came from MexicanMuger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and it was requesting unblock for the IP.

I've seen previous discussions of this here before; how do we deal with this?? --SunStar Net^talk 02:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ignore the request and block the sender. Kimchi.sg 02:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've ignored the request. Perhaps this latest sockpuppet should be blocked?? --SunStar Net^talk 02:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked. Kimchi.sg 03:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Steve9911

Apologies if this is the wrong place, please message me and explain how I would go about requesting this if I am wrong. I feel this user should be banned. Their contributions look bad enough, but the reason I discovered this person was that they made a, now deleted, attack page. Persistantly, they claimed it was not an attack, attacked and impersonated another editor, and removed the speedy delete tags. The other editor, who warned this user about their article, numerous times, was Fan-1967. The page in question was called Maria Rimmer, and was deleted by someone known on the Wikipedia IRC channle as Makwiki, as I asked if someone could delete it quickly. Note that there have been attacks on Maria Rimmer involved in this editor's other contributions. J Milburn 03:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

He's been indef banned already. Fan-1967 03:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so I saw. I spent ages trying to find somewhere to request this... J Milburn 03:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry and other issues

Originally, while viewing the above section concerning 12ptHelvetica's changes to Free Republic, I had reverted to the last apparently non-controversial version, and inadvertantly got into an edit war. This is when ArlingtonTX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) started editting. While it does appear to be a content dispute, I would think edit summaries like this and comments like this are an issue, as he has had no other contributions other than to Free Republic and its talk page (and then Aywong...'s user talk after I commented on his removal of the account from AIV).—Ryūlóng (竜りゅう龍りゅう) 06:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who protected Free Republic; stepping on this landmine is not exactly my idea of spending Xmas afternoon so I invite more eyes to look at the situation on that page. Kimchi.sg 08:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor note, the capitalized "DU" in "DUmmies" is an explicit reference to Democratic Underground, what I take as a rival site/forum.—Ryūlóng (竜りゅう龍りゅう) 08:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ryūlóng. at the very least it is meatpuppeting. I have filed a formal complaint, but the sockpuppetting complaint page is very backlogged. And notice that they chose a holiday weekend to start this stuff, assuming rightly that very few of the adults would be around to supervise. Yes, DUmmies is a pejorative word for members of Democratic Underground, and indeed some of those editing the article are members of that site. I am not, however, and it appears that you are not either. This seems to be some sort of political game they are playing with Wikipedia in an attempt to force an untrue article about Free Republic to be accepted as consensus by means of a revert war where they wear down the other "side" by having more people doing the reverting. Of course it might also be sockpuppetting as well as at least three of these editors are from Palatine, IL. Basically I smell a rat. --BenBurch 01:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ben, and note that Admin Jossi worked long and hard with all of the editors and came up with a balanced NPOV article. As soon as certain pro-free republic editors saw that it would include a small amount of well-sourced criticism they started reverting the article and breaking WP by doing such things as making massive edits and summarizing them as 'spelling corrections' and adding totally unsourced POV claims. I ask that this article remain locked indefinately and all changes submitted and approved by an admin, possibly Jossi, who has acted as a fair and impartial informal mediator to the article for the last several weeks. After the sock/meatpuppetry issues are settled perhaps it can be unlocked. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Per my response at the talk page, permanent protection is not possible (to the best of my knowledge).—Ryūlóng (竜りゅう龍りゅう) 05:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Some articles get that treatment, but this is simply not an important enough article for a durable protect. But the issue of an intentional, recruited-for edit war is an important issue, and ought to be dealt with. --BenBurch 05:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What a surprise. Ben and FAAFA agree with one another.

As always, BenBurch has left out several important details and spin-doctored others in his relentless efforts to make this article as negative as possible. Early in the process, I sought formal mediation and BenBurch rejected it. [6] BenBurch has acknowledged that he was a member of Democratic Underground before being banned from that site. [7] The archives of his Talk page are loaded with evidence of his extensive participation in bad faith edits and edit wars. [8] [9] Much the same can be said of his tireless friend, defender and agent in all things Wiki, F.A.A.F.A., another problem child [10] -- formerly known as NBGPWS, [11] an abbreviation of "Neocons Be Gone ..." etc. [12]

As the archives of their own Talk pages clearly demonstrate in exhaustive detail, both Ben and FAAFA have extensive track histories of bad faith edits, vandalism, personal attacks and edit warring, that stretch back at least six months. This went so far as directing the following remark to me, and then quickly deleting it after he knew I'd seen it: "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on." [13] Recently these tactics have evolved into the use of warning templates and even a sockpuppet investigation as vehicles for harassment.

They invited an informal mediator of their choosing to the Free Republic dispute and, rather than acting as a true mediator, Jossi has acted as an arbitrator. (I hope that the administrators understand the difference.) The version he has imposed upon all editors was not agreed upon, and was produced during the holiday weekend. Personally, I had announced in advance that I wouldn't be present during this extended weekend; previous delays for the sake of BenBurch and FAAFA were welcomed by this mediator, but in my announced absence, he proceeded to a "final solution" without my participation (and, it appears, without the participation of some of the others who were opposed to the efforts of BenBurch and FAAFA).

The resulting rewrite by Jossi contains negative material in its lead paragraphs that relies entirely on a self-published and unreliable conspiracy theorist by the name of Todd Brendan Fahey. Following is a summary of Fahey's self-promotion campaign to become the next Hunter S. Thompson. [14] This Fahey material, by some strange coincidence, was first introduced by FAAFA. Jossi's final version also included an abundant amount of other material introduced (and spin-doctored) by FAAFA that hadn't even been discussed by any other editor. [15] When 12ptHelvetica removed the Fahey based material -- which consisted of just one sentence plus a link -- but left the rest of Jossi's version intact, BenBurch reverted back to a pre-mediation "hit piece" version. [16] This evidently triggered the most recent volley of reversions.

This dispute calls for administrator intervention. -- BryanFromPalatine 05:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The conduct of BenBurch and FAAFA is a textbook example of the word "trolling." They deliberately try to provoke angry and inappropriate responses, and then complain to the site administrators about it. Any misconduct by other members must be viewed in light of this continuous hectoring and baiting. Bryan's Talk page is only the most recent example. BenBurch, in addition to being a banned DU member, tried to mislead WP administrators by saying "I am not [a member of that site]." This was not the whole truth. He was a long term member who was banned for life. Also, he is the webmaster of the White Rose Society website, which argues that George W. Bush and the Republican leadership are fascists. They take their name from the White Rose Society of Munich, which distributed anti-Nazi pamphlets in 1943 and have adopted the slogan, "Fighting the Rise of the New Fascists." BenBurch's trolling here is agenda driven, and it may reasonably be inferred that FAAFA shares those motives for his own conduct. FR supports Bush, while BenBurch and FAAFA strongly oppose Bush. Their bias in addressing the topic of FR in a Wikipedia article is self-evident. - DP1976 14:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

more sockpuppetry

DP1976 claimed:

Will you ever learn? I have an unregistered and diverse history of edits of my own going back about a year, [17] mostly relating to Clemson University, my alma mater. Look at the edit history of this page and you'll find my IP address. - DP1976 21:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

On 12/14 that IP (claimed by DP1976) added:

Lawyer2B, I am opposed to including the "Bahrain Centre for Human Rights," "Death Threats" and "Cyber Stalking" sections as violations of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The entire organization should not be characterized by the actions of a handful of eccentrics who violated FR policy and were immediately banned for it. FR Has done everything that any reasonable person could expect to protect its reputation. -- 209.221.240.193 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC) link

on 12/14/15 that post became Bryanpalatines!

Lawyer2B, I am opposed to including the "Bahrain Centre for Human Rights," "Death Threats" and "Cyber Stalking" sections as violations of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The entire organization should not be characterized by the actions of a handful of eccentrics who violated FR policy and were immediately banned for it. FR has done everything that any reasonable person could expect to protect its reputation. Also, I think the lawsuit by The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times might deserve further scrutiny. The plaintiffs won over $2,000,000 through summary judgment; and then it was appealed; and after oral arguments but before the appellate court decided the case, the newspapers' attorneys settled for $10,000. That's a reduction of over 99.5% of the summary judgment. Something happened in the appellate court that scared the hell out of the newspapers' attorneys. They thought they were going to lose. That is the only possible explanation for a reduction of over 99.5% in a negotiated settlement. -- BryanFromPalatine 02:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC) link

DP1976, IP 209.221.240.193 and Bryanfrompalatine are all appraently the same user. - F.A.A.F.A. 03:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Good detective work, FAAFA. If you have not by late tomorrow, I will file a new sockpuppet complaint and ask for checkuser on these accounts. I wonder how many of the other "people" in this dispute are the same guy? --BenBurch 03:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that he has dared us to checkuser him... I suspect that he may have a number of legitimate or illegal proxy accounts. He might in fact be ALL of the members of this supposed "consensus team" in the Free Republic article. --BenBurch 03:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

RELATED Sock/Meat puppet complaint here - Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalatine --BenBurch 03:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:WorkingHard

I came across an anonymous editor (72.14.118.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) blanking this page with vague explanations. I, and several other editors, reverted this editor's blankings, until after 5 reverts, I protected the page. I'm not sure what the underlying issues are or how the anonymous user is related to WorkingHard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), but as far as I can tell, the user has not requested deletion of his or her pages as per m:RTV. Since then, the anonymous user has placed several messages and "warnings" on my talk page ([18] [19] [20]), including requesting that another administrator look into my actions, so I am posting here. I will not take further action against this user or on the page in question. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? 03:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Some explanation: It looks very much as if the IP is in fact WorkingHard (talk · contribs), as his other actions were to repeated unblank another user talk page (User talk:Fame live4ever), belonging to someone who had exercised her Right to vanish. WorkingHard is the father of a wannabe teen movie star whose article was deleted last summer. Fame live4ever was another teenage girl with pretensions of stardom whose article was also deleted around that period, and they had a feud some months ago. No action from either of them in months, but I guess he carried a grudge. Fan-1967 03:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that he threatened you with Redvers's name, as Redvers blocked him for 48 hours once (before Jimbo blocked him for good). Fan-1967 03:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, such silliness. Thanks for the clarifications, Fan. —bbatsell ¿? 03:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

IP madness

The IP User talk:24.187.99.83 keeps vandalizing the Super Transformation article. The means used is revert vandalism. Many extensive changes have been made to the page including a complete layout overhaul and many new citations and footnotes. This IP chooses to revert to a page made by itself that only adds speculation and fancruft. It has been asked to post on the talk page, which it refused. I sent it a warning earlier today which it ignored. It does not leave comments when it posts and seems determined to prevent the article from advancing. I asked that the IP please be disabled from editing the article.GrandMasterGalvatron 03:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article, which means that only registered users can edit it. The IP's edits were disruptive, but necessarily vandalistic. He might be trying to make misguided improvements. I encourage you to look closely at his edit to see whether there is anything that is useful and try to use that to build consensus with him. Bucketsofg 03:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried but he refused to reply. :/ I invited him to discuss matters on the talk page as there were already lengthy debates in progress. Thank you for doing this.GrandMasterGalvatron 03:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

RadioKirk

The SoS dispute aside, I've noticed a clear block-->unblock-->reblock wheel warring pattern by RadioKirk. I've always held RadioKirk in high esteem and respect but I believe he has clearly abused his tools here and has been vehemently insisting that his actions were completely acceptable. Considering the seriousness of his actions and the severity of the actions taken against wheel-warring admins previously, I'm very surprised at the lack of reactions to this. If RadioKirk continues to claim that his actions were not wheel warring, or were acceptable, this should be taken to arbitration. --Srikeit 11:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I pointed that out to him on the main AN board, and I believe he said something along the lines of "then let me be sanctioned here" (might not have been exactly what he said, but with that idea). – Chacor 12:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In a previous discussion on AN, at least two arbitrators indicated an interest in hearing cases involving wheel warring, and indicated that such cases would be quickly accepted. The problem is that no one ever brings them. For myself, I agree that the general level of respect admins have for each others' actions has greatly declined, with Radiokirk's block warring being only the most recent example. Thatcher131 13:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Srikeit, you indicate that you have concerns about RadioKirk's blocking "aside" from the Santa dispute. Are you suggesting there are prior examples of a blocking/unblocking/reblocking pattern involving him? I took a quick look at his logs and I couldn't quickly tell what other incidents you were referring to. Could you expand on what other situations, if any, you believe RadioKirk was involved in? Also, have any of them (other than Santa) been discussed with RadioKirk? Newyorkbrad 17:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Rereading the sentence, I thought he meant "the dispute over the merit of the block aside, he still wheel warred". Dmcdevit·t 20:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, though there was also the word "pattern" that threw me. If Srikeit's comment refers only to the episode the other night, then while I don't at all agree with the way that was handled, I can't consider it the stuff of an arbitration case, either. As Dmcdevit and Thatcher131 and Srikeit know, at the moment there are 9 open ArbCom cases currently in the evidence phase and 2 more ready to be opened, in addition to 3 being voted on. I can't really see adding "Santa on Sleigh Wheel War" to the list. Newyorkbrad 20:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with NYBrad here. An arbcomm here would be a complete waste of time and create more bad blood than it's worth. Bucketsofg 20:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did mean "the dispute over the merit of the block aside, wheel warring was apparent". I definitely didn't mean that I have seen RadioKirk has do something like this before. I brought this matter up because, as Thatcher said above, several admins have become remarkably disrespectful of each others actions and these kind of tussles are now occurring with alarming regularity. Considering the interest displayed by arbitrators in this matter, I'm sure they will be quite interested in accepting this case. Also the addition of seven new arbitrators will decrease the workload considerably. I think taking this to arbcom is very important to remind administrators the seriousness and absolute unacceptability of wheel-warring. RadioKirk has gone on a wikibreak, fully protecting his user/talk pages so I have sent him an email informing him about this thread. --Srikeit 07:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Standard holiday drama. I was rather hoping we might avoid it this year... Guy (Help!) 09:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible editor issue

Not sure if NotoBritishirredentism (talk · contribs) (no to British Irredentism) warrants a {{Username-Warn}}, but the user's edits certainly verge on POV-pushing. Likewise, edit summaries like British Isles is never an alternative for the simple reason that the Irish people are not British. Such unbridled arrogance push the bounds of WP:AGF. I wanted to check here before posting a {{civil1}} or {{npa2}} warning on the user's talk page. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Username needs to change. Only four edits to date. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Guy. That's not an acceptible name. Bucketsofg 21:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• For my education, exactly what provision of WP:USERNAME does the name violate? It's certainly political, but not really inflammatory (as, say, User:ShootAllBritsOnSight would be). The edits and edit summaries are another matter. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 22:31, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).
  • I took a look at WP:USERNAME (for the first time, mind you) and I think the name falls under the sway of the passage "Wikipedia does not allow potentially inflammatory or offensive user names," which I read to mean that the username in question is 'potentially inflammatory'. Granted, all political-bending usernames are potentially inflammatory - I suppose it is a matter of how high the level of controversy is with the political statement made by the username. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • oh boy . . . I think "assume good faith" is one aspect or facet of a principle also called "give the benefit of doubt" or sometimes "better to err by being too gentle than by being too harsh". I don't think we should push "potentially" so hard. As I've pointed out elsewhere, even the name Jimmy Wales could be construed as "potentially inflammatory" if that's what you go looking for — "Jimmy" refers to a marijuana cigarette or a burglar's tool, offending the Anti-Drug and Anti-Crime folks; while gamblers get angry about "Welsh" (swindle, cheat), whose noun form you doubtless know. Wow, let's go block him right away! – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:47, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).
      • Naw, your going the reductio ad absurbum route. I personally don't find a problem in the name - I'm pointing out the section that might be invoked - and I am not a judge of the local political climate where the name might have meaning to say whether or not such a name could be an incitement to violence (verbal or physical). There are some political climates that are extremely and deadly volatile where a word here or there is spent and next the bullets come flying or the hooded folks with cuffs come knocking. Thank goodness I don't live in one of those environments — and I can't imagine what it would be like to live in one. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• The username coupled with the first edits and summary indicates that this account is all about trolling. If the user wants to choose a non-trolling name and try again, no problem, but this is patently and probably deliberately inflammatory. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Another Bobabobabo e-mail?

I've just received an e-mail from MexicanMuger (talk · contribs):

email text

from MexicanMuger <address removed>

to Aecis <address removed> date Dec 27, 2006 2:49 AM subject Wikipedia e-mail mailed-by wikimedia.org

Bobabobabo is a group of 15-year-old kids, including one 16-year-old called Grace. Even Tony Sidaway is involved in this game.... he created some Bobabobabo sockpuppets too, he told me via email! (it's true, Tony Sidaway is Tony Two-Ways!)

Please unblock the IP address 72.177.68.38 as it's used by libraries colleges schools you know.... and IS a shared IP.

The guy who blocked them is wrong, and he should know it.

Anita Horne

Is this e-mail from Bobabobabo as well, like the one sent by Titanicprincess (talk · contribs)? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 09:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Already dealt with a few sections before this. Kimchi.sg 09:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Just ignore that and move on. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Overcategorization

Badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs) insists on wikilawyering the guideline as disputed,but I'm really more concerned about the sudden popping up of Fresheneesz (talk · contribs) who began arguing with radiant over points related to WP:CCC that are completely irrelevant to the guideline as is currently, and borders on Wikistalking to me. I'm not doing anything because I'm also involved in the "dispute," if it can be so called. Circeus 04:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Fresheneesz? Editing disruptively? How unusual. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability. Fresheneesz may be banned from policy articles he disrupts. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know if that is "disruptive" yet, but it is definitely of concern. Circeus 13:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Harassment and stalking

Malber (talk · contribs) despite previous warnings, seems to be continuing to go after Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs) --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 17:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Also seems to be hostile towards Pilotguy (talk · contribs)

Perhaps we should consider a block or community ban for this more and more clearcut case of wikistalking. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Disruptive actions like that should be stopped. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 21:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"Go after"? "Be hostile toward"? Have vague and uncited statements like this become a valid basis for blocks and community bans?

Say I make a point of ignoring consensus to delete the contributions you've made, and ignore all pleas, or reasons given, or rules cited, for me to stop. I also delete other people's entries on your talk page so you can't get the messages; and I delete your own questions when you start asking them. Then I block you for objecting to my behavior. At that point, would your looking closely at my record, and complaining about my abuses, mean that you are "going after" me and "being hostile", and you should be blocked or banned for it? Boy, that would sure be nice for me. Thanks, guys! – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 02:38, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I agree with the first few commenters; people who dedicate this much time trying to 'shame' other contributors into what they view as 'the right path' aren't what we want here. --InShaneee 02:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we have some diffs here? I'd like to see some evidence to support these claims. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, diffs are always good to prove that these actions are not spurious and the result of off-wiki discussion in IRC #wikipedia-in. InShaneee, I'm disappointed. —Malber (talk • contribs) 15:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well after I supported Sir Nick against malber somewhere on the pedia, a user subpage of mine (which I made and consequently forgot about in early september) mysteriously went up for MfD. [21]. If that's a coincidence, then aliens from planet Xarkon are running wikipedia.Bakaman 17:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Pluto.2006 (talk · contribs)

This user is out on a defamation campaign against me, and has attacked me personally despite several requests and warnings. Please find the diffs below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Concerts_by_Dr._K._J._Yesudas&diff=prev&oldid=82819416
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albums_by_Dr._K._J._Yesudas&diff=prev&oldid=82819586
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Venu62&diff=prev&oldid=82820573
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bharatveer&diff=prev&oldid=82822115
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pluto.2006&diff=prev&oldid=82822350
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carnatic_music&diff=prev&oldid=82823935
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srkris&diff=prev&oldid=82837406
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carnatic_music&diff=prev&oldid=91168041
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srkris&diff=prev&oldid=94030259
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srkris&diff=prev&oldid=94467569
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:K._J._Yesudas&diff=prev&oldid=94475722
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srkris&diff=prev&oldid=94481891
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Venu62&diff=prev&oldid=94482982
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ncmvocalist&diff=prev&oldid=94483133
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Harikw&diff=prev&oldid=94483249
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HighInBC&diff=prev&oldid=94483382
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A4ay&diff=prev&oldid=94483615
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hrisforu&diff=prev&oldid=94483721
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bharatveer&diff=prev&oldid=94484075
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Husond&diff=prev&oldid=94484147
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=94667664

Please take appropriate action against this user. As you can see, these attacks are with a wilful intent to attack me personally, so WP:AGF is inapplicable. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 13:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This was posted on WP:PAIN but it looks like a more serious case of WP:STALK than WP:NPA so I am cross-posting it here to get some opinions. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the way Pluto.2006 handled this, but there does appear to be more to this story: [[22] appears to document some questionable edits and suspected-but-unproven sockpuppetry by User:Srkris. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I have already been penalized for those "unproven suspected sockpuppet edits", as you can see from [23], but I dont see how that is even related to user:Pluto.2006's harassment and personal attacks. He has been attacking me since long before I was accused and penalized for suspected sockpuppetry. You can very well see that this has been going on for more than two months now, and he does not even tender a word of apology, leave alone removing his offensive remarks. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 06:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like Pluto.2006 was trying to draw attention to what he considered policy-violating behavior. I don't see that he's done anything against you in the last eleven days; if he resumes what you consider harassment, then post a new note here with fresh diffs and I/we will take another look. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, MrDarcy, the misconduct of one user does not excuse the wrong actions of another. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Mr. Dodge, I never said that it did. My point was far larger than that. Pluto.2006 is not simply harassing or stalking Srkris; he appears to have been trying to report questionable behavior by Srkris, and went about it the wrong way. That's a huge difference. Regardless, until the issue is live again, I see no need to act on it. Even a warning is likely to be ineffective when it's so far removed from the edits in question. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If I did not feel there was misconduct here on Pluto's part, I would have just turned down the request on PAIN. However, it appears to me that there is definitely some WP:STALKing going on. What you appear to be saying is that it is justified, which I would strongly disagree with. Please explain to me if I misunderstand what you are saying. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Srkris is a valuable editor. Only a few weeks ago he was being harrassed by another user and the case came to ani. The stalker should be blocked on the spot.Bakaman 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Bizwhiz

Oh no. I just blocked this user for page move vandalism on Santa Claus (he was also blanking People and noticed little evidence of vandalism prior to September, when he stopped editing and left a note of resignation on his userpage. This look like a compromised account? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably. Maybe not. Does it really matter? If they want to come back and request unblocking, the account would require slightly more scrutiny, that's all. Grandmasterka 07:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait until the user actually says "oh shit, please unban me" before doing anything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Unblock of User:ShakingBot

This bot was approved for a test run, but was blocked according to WP:USERNAME, Full block reason is here. I unblocked as the bot has approval for testing at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#ShakingBot. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 05:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Looks solid to me. Bot has approval for trial, so it kind of needed unblocked :) ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you corrected an honest mistake, good work. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/J.cajindos

Late entry into the "Top trolls of 2006" sweepstakes... ~ trialsanderrors 05:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL hilarious. Reverted, blocked, ignored. Grandmasterka 05:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, don't ignore yet. Who's sock is he, really? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If you check the RfAr page history you'll find the leading theory. Newyorkbrad 05:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Fwiw, Justin Cajindos is a member of the Illinois Student Senate. I'm not sure if this is an imposter here, but he and Bambenek don't seem to like each other much. Seems like campus politics gone haywire. ~ trialsanderrors 05:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND is a relevant link in this situation. Picaroon 05:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. Campus grudgematches on Wikipedia. :-/ Grandmasterka 07:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Since we're here, let me ask a question about the John Bambenek article. A User claiming to be Bambenek (User:JohnBambenek) wanted the article deleted, and claimed that it was a copyright violation from his webpage. Indeed, the two articles are the same, and the Wikipedia article has been duly flagged as a copyvio. My question is, how do we know that Bambenek didn't just copy our article to his page and then came here demanding we delete the copyvio? If somebody with a website doesn't want their article here, it's pretty simple just to copy our article to their site, then demand we take ours down as a copyvio, and we are hardpressed to determine which came first. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, playing that game don't guarantee they won't have an article about them on wikipedia. All it guarantees is that that particular version of the article will be nuked. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but in this case, his article wouldn't survive on here for a long time anyway. If a new article is up for deletion, hopefully we'll remember this and he wouldn't be able to use the same trick twice. Grandmasterka 20:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Apropos of the above, my nomination for edit summary of the year. Newyorkbrad 20:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Trolling by Skantada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure what to make of this editor but their very first edits were on a talk page and specifically mentioned my username in a quite trollish manner. I have now removed this trollery twice and been reverted once. I do not have a history of disputation with any particular editor on the particular article so I'm a bit perplexed as to the origin of such pointed commentary surrounding me. Perhaps someone else can take a look at this and let me know if I've got this material incorrectly pegged as trolling or not? Thanks. (→Netscott) 07:07, 26 December 2006

I've blocked this user indef after checking this edit on Ryulong's talk page. The edit shows that this user is another sockpuppet of banned user Cplot the famous US Admin agents' conspirator. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Be careful. Admins who take on Cplot get desysopped. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

So what should be done? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the ArbCom approves of the trolling. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagreed with the ArbCom decision to which Zoe is referring and said so at the time, but this comment is most unfair to the arbitrators. No one here has any use for the offensive content that Cplot and his socks/collaborators have been spamming throughout the site. Newyorkbrad 17:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any link to the ArbCom case? I've never heard about it. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan. For taking on Cplot and Encyclopedia Dramatica MONGO was desysoped. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where Cplot fits in this story guys. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Cplot is part of the 9/11 conspiracy POV-pushing squad which MONGO was trying to keep under control. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Zoe and others. Well, i blocked the user above w/o prior knowledge. I also blocked the account because of harrassement and trolling anod not only because of block evasion. If you think the block has to be reviewed than no problem w/ me. However, i don't think i can do it myself because i believe i did the right thing regardless of the Sept. 11th conflict between MONGO and others. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read the case, MONGO was only desysopped for the following reasons: protecting and unprotecting pages he was edit-warring on, blocking a user he edit-warred with, and general incivility. You have nothing to worry about. jgp ^T_C 18:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No, he was desysopped for unprotecting a page he had never edited. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I second Zoe's point of fact. You have a great deal to worry about if you use buttons around Cplot, and I advise adminstrators and users to tread lightly with respect to doing so. If you insist on attempting to constrain Cplot, you will first get a nice attack page at encyclopedia dramatica. Then, you will have your name constantly spammed around this encyclopedia by Cplot sockpuppets attempting to reveal facets of your personal life. This will be followed by individuals Cplot contacted via email participating in an ongoing harassment campaign against you (likley taunting remarks on your talk page). If you respond to this with any level of anger whatsoever, you will probably be desysoped. The alledged reason for your desysopment may state that you unprotected pages you were involved in editing, but they will neglect to mention that you had not edited the pages for weeks, and the sum-total of your editing was to correct a few gramatical mistakes, and that on unprotection, you did not edit the page whatsoever. This appears to be because Cplot's harassment is quite effective, and very few people wish to stand up to it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a real drama! However, getting desysoped because of enhancing wikipedia doesn't worry me as Havemind has never worried me. I am just worndering if there are any other alternatives to fight those vandals! -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the best summary I have read thus far of the case, H. *sigh* KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The latest User:Cplot sock=User KnowBetter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who's back to restore the trolling. (→Netscott) 01:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're being over alarmist here. Can you provide some diffs showing where Cplot has been out to get administrators. And even if Cplot held a grudge against administrators, how would that hold sway among a group of administsrators. You make Cplot sound omnipotent. --360P 21:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Some five edits in your edit history. Are yoi aware of the significance of the disruption that Cplot and his sock puppets have caused? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Solomon's Temple

[restored from archive]
User:Nnatan keeps re-inserting his original research, cited only to his own self-published work. He has now stated explicitly that he is "not going to discuss with editors who refer to commonplaces and cliches of dictionaries or nomenklature encyclopedias" and he will continue to re-insert the material until he is blocked. Since I have been the main person disputing his citation of himself as a source, I am probably not the one who should act in this matter as an administrator. Given his promise to keep inserting inappropriate material until he is blocked, would someone please indef-block him? And perhaps then semi-protect the article Solomon's Temple? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 21:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes: he has been duly warned. In fact, other than an initial welcome, his user talk page consists of nothing but increasingly strong warnings about this matter. - Jmabel | Talk 21:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Nnatan looks like a single-purpose account existing only to push his original research. I'm inclined to support an indef block. Beit Or 21:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[end restored]

The above was archived after less than 24 hours with no action taken. I have restored. - Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I poated a warning, and will act when he actually moves along with his threat. This may well be just a voice of an anoyed person. `'mikka 07:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No edits by that user since Saturday, so I'm with mikka - let's wait until he does something wrong before moving to a block. I do share Jmabel's annoyance at his attitude, though. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

mikka is surely right here. --Mel Etitis (Μみゅーεいぷしろんλらむだ Ετητης) 23:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside view: Multiple users attempted to discuss his edits with him. He declined, then made an unambiguous threat. Assume good faith or not, blocking was appropriate and, at any rate, is moot since the block has expired. Solomon's temple is an important element of Christian eschatology and, just like every other aspect of it, there are eleventy billion different theories about it and the possible future third temple. Plenty of people have come up with their own unique interpretation of scripture and feel that Wikipedia is a place to push their views. I keep a good number of eschatology articles watchlisted and it's very frequent that you'll see someone spam their own website and add their own theory that they made up in seminary one day. It's obviously original research and if someone persists adding their own theories to an article after being asked not to, and, in fact, explicitly refuses to discuss the issue, a preventative block is 100% appropriate. BigDT 00:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Serbophobia and possible wheel-warring

Deleted by Duja (talk · contribs) -- see AN notification here -- but undeleted by EVula after a speedy deletion review here. No sign of notifying Duja of the reversal that I can see, nor any acknowledgment of the earlier endorsement of the deletion. At the very least the deletion review ought to last longer than a few hours. --Calton | Talk 08:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Not intended to be wheel-warring, I assure you. There's been some talk about this at User talk:EVula#Serbophobia issues; like Duja said, it's a case of two bold editors butting heads. :)

(and I didn't notify Duja because... well, I didn't see any template about it in the DR instruction area, and I honestly didn't even think about it)

So... yeah. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And the speedy close of the deletion review -- despite previously expressed support for the original deletion -- was why, exactly? --Calton | Talk 23:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This illustrates the danger of invoking WP:IAR on controversial issues. IarWar :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 02:47Z

Proposing community ban for User:FasterPussycatWooHoo

Lately, User:FasterPussycatWooHoo has been proposing an extremely fringe and nonsensical merge for Tokusatsu. The merge has been unanimously rejected by everyone who has commented on it. The merge template was removed, and User:FasterPussycatWooHoo has continued to disruptively re-add the template to the page multiple times despite being the only person in support of the merge. He has now taken it a step further: in a fit of WP:POINT, he added a speedy deletion tag to the page [24], and posted a long rant on the talk page with personal attacks against his opponents. Thus, I am proposing that User:FasterPussycatWooHoo be banned from both Tokusatsu and Talk:Tokusatsu, since his actions on those pages consist entirely of disruption, and the community is tired of it. jgp ^T_C 16:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the proposals, edits, statements, and justifications made in this matter, and it seems like the main problem is a lack of discussion to find common ground, which is what Wiki is supposed to do. User:FasterPussycatWooHoo seems to be just as much a fan and knowledgeable as others there, and I believe quite a few of his/her points are valid. What is lacking is that there is very little discussion between the parties and mostly action, by proposing deletions and making edits without consensus. That is not enough for a ban. I am not an admin, but I'm just trying to save another admin from spending too much time researching this. Gohiking 17:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion • Before we block someone over what is, essentially, a content dispute, there should be a good faith attempt at mediation through WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A clean block log cannot warrant a community ban. Try to discuss or file a request for mediation for now. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've left a note on FPWH's talk page, suggesting that s/he review the policies on civility and no personal attacks, since a big part of this problem seems to be that user's belligerence in the talk page discussions. I don't see any justification for a ban, but a short-duration block would be in order if the nastiness continues (perhaps after one or two direct warnings to stop). | Mr. Darcy talk 17:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the proper procedure. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right--maybe I should have waited for him to rack up an even larger record of disruption before proposing this (he's certainly on his way), but I was hoping to nip this in the bud before it gets even uglier. He's already been quite disruptive, and his actions today have escalated the disruption to a new level. When the entire community is against him, and his only response is to go on a spree of disruption, there's a serious problem. I really don't think mediation will work, since he is the only one advocating his viewpoint. Thank you, however, for looking into this. It's quite appreciated. jgp ^T_C 17:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Jgp clearly asked for a community ban on simply the two pages s/he is disrupting, not a ban from Wikipedia. From the comments, I'm not sure everyone understood that. —bbatsell ¿? 18:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I understood that, but still didn't see any of the intermediate steps I'd want to see before any sort of blocking or banning action was taken. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain this further (I was going to make a new thread, but I was directed here).

I have recently started up a WikiProject entitled Wikipedia:WikiProject Tokusatsu, which covers the areas of Japanese television and cinema that primarily features special effects. The English language Wikipedia has an article on Tokusatsu, and it is obviously central to the WikiProject. The article needs a clean-up, but that is something that the WikiProject will be working on.

When I went to the article last week, I saw that it had a merge tag on it, with a merge to the article on Special effects. I removed this tag, and clearly stating my reason for the removal. I then saw FasterPussycatWooHoo's thread on the talk page about the tagging, which I replied to and explained myself, but it immediately fell into an incivil volley from FasterPussycat.

The next day, FasterPussycat replaced the template, and the discussion continued on the talk page, at which point an uninvolved party removed the template citing the consensus against FasterPussycat on the talk page. After that, every single edit of FasterPussycat's to the article was to restore the template (twice), and undo our work as to improving the article to make it clearer that the subject of the article is unique in many ways from special effects.

Today, FasterPussycat posted this on the talk page peppered with many incivil comments, even calling Keitei's username "inanely pretentious," something that definitely violates WP:NPA. This was immediately followed by tagging the article with a speedy delete tag. While a community ban is a bit overzealous, FasterPussycatWooHoo's edits to the article need to be discussed by people other than those at Talk:Tokusatsu, as this has gone beyond anything that could be construed as a content dispute.—Ryūlóng (竜りゅう龍りゅう) 22:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw that entire history, but FPWH was never warned on his talk page that his actions might lead to a block. Another admin just blocked him for the talk-page comment, but since that preceded the warning I issued and I don't see any post-warning edits, I've unblocked him. He's been warned; if he crosses the line now, he can be blocked. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Alansohn repeatedly removing cited information.

User:Alansohn continues to remove cited information from the article Voorhees Mall and then engaging in a psychotic rant on my talk page (after telling me, in a moment of supremely stupid irony, to put in the very source he removed). —ExplorerCDT 19:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

NPA warning issued to ExplorerCDT, who's crossed the boundaries of civility - crz crztalk 19:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• And he doesn't get yelled at for removing cited information without a decent reason and then saying "put it back"? Geesh, dualistic standards. —ExplorerCDT 23:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks and threats of physical violence

Since becoming a Wikipedian in February 2005, I've been on the receiving end of a fair amount of personal attacks and other incivility. This is the first time that I've felt uncomfortable enough to file a formal complaint.

As part of a dispute/discussion at Template talk:In the news, ExplorerCDT threatened to "hang the ITN editors by their balls" if they failed to comply with his demands [1]. In response to a comment that I made regarding another user's edit, he added, "And you'd be the first person I hang...with dental floss." [2]. I informed him that this such remarks were inappropriate and that I would seek administrative intervention if they continued [3].

Later today (while accidentally logged out), ExplorerCDT prefaced a complaint with "People like David Levy, (who I can't stand because of his being a strict constructionist and stickler for these blatantly wrong rules)" [4]. I responded by once again asking him to please stop these personal attacks [5]. He replied with the following: "Perhaps I may when you stop being a dick. Until then, I do not retract my comments and reserve the right to criticise you when I feel justified (as I have thus far)." He simultaneously replied to a warning issued by Nishkid64 [6] with the following: "I point you to WP:IAR as my only response to your remonstrance. Sometimes you people need a swift and mighty kick in the ass. Rules shouldn't be anally interpretted." [7].

Clearly, this type of intimidation is not to be tolerated at Wikipedia. Having tried and failed to resolve this situation with words, I now see no alternative than to seek intervention from another sysop. —David Levy 19:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Strange. His...methods of expression were exposed in his complaint above. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Warnings placed in his talk page. Next instance of lack of civility will earn him a block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

LuisMatosRibeiro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(moved from WP:AIV)

• LuisMatosRibeiro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has been blocked indefinitely for disruption, vandalism, and reintroduction of POV edits (flying in the face of consensus) at Holodomor article, a highly-charged and controversial topic. Ever since, a large number of the exact same edits have shown up from the same range of IP addresses in Portugal (which is where the blocked user was tracked to). See list of suspected socks (all IPs in the same 82.155.xxx.xxx range), except one username believed to also be a sock of this user). [25] I oiginally reported to Incident Noticeboard but was apparently missed. TheQuandry 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This report was not very suited for WP:AIV, and hence brought here for further and wider investigation. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, since the IP is dynamic, there is little that can be done actually. However, the article and the talk page were both semi-protected to avoid enless POV-pushing. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Ilena's persistent abuse, self-promotion, disruption, etc.

I probably should have brought this here a while ago, but User:Ilena is an account belonging to Ilena Rosenthal. She has had a long-standing real-life dispute with Stephen Barrett which has included several legal cases. She has opened the above account here and used it to insert links to her personal website (http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org), which contains a lot of anti-Barrett attacks, solicitations for donations, and off-wiki abuse about editors she's had conflicts with. She's continually posted lengthy attacks on Barrett on the talk and article pages of Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and The National Council Against Health Fraud, and accused those who've tried to explain how Wikipedia works of "censoring" her. The following edits ([26], [27], [28], [29]) are selected examples. The admin KillerChihuahua tried to help, and Ilena attacked him as well. I'd just ask that her contribution history be reviewed, as well as her talk page (note that she has systematically removed a number of warnings, negative comments, etc from her talk page). Without judging the merits of her argument against Barrett, her importation of her feud with Barrett to Wikipedia has been intensely disruptive, as has her categorical refusal to listen to suggestions, policy explanations, warnings etc and her insistence that she is being "censored" when her edits are reverted for violating policy. MastCell 18:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I just want to add that an ArbComm decision made in the past few months made it clear that it is allowable for a person to remove warnings from their talk page, but they are considered "acknowledged" for the purpose of determining whether the person is aware of the warnings. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Curious question - which ArbCom decision was that? Newyorkbrad 19:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Her deletions of warnings is one issue, but her flagrant and continued disruptive editing, personal attacks, and violations of multiple policies here is another. That's what needs to be observed and corrected.

Is there such a thing here as administrative mentorship, where abusive and disruptive users are assigned an admin who can "walk the dog" and "pull its chain" when it misbehaves? Maybe that's the only way to deal with someone who only has one mode of behavior -- attack mode. -- Fyslee 19:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There is probation, but that is for arbcomm to impose. Bucketsofg 19:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If a user is going to require full-time supervision in order to prevent them from breaking the project, then it seems a waste of time ... Surely administrators have more important things to do than to "mentor" users who have already rejected advice and warnings?

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." --FOo 20:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I attempted to discuss the situation with the user here on her talk page, and received as a response "For the mutt and others attempting to bully me ... Woof Woof Woof ... I don't respond to anonymous dogs. " which I found singularly uncooperative, but completely consistent with her interactions with other editors. She seems to be a SPA and is hostile in the extreme to any discussion of her nasty attitude and POV pushing, or even requests for sources. She has a "you're either with me or you're trying to censor and oppress me" attitude. She is a time and effort sinkhole. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

SPA - Single Purpose Account. She has been the recipient of aggresively adverse edits that are pretty thin for such experienced editors. I see some of this as "political" where one side *is* larger. That said, perhaps you (all) should try to get an agreement *from her* about what she does here (i.e. restricting her site links to other editors on Talk) and perhaps *helpfully* explaining an issue, one at a time (I've see three letter policy blasts that are literally "well some of it must be right"). I have seen early multipronged accusations around her in forms that I think are "unhelpful" (I am not saying she's innocent) and would boil my blood, too. RfARB???--I'clast 00:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If the consensus is that this should go to ArbCom, rather than here at AN/I, I'll follow up there. I just didn't want to go straight there without posting here for community input first. I agree with KillerChihuahua that WP:DBTN has been observed and extensive attempts have been made to constructively address Ilena's behavior, all of which have been fruitless (and described by Ilena as attempts at "censorship"). MastCell 20:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User was blocked one week in July for "spam, extream [sic] POV pushing" ... looks to me like those problems continue, in which case, a longer block would be fully justified. Before I do this, does anyone object? | Mr. Darcy talk 21:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I would support that block, of whatever duration. The anonymous mutt who is trying to bully her will even do it, if anyone thinks that might make an impression not gained by MrDarcy (she may not read Austin.) ArbCom is not an option, there has been no Rfc. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What about a 'formal' warning based on this AN/I, with specific examples of what would, in this case, warrant a longer ban? I do think comments like "She is a time and effort sinkhole" are themselves uncivil. I am not defending the conduct objected to, and have stated the same here, where I was not exactly tactuful. Maybe all of us have something to learn from these incidents - including admins. I also think an editor should be given a 'formal' warning, including behavior to be stopped & consequences if not stopped. A sort of Wiki due process, if you will. Also, thanks for the tip, Fyslee and Mastcell re 'pinpoint' citations in Wiki. Jance 23:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is that Ilena has had tons of warnings, of varying severity, from a number of editors - and none have had the slightest discernible effect on her disruptive editing. A more "formal" warning seems unnecessary and unlikely to accomplish much - she's been cut way more slack than the average editor already. MastCell 23:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

She has had numerous formal warnings, informal warnings, and outreach attempts. That she has chosen to remove them from her page indicates that she saw them. I also call trolls "trolls" oddly enough. I do not speculate on editors' sanity status or iq; but I'm not going to tippy-toe around terminology about someone who is clearly been a time and effort sinkhole - people have spent considerable time on her and the only result is her removing their attempts, occasionally accompanied by hostile responses. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not speculate on any editor's sanity, but I did speculate on the edits. Perhaps that would be a good thing for all to do, instead of attacking the person. Just a thought.Jance 00:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Ilena is a new editor that has been overwhelmed/outnumbered by adverse edits (-ors) in a hot subject where she has a definite point of view and her learning curve is insufficient to deal with the experienced crowd that doth sometimes protest too much. There are scattered, less obvious early edits that might provoke a newcomer that may seem to rudely contradict her edits rather than truely help and inform. I realize that she has to become more rules saavy, but I also see provocative stuff that is not easy to spot for the uninvolved, where the adverse editors presume they are righteously correct. Ilena has contritbuted points that were not spotted / corrected by her counterparties. I would ask User:Levine2112's input, first, also.--I'clast 23:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I wrote "Ilena, you seem to be having some difficulty fitting in with Wikipedia. Whether you realize it or not, we consider WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA important. Do you not understand these, not think you are violating them, or not care? I would appreciate a clarification of your position on these. Thanks much" and she called me a bullying mutt, and refused to respond? Um, this is not a "newbie" problem. This is a "self-rightous uncivil" problem. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you entered in the middle of something hot that includes an actual WP:BLP problem (hers) where the involved (offended) editor doesn't yet viscerally understand a lot of Wiki policy issues and is in fact outnumbered by her much more experienced, polar counterparts. Not saying this is how to run a railroad, but that the problem is wider, more complex than it appears. She clearly suspects some others' edits, where in her eyes WP:AGW has been long breeched w/o redress and now others are POV'g the articles w/o completeness or accuracy. She as well has a point of view. I don't think her handling has been done helpfully or effectively. Some others' santimoniously quoting the rules back that she perceived to have been breeched (i.e. CIVIL) is not helpful. She is still coming to grips with various policies, how much it affects her edits and how this works.--I'clast 02:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware that I came in after the conflict started: I was asked to try to reason with her. I have failed. Feel free to try yourself. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO encourages the removal of links to sites which "out" or attack Wikipedia editors. Ilena's site does both. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please let me update your information. My edits were removed from the moment I came to Wikipedia exposing NCAHF's questionable (and apparently non existent) corporate status. State records were called POV and removed. Within moments of posting links to NCAHF's corporate suspension, Barrett's assistant listmaster, fyslee would remove them. When I first began to read here ... Barrett Vs Rosenthal was unrecognizable to the facts of the case. I have recently defeated Stephen Barrett in court and his team is doing the best they can to gang up on me and remove my opinions. I made a Wikipedia page of my website to explain my treatment here. I am very familiar with being ganged up by people defending Stephen Barrett and his questionable operations. What is called a "feud" is his losing SLAPP suit that went on for over 6 years and ended up in The Supreme Court of California with all 3 plaintiffs losing. The Barrett information here is biased and unencyclopedia. Thank you and have a lovely holiday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilena (talk • contribs) 20:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds to me as if you have Wikipedia confused with a soapbox. Others have made the same mistake, of course. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It's good to see that Ilena has experienced editors (Levine2112 and I'clast) advocating for her - I think that's important for a fair hearing here. That said, claiming that Ilena is the aggrieved party doesn't add up to me. She's not been raising "WP:BLP issues"... she's been using Wikipedia as a front in her war with Barrett. Again, I have no idea who's "right" or "wrong" in that particular war; I just know that expanding it into Wikipedia is inappropriate. The biggest issue here is has moved past any supposed provocation - it's the fact that she has now had reams of suggestions/warnings, starting relatively friendly and ending up pointed, that her actions are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Yet I've seen no indication that she's internalized them or modified her behavior in any way. I'd also argue against I'clast's suggestion that action now is precipitate; she's gotten away with far more in terms of disruptive editing than most editors, and I'm discouraged by the history that any further talk-based intervention will be successful - hence I brought the issue here. MastCell 04:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, her first edit under that username was in July, and she has over 200 edits in total. She's not a newbie. And as you can see from her post above, she is still playing the victim and offering no evidence that she understands that we have policies that must be followed. She's been blocked for POV-pushing, and is pushing just as hard today as she did before the block. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Over 300 edits, actually. --Ronz 05:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I see things differently. From July when I posted, my edits were immediately reverted and me threatened with POV. When I discovered that the Barrett Vs Rosenthal article (I'm Rosenthal) was unrecognizable as to the facts of the case, every edit I made to correct it was reverted .. sometimes in seconds. In the last 24 hours, people I've never heard of have gone through and removed every edit of mine and replaced it with the Barrett/Quackwatch/NCAHF POV. As the winning defendant in Barrett Vs Rosenthal, Barrett's links are allowed and mine removed. On the Stephen Barrett page under Critics who have been in litigation with him ... again my link removed. This reminds me of the Gladiator Days ... I'm going to write about defeating Barrett & Team in the Supreme Court of California, but Killer Chihauha and MastCell rule on Wikipedia. Have a lovely holiday season all. Ilena 05:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Then this is a textbook example of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, at which it appears that Ms. Rosenthal is not heeding.—Ryūlóng (竜りゅう龍りゅう) 05:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

MastCell, Levine doesn't seem to be editing right now. IR said the WP:BLP issue as it comes naturally to her, not as a Wikilawyer spouting TLAs, most true "newbies" don't know the rules that well (and I am always suspicious of newbies that know them much better than I do). Ilena's is a newbie in the sense that she has been locked in on issues that seem elementary to her, (remember the SPA charge above?) rather than a diet of successful learning steps. Ilena seems to have improved some, just not at the rate you prefer. There *are* points where the pro-QW editors have seemed substantially partisan. I feel that there has been an undercurrent to the responses to her early edits that is not high level obvious or is "mainstream" but can be a specific insult not appreciated by the unfamiliar. I think there are issues that she has got to understand and internalize but I also think that some edits she found corrosive, because I was annoyed when fresh to the scene by these edits too. I think that some QW proponents editing earlier on seemingly simple factual stmts soured her outlook on some counterparties' AGF. I think Ilena's has issues that needed to be talked out in a different way to see whether she can climb the learning curve, or not, and that we can identify and meaningfully address her concerns, which in my eyes includes the WP:BLP issue. But I'll agree that her language has to change, as do some others' attitudes.--I'clast 05:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

JzG mentions one arbitration case above. I'll mention a far more apposite one: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair. Bring an external controversy, such as the aforementioned Barrett v. Rosenthal lawsuit, to Wikipedia, and you will all — both sides — be barred from editing, and subject to ban. I suggest that the editors on both sides of the lawsuit take heed of this warning. Edit neutrally, citing solid sources for everything, or not at all. Uncle G 13:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

COI has been cited to Ilena, with the result that she claims we're all Barrett bullies, censoring her attempts to get the TRUTH out. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem here is she feels attacked, and she is responding in kind. I've left her a message, let's see how that pans out before we do anything rash, as I really think she is acting in good faith. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw your message, which was a well phrased non-threatening offer of help, and wish you the best of luck. You have my full support. Be aware, however, that patience has run thin for this hostile, agressive user. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that some claim she is learning, but I haven't seen any evidence yet. Please show us the evidence that she is learning

• to colloborate with editors who hold opposing POV;
• to stop attacking other editors;
• to assume good faith by heeding warnings and suggestions;
• to stop claiming that responses to her policy violations are attacks on her POV;
• to stop wasting all our time by forcing us to reinstate deleted comments and warnings, moving her all-caps comments from the top of pages to the bottom where they belong, adding her constantly forgotten signature, removing her link spam, etc..

I would love to cooperate with her, including adding things that are negative towards Barrett, Quackwatch, NCAHF, God, and the rest of the world (you see, we are all her enemies if we don't immediately agree with her), if only she would do it in a collaborative manner, using good sources, and not fighting with other editors and constantly attacking them.

Anyone who will take about 30 minutes to study her mode of thinking on Usenet and other groups will discover that she is using Wikipedia as if it was Usenet, and that she is incapable of functioning in anything but the attack mode. Believe me, it's an eye-opening experience! She doesn't seem to have a learning curve. If she does, I'd like to see it. Many other editors have been blocked indefinitely for far less than she continually does, even in the face of numerous "last" warnings. She doesn't deserve anymore probationary time, since it will just be wasted. -- Fyslee 20:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I've seen lots worse. Last one was ok since he's a doctor. I bet he would still be editing here if he hadn't bitten those last 10-12 admins at the end of June. Bad hair day.

These Usenet comments make me wonder if there wasn't baggage here, waiting for her at the station when she arrived.

Fyslee, I checked her last dozen or so comments & replies, looks like she signed them.--I'clast 21:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Also it looks like things have slowed down here, perhaps a good sign--I'clast 21:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Fyslee, your accusations are simultaneously inflammatory, uncivil, and hampering a good faith attempt to help this editor become a solid contributor to Wikipedia. Please assume good faith and let the honest efforts to diffuse this dispute proceed. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

She responded to my query

She replied on my talk page here. I will let everyone come to their own conclusions, but it looks like she is a good faith editor trying to contribute to the encyclopedia that simply does not grasp the WP:NPOV policy fully and got bitten a little bit. I think if further discussion proves to be favourable I'll try to mentor her, as she seems to simply need guidance. Any objections to me doing so? ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that Ilena's response sounds good. If it's followed by a change in behavior, that would be even more encouraging. Thanks for your efforts. I do think that excusing her behavior may be counterproductive in the long run (as pointed out above, she's hardly a newbie)... and furthering a persecution complex ("Last one was OK cause he was a doctor"??) is unlikely to move the situation forward either. Anyhoo, given the positive response from Ilena, perhaps we should step back and give her another chance. However, I also think that this discussion should be archived as a clear, formal, official, what-have-you indication that a continuation of her previous editing style is not acceptable. MastCell 00:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Everyone's learning curve is different, and I don't really feel that serious attempts were giving at addressing her mistakes in a way that would be proactive until the AN/I notice (throwing around "zomg arbcom ruling" and "your link is bad omg" without a good clear explanation tends to get bad). I really find that to be a shame, and hopefully she can be guided a little bit and become a productive editor. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

She also apologized to you, KillerChihuahua, albeit on my talk page. Might want to check yours :) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's great that she genuinely appears to be turning over a new leaf. What about cleaning up all the mess? Would it be appropriate to continue, as I already have done as a test, to move her off-topic attacks to archives? Or even remove them completely? I ask in response to this request I received, asking for help in being erased from one of her attacks. [30] --Ronz 02:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Cplot-esque trolling by User:WarOnDrugs

The following is cut&paste from WP:AIV: Agathoclea 01:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• WarOnDrugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Cplot-esque trolling. Newyorkbrad 00:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • please provide some diffs that indicate this is vandalism or did you mean this, cause that was you Newyorkbrad. --WarOnDrugs 00:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically I have seen the term floating around, but not enaugh knowledge of making a snap block decision on AIV, and leave it to more eyes here. Agathoclea 01:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked by another admin. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Snap block made. User shows up and the first thing he/she/it does is troll out JzG? Puh-lease - crz crztalk 01:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Add to that a snap checkuser which showed a whole mess of Cplot sockpuppets, all of which I've blocked. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transpressionism

An anon who wants this article kept has (badly, prematurely and wrongly) closed this AfD as a keep. As I've participated in it, I'd be grateful for the sake of neutrality if another admin could re-open it and leave an appropriate note for the anon. Thanks. Tyrenius 01:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to be an admin to revert vandalism like that :P—Ryūlóng (竜りゅう龍りゅう) 01:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius is an admin himself. I agree that it wouldn't have been grossly inappropriate to revert that despite being involved, but can't hurt to have someone uninvolved do it. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 02:25Z

Ta. I think perhaps a misunderstanding of wiki procedures by an over-enthusiastic new editor rather than overt vandalism, in this case... :) Tyrenius 02:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive stalker behaviour of user:Velten

I've tried bringing this to other administrators' attention, which hasn't got very far in solving the problem, but I certainly need to keep trying, because the problem isn't going to go away. I've been having problems for some time with Velten (talk · contribs), a user who formerly edited under the name Eternal Equinox (talk · contribs) (among others) and was the subject of an arbitration case (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox) a few months ago because of her extremely disruptive behaviour, which included harassing other users by following them to other articles. Her approach to getting revenge and "one up" over those with whom she has been in conflict in the past is to follow a user to an article they have edited recently and/or frequently, perform piddling, often nonsensically trivial or inaccurate edits, and then aggressively and persistently resist attempts by the editor she is harassing to correct her edits. (For a brief summary of evidence of this behaviour from before the RFAr, see the evidence subpage and this.)

Velten's stalking of me on Nelly Furtado-related articles after her return to Wikipedia, along with some other disruptive behaviour, led me to block her more than once in September and October (as documented at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox#Log_of_blocks_and_bans), though I later unblocked her the last time after a suggestion from another admin. After that, I'm guessing she's wanting to get her own back on me for blocking her, and has been turning up again and again at articles I've recently edited or articles whose subjects are strongly associated with the subjects of articles I have recently edited; see [31] , [32] (after [33]), [34] (after [35]), [36] (after [37]), [38]. Most recently, she's been persisting in her harassment of me on Nelly Furtado-related articles [39], [40], [41], most disastrously on Maneater (Nelly Furtado song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [42], where she continued to edit war even after being told she was wrong (see her song-and-dance on the talk page and in edit summaries for more information).

What on Earth can be done? I'm probably too involved in this situation, and with Velten's seemingly deep animosity towards me, I'm in no position to be handling it on my own; if I blocked her, she'd surely accuse me of making up "reasons" or "excuses" to prevent her from editing, because, of course, she'd never do anything disruptive. I've assumed good faith for far longer than I should have, tried my hardest to tell her what she's doing is unacceptable (see, for example, Talk:Maneater (Nelly Furtado song)), and all I get in return is, in true Velten fashion, complete denial of any wrongdoing and childish, sarcastic or plain snide retorts such as accusations of rules lawyering [43]. It's obvious that she hasn't decided to change her behaviour or attitudes since many months ago, and she's flat out refusing to acknowledge other editors' past or present concerns about her. This has dragged on and on for months and through arbitration, and as Velten's indicated on talk pages and in her editing elsewhere, she simply doesn't care. If she feels strongly enough about something, she'll do anything to get her own way (policy and guideline pages be damned), and that includes scratching away at and wearing down any unfortunate soul who happens to cross her path. How much longer do I or anyone else on Wikipedia have to put up with this?

Please help. Extraordinary Machine 01:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If this is User:Eternal Equinox, then I'm pretty sure you can indef-block based on the ArbCom decision. Are you sure this is the same user? I'm not doubting you, but I'm not familiar enough with the user or articles to say. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is User:Eternal Equinox, and this is the only account she can edit from per the ArbCom decision. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I see it now - thanks. I was looking at the talk page for the EE account and I inferred something incorrect from Tony Sidaway's notes. I'll go have another look. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This edit would seem to qualify as disruptive (removing a valid source). So far, most of the others just look rather silly, but not violations. Still digging... | Mr. Darcy talk 03:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, this one strikes me as disruptive as well - using a bogus edit summary to cover up a controversial edit. I'm satisfied enough to block for one week per ArbCom and have done so. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeated link spam

Over the last week I've noticed the continued addition of spam external links sohbetchat.tc and to a lesser extent canliizle.tv - initially I noticed it by Strmore (talk · contribs) and Shze (talk · contribs) - then I started seeing it from various random Turkish IP addresses. E.g. 85.108.124.61 (talk · contribs) and 85.102.88.17 (talk · contribs) and 85.106.144.85 (talk · contribs) - I assume there are quite a few more additions being made and reverted that I have not noticed. Note this diff where both get added at the same time [44] Is there any way of stopping those links being added? --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 03:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Prime candidates for the spam blacklist. Kimchi.sg 03:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also trsohbet.com. Grandmasterka 03:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

More... ugh [45]. Kimchi.sg 03:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I add URLs there or is it for admins only? --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 04:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The page is on Meta, not Wikipedia. Anyone can request blacklisting at the talk page here. You'll need to share some proof that the problem is widespread; a link to this thread should do. Grandmasterka 04:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

210.207.18.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

(Copied from WP:PAIN)

Personal attacks-only account, targeting editors critical of Falun Gong. CovenantD 12:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Reviewer Comment • SPA's like that should be reported to WP:AN/I where they can be summarily blocked. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 15:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Been blocked for a week, you might want to file an abuse report. Yanksox 06:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by an "abuse report." CovenantD 06:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:ABUSE—Ryūlóng (竜りゅう龍りゅう) 06:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I should have realized it would be that easy :) Thanks CovenantD 08:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User:WikiprojectOWU

What is the general feeling about role account WikiprojectOWU (talk · contribs)? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems {{SPA}}ish to me, but borderline. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

When I first saw that username a while ago, I, too, was a bit confused. But s/he's definitely contributing positively to Wikipedia. S/he's doing good work rewriting Ohio Wesleyan University (see Wikipedia:Peer review/Ohio Wesleyan University/archive1). Gzkn 03:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:SPA is an essay and the guidelines WP:AUTO and WP:COI discourage such editing, but we don't have a policy prohibition that I know of. In light of Gzkn's statement above, I'd rather have this conflict of interest out in the open than see the editor blocked.--Kchase T 03:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I left a message at her talk page. Perhaps she can clarify things. Gzkn 03:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...seems User:WikiprojectOWU has become a bit discouraged from editing in light of all the above. Zoe, Wizardry Dragon, could you perhaps clarify what exactly you wanted WikiprojectOWU to do? Gzkn 05:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

All I did was to ask a question. I was just concerned that this is a single purpose account, and wanted input. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And now I'm being threatened - [46]. I have tried to be polite with this User and to explain that I have not accused them of anything, just asked for other people's eyes to look over the situation, but their attacks on me have deteriorated to this point. I will not respond to this User again. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been following this issue slightly. As a person who is on the other side of many of the debates on the OWU page and a person who suspects a fair amount of sockpuppetry on the OWU pages, User:WikiprojectOWU is one user who I don't consider to be a sock. I don't always agree with User:WikiprojectOWU but I do believe that she is trying to make the OWU pages better---while trying to be open-minded. There are other users that I do suspect of being puppets to push specific agendas... but, and I may be niave, User:WikiprojectOWU isn't one of them. She may be single minded on this subject, but so too are a lot of other Wikipedians... I don't partiularly care for her name (it is too easy to misinterpret) but she is a solid/concerned editor. I personally don't consider her comment to be a threat... she will consult with others to see what her options are? So what, she'll find out that you did nothing wrong. It is her perjogative to inquire with others as to her options if she thinks she has been wronged, but it'll go nowhere. Balloonman 18:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

First, a disclaimer - I know nothing of OWU, but came across WikiProjectOWU's work via either peer review or FAC (I can't recall which). I've seen how hard s/he is working on Wikipedia and at learning policies and guidelines, and as I do for many articles that come up on FAC, FAR, or peer review, I've been providing feedback on improving the articles s/he is working on to FA standards. I've been around Wikipedia for almost a year, and I actually don't even understand what the question or issue being raised here is - is s/he supposed to change the username, or what?

But, what I do know, is that I had to ask Zoe several times to apologize to another editor on another article back in July August,[47] [48] [49] [50] when she deleted a legitimate article written by him as an attack page, and issued a warning to him on his talk page when a simple Google search would have revealed that the page was quite legitimate (the criteria for diagnosing Asperger syndrome). [51] [52] [53] I could never understand how anyone could interpret it as an attack page, or issue a warning to a user who was trying to write a legitimate article, which today is part of a featured article. I understand that mistakes happen, and that Zoe's deletion of the page and warning to the user was a simple mistake: what I don't understand is why I had to ask her more than once to please issue an apology or clarification to the hard-working and well-intentioned editor, so that his talk page wouldn't show that he had created an attack page. (This was again a situation I became aware of only because the article came up on WP:FAR.) I raise this now because, like then, I'm concerned that apologizing or clarifying doens't seem to come naturally to Zoe. Admins should put out fires, not start them.

WikiprojectOWU appears to be a hard-working editor: an apology or explanation in this case would go a long way towards maintaining good will and avoiding "bite"; I don't understand why a seasoned editor like Zoe should feel "threatened" over something that should be quite simple to explain and resolve. Someone just please explain to WikiprojectOWU what policy s/he has gone afoul of, and how s/he can fix it. Sandy (Talk) 19:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, I did attempt to explain to this User what my concerns were. They removed my comments from their talk page. I have never accused this person of anything, as I told them, I merely wanted other eyes to take a look at a User with an SPA-echoing name, which has only made accounts to OWU related articles, articles which have a long history of edit warring. I will not comment on this further unless this user's and other people's attacks on me continue. Note that I have never said anything derogatory about this user. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

... <sigh> ... Sandy (Talk) 19:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

<sigh> back at you. I have no idea why you feel your opinions on me should matter, but I will explain to others who might be interested as to what your attacks on me started from. For admins: The original edit to the article which User:Natche wrote was here.. Note that I was the second admin to delete this, not the first. To me, the edit read like an attack. I am not about to go around reviewing all of the edits that read like attack pages to verify that "Johnny is a fag" is a real attack or not. Things like that get deleted. When an explanation came, I apologized to the User and explained why I had felt the article was an attack. I see that Sandy hasn't bothered to link to that, but it is still on Natche's Talk page. Why that has any bearing on this, I cannot fathom. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect - I did link to your eventual apology (above), and since the diff you gave is admin only, I can't see it - I only have what you left on my talk page then, which contained no attack. Sandy (Talk) 19:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, I'm very saddened that you don't see the connection. It's not that the article was wrongly deleted (that happens all the time) or that the editor was wrongly warned - no big deal, never was. It's that you didn't immediately issue a clarification to the editor as soon as it was brought to your attention, and I had to ask more than once - that is the similarity. Admins and seasoned editors need not become defensive over minor "stuff that happens" all the time, and should be quick to put out fires, rectify wrongs, avoid being defensive, and help out newcomers. Natche24 was not an experienced editor, nor is Wikiproject OWU - a teensy bit of good will can go a long way towards preserving them as editors. De-escalate the situation rather than escalate it. That's all, I'm done. Sandy (Talk) 19:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I left this message, and received this in reply. Hopefully everyone has a clearer understanding of the situation now. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks good - I was confused about the SPA issue; when I was new to Wiki, I was certainly thousands of edits into being a single-topic editor before I had the courage to expand into other topics, and I distinctly recall that finding my way around Wiki's policies and guidelines was no small chore. I guess I'm lucky that my username didn't indicate the single purpose topic that initially brought me to Wikipedia :-)) Sandy (Talk) 22:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought it did... weren't your first edits all dealing with various beaches... Sandy beaches??? Balloonman 04:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Zoe, there is a difference between role accounts and single purpose accounts. In your initial question above you described WikiprojectOWU as a role account... which so far as I can tell was was not only an 'accusation', but an apparently false one. Which could be extremely upsetting to someone given that actual role accounts (those with a password shared by a group) are generally banned on sight... as stated in the link which you sent to WikiprojectOWU. Likewise you stated that WikiprojectOWU had only edited one article... again, an 'accusation' which wasn't quite accurate given that they have contributed to several articles... though all are on the same subject (OWU). Getting defensive and insisting that they are complaining about nothing because you haven't made any accusations also wasn't true and didn't help the situation. To go back to your original question on 'general feelings' about a user who is apparently minding their own business and contributing positively to the encyclopedia... 'thank them' seems like an appropriate response. There is nothing inherently 'wrong' with 'single purpose accounts'. Yes, many single purpose accounts are created to push a POV or vote stack or otherwise violate policy... but everyone involved seems to agree that isn't the case here. If a 'single purpose account' makes alot of contributions and doesn't do any of those things... then that is a 'good user' and ought to be left alone. Or given barnstars. Not falsely accused of committing a bannable offense and then berated for getting upset about it. --CBD 12:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait wait wait ... role account? Where was this raised? I noted an account for a single USE as his/her edit, but I dont read what's here as a role account problem? Maybe I misread? ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Mention of a "role account"? It is 'carefully hidden' in the first sentence of this discussion above and Zoe's first comment on WikiprojectOWU's talk page. :] --CBD 12:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'd never intended to provoke such words and exchanges. It seems there was more than I realized when I came up with that username. WikiprojectOWU 19:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • At your discretion you may always have it changed. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations dealt with en masse

I'm sure there will be some hell to pay for my actions related to User talk:Hoffa fett. Where should I seek review of these actions to determine their suitability? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If you deleted all the contribs by an incorrigible copyright-infringing user, that's the right thing to do. —Centrx→talk • 06:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User claims to have permission from owner. Ceyockey, can you please point them to the place to give that kind of permission? This looks like a accidental case of bite... but all is not lost. B) ---J.S ^(T/C) 06:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I did some investigating and delineated a page set that describes the path forward ... relating this at User_talk:Hoffa_fett#Copyright. I hope this is ok. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Bluecord

I have indef. blocked Bluecord (talk · contribs) for making this legal threat. He appears to be a new User associated with a blocked anon who was causing trouble earlier. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have received an email from Bluecord claiming his friends used his computer to vandalize. I have asked him to explain how it is that the anon IP and the logged account both committed vandalism, unless his friends had his password, but he has yet to reply. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If his account has been compromised, he can register another one (Bluecord the 2nd or something that at least harkens back to his old username; we can make an exception to any such rule in this case). The caveat is that he needs to get a better password or friends. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

He claims that his roommates got his password and logged in as him. I have unblocked, but have given him a one last chance warning. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suspect I've been had, but I will assume good faith. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Shock images put in templates

More of it again. It looks like nasty trolls have found a good game. I suggest to think about semiprotecting all templates: Why would newbies have to edit them? IMO in this case vandalism potential (one shocked template hits dozens of articles) overweighs convenience. `'mikka 06:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And maybe stop them from uploading new images too. This latest one is getting absurd. Kimchi.sg 06:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked Essjay to file an ISP report, and he said he would look into it. This might all be one person. Even if it isn't, it sure looks like it's going to shape our policies in big ways. Grandmasterka 07:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

After reading today's Signpost I wonder if we can use some form of patrolled editing to help. Kimchi.sg 08:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it enabled in wikipedia? Besides, it is not so easy as it looks. Not to say that the instructions of meta:Help:Patrolled edit are rather sloppy and our own policy is required (BTW meta says so as well). Is this thing discussed in wikipedia? `'mikka 18:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Commons only allows registered users to upload. Maybe some of the images could go there. OTOH, it still allows anonymous newbies to screw with all the licensing, summary, and source information, which is a PITA to undo. Some changes should be made at both places. Good kitty 23:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please vote for bug 8322 to make it easier to find and revert this vandalism. --NE2 18:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, relevant links are: [54]; [55] (vandalism lasted three minutes); [56] (vandal blocked immediately after vandalism spotted); [57] (image deleted immediately after vandalism spotted); [58]; [59]; [60] (various protections on the template - some 18 hours later). Should the template protection have been implemented sooner? Is there consensus yet to protect widely-used templates (note that this one is not a main page one, but is still used on over 2500 pages), or will this reduce useful editing of templates by non-admins? Carcharoth 17:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Jacob Peters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), again

I put in a checkuser request yesterday for a suspected sockpuppet of Jacob Peters (talk · contribs). It came back likely. Given that Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) has been known for block evasion (see his block log), I feel inclined to conclude that the suspected account – Iskra1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – is indeed a sockpuppet of Jacob Peters (talk · contribs). I endorse an indefinite block of Iskra1 (talk · contribs) (for being a sockpuppet) and a restarting and lengthening of the block (from the current 23.14 days to at least 27 days) for Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) (for the persistent sockpuppetry and disruptive editing). Any objections? -- tariqabjotu 14:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked Iskra1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely and then re-established and lengthened Jacob Peters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s block to twenty-eight days (four weeks). I'm also protecting Jacob's user page because the sockpuppetry notice keeps getting removed (by further sockpuppets?). Jacob is really treading on thin ice here... -- tariqabjotu 15:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Entirely reasonable, I support the block. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Well done. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

External link hijack/copyright accusations

Death-Camps.org is a counterfeit website. Check WHOIS.net for both Domain names. The genuine www.deathcamps.org has been in exisitence since 2002 this counterfeit site sprang up in October of 2006 the evidence is there clear for all ADMINS to see for themselves.

Both death-camps.org and deathcamps.org have been added as external links in articles and they appears to have identical content. In [61] it is asserted that death-camps.org is counterfeit. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 18:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

How is this an admin problem? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not... where the anon changed the "-" to non"-" I would say leave it if the information is the same (I'm going to wager that the hyphenated site will be the one that is gone at some point in the future... just a guess). Where the anon left commentary; remove it. If they revert; explain nicely to them why they should not bring their off-wiki problems here...--Isotope23 19:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I just removed all the commentary and asked the anon not to add commentary to his/her edits.--Isotope23 19:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Genuine ARC website registered in 2002 (*See whois.net for details)is deathcamps.org. Any URL or LINK that shows a hyphenated version of the genuine URL is counterfeit. All links that are reverted to the Hyphenated URL are examples of vandalism. If you CHECK THE HISTORY OF WIKIPEDIA concerning deathcamps.org you will note these hyphenated links came after the genunie NON-HYPHENATED URL.

PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT WEBSITE FRAUD and vandalism! Thank you -The Genunie ARC Team. info@deathcamps.org

undermining wikipedia in articles

post dated Note

This was presented to me as a members advocate as another 'incident' involving an editor with a history. Apologies for not monitoring A Kiwi's implementation closer. // FrankB 17:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

---

at this section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder#Tranquilizers_.2F_anxiolytics_and_sedatives there is a old link ([ new userfied link]) which brings readers to page to "read paragraphs that have been removed from view". These pages are hosted on wikipedia as articles, and instruct users to "Change what you find, however YOU think best". I'm nearly certain these are attempts to undermine wikipedia, and on its own servers.

I'm not sure if this is becoming a common problem now or what, but I'd like to find out where it's all coming from and keep wikipedia clean and consistent but didn't know how to go about it.

brandon.macuser 03:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I was WP:Bold and removed at least some of the sections, which were pointing at other WP Workspaces. SirFozzie 04:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Researched it more, looks like User:A Kiwi put those work page links in. Really strange. Doesn't look like any harm or malice intended, but I'll leave him a message on this. SirFozzie 04:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

To me, it appears that A Kiwi is inappropriately experimenting on main article space pages under the direction of one or more admins (cf. "inserting Farbutus inling comment & other admin's directive towards making subpage - which I will try, once more, to create") when the experimentation should be done in user space. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You want to explain it on his talk page, better then I can, Ceyockey? SirFozzie 04:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am Kiwi. I am a trifle shocked to see myself labeled as an out of line experimenter who is subverting how Wiki is edited. I was only following advice from administrators on what to do so that the inlined deletions could be FOUND and worked on by the BPD editors (we have a pretty good team effort going on).

It was not me who inlined the extensive amount of material, but someone who normally would (and wants to at the moment (see her last comment) simply delete it in toto. Alternatively, she would toss some of it into another topic. See: Zeraeph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Borderline_personality_disorder#Me_too

Our group of active cooperating editors have already discussed what she outlines as issues and we seem to have a consensus at present at how to proceed while eventually improving 3 other topics. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Borderline_personality_disorder#Shortening_the_article

If you will read this section where Zeraeph announced her "Experiment". THAT was the experiment. What I did was follow recommendations and directions from two of the many admins who chipped in with possible solutions to this problem -- How to edit material that is already effectively deleted.

I hope I have been reasonably clear, but please ask me any questions you need answered and I will copy out here all the advice various admins placed on the topic talk page, my talk page and in private emails to me.

Thank you for your time (and patience) --Kiwi 09:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the page into your userspace because you can't create sub-pages in the mainspace. You can only create sub-pages in User, Talk, and Wikipedia namespaces. In the main article space sub-pages are disabled and the page is created as a separate article, rather than a sub-page. There's more information here. Sarah 10:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Kiwi here again. I just got an email from an admin who has told me that the inline removals of so much text has been replaced (by removing the inline coding). This sounds good -- but I am glad I was allowed to keep the workpage JUST IN CASE all those parts get deleted anyway.

Like I said - what I did was by selecting, from three different admins, advice to provide the BPD editors a way to do out editing without having to search for it in the Wiki coding behind the pages - in it's experimental inline status.

BUT, PLEASE NOTICE that I was SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCTED to put the Work Page in the Topic name space. This was NOT my idea. What I WANTED was for the inline stuff to be removed, the material returned to the article, and for the entire article to be POV Bannered, and the issues discussed on the article Talk Page.

I am VERY PLEASED that admin Calton‎ has reverted the inlined material and told us "Take it to the Talk Page"!!!!! HURRAY Calton‎!!!

--Kiwi 10:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I'm not an admin, but you're welcome. --Calton | Talk 12:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? That should be rectified. Duja► 15:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't extend this discussion further, but rather cap it off. My reason for leaving the message I did on A Kiwi's talk page rather than anyone else's sits with speaking to the actor in the matter and not to the people whom the actor consulted. I understand that A Kiwi was acting after extensive consultation (and I recognized that at the time I spoke on the talk page); it is unfortunate in my opinion that those consultations led down the particular road they did. However, this was a minor matter as things go. It seems things are ending well, and all's well that ends well. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism and false indefinite block templates placed by 125.238.29.89

IP 125.238.29.89 has placed indefinite block templates on my user page [62] and that of User:Cool Nerd [63]. The anon user has also vandalized an article [64]. I request that 125.238.29.89 be indefinitely blocked and that my user page be protected. Edison 15:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Anon user has stopped editing since 11:29, December 28, 2006 (UTC). A few warnings have been put on their talk page. Let's wait and see. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

IPs may not be blocked indefinitely anyway. From my experience in dealing with IP vandals, there is a brief spurt of vandalism and then it calms down for a week or two. It's rather tricky to block IPs effectively as well, to the best of my knowledge. Cheers. Yuser31415 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Metacafe

This person: see contributions continually alters the external link for metacafe.com. They keep changing it to "metacafe.org.uk", perhaps to generate ad revenue. Regardless, it has happened more than a dozen times (see contributions link above), which pretty much makes up their entire contribution to Wikipedia. They need to be blocked. Bssc81 20:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page, rather than putting a long-term block on the IP address. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean??

Patrolling recent changes, I saw this: (diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia talk:Autoblock‎; 20:51 . . (-1,731) . .

What does the bold negative number mean??

Thanks, --SunStar Net^talk 20:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It means that 1731 bytes were removed from the length of the article by the edit. BenBurch 20:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the changed characters numbers are bolded above a certain threshold. Circeus 22:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that's what I've found. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Vlh

Would someone please block Vlh for an very extended time again. He has been through a couple of week-long blocks and his first edits back are always the same garbage he's inserting into pro-wrestling articles inserting WP:OR. He has been warned several times before and he's trying to start votes on talk pages to override already set policy on the issue. A week-long block probably won't do any good considering he just comes back and I have to Clean-up 7-10 articles going through his mess. semper fi — Moe 05:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

He has been blocked for ten days, I have issued a final warning that any further edit warring after he returns from this block will result in an indefinite block. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that this person has been indefinitely blocked, and given the circumstances I endorse this action. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ugh

List of big-bust models and performers, DRV overturned a legitimate delete without ever addressing the fundamental lack of any reliable sources for "big" or indeed the lack of sources identifying most of the included women as "big". Please rename to "Phwoooooaaar! Look at the tits on that!" which at least accurately reflects the sole purpose of the article. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I must regard this as whining, no matter how much I sympathize with it :-). If this post is just a venting off, then I guess it served its purpose :-). I started a satiric POV-fork of WP:DDV (only 1/3 way through), which to an extent addresses the issue you refer to, and which you might help to complete, as a helpful stress (which I had a plenty recently) relief therapy. Duja► 10:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, DRV's gone to the dogs. </nodisrepectmeant> --Nearly Headless Nick 11:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not whining. I am disgusted that we allowed WP:ILIKETITS to trump WP:NOR. Normally we are much better at defending unpopular but correct-per-policy deletions. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, so am I. Judging by the speedy closure of the 4th AfD, there doesn't appear to exist a viable course of action at the moment (except for going into WP:ULTRAROUGE mode and CSD-ing it, then blocking & recusing oneself for the gross abuse of administrative privileges). Or vent off, turning community's attention to it, like you just did. Or take a wikibreak. Duja► 12:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, whoever closes all the DRVs has arbitrarily decided that all DRV judgements are done by headcount, rather than policy. Proto::► 12:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And not only that but the renomination DRV "decided" was apt was immediately splurged with a bunch of keep votes, each one 'per prior debate' (which was a 'delete'), mostly based on 'I like it and I am sick of people nominating it', and speedily closed six hours after opening. Proto::► 12:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I know people would jump on me for this, however time is ripe that Jimbo intervened in the DRV process, and a group of users be chosen, on the basis of competency and prior work with regards to AFDs and DRVs. From what I see, the closing administrators religiously count the number of users agreeing or disagreeing and then "close" it. This is unacceptable when the same crowd that appears on AfDs joins the discussion on DRVs without having any regard to policies/guidelines/process. We are making a fookin' encyclopedia, not a list of non-notable entities or articles which have serious NPOV issues and can become potential edit-warring and fighting grounds. ::shrugs:: --Nearly Headless Nick 13:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

See JamesMLane's Futility Principle. Duja► 14:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

But, Guy, WP:IDONTLIKEIT has trumped WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEB, WP:BIO for months and months and months at DRV. You have a popular article that you know full well can be sourced. Perhaps we can focus on that instead. Besides, the deletion side is still up about 300-1 if we're keeping track. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue at DRV wasn't whether the article was sourced properly. It was that the article was deleted out of process. The closing admin enforced his views in closing with delete against consensus. Even if the consensus is wrong, it's not the job of the closing admin to judge whether or not the article is worthy in his opinion. This is why we have AfD discussions in the first place. —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, an army of d00ds does not imply consensus. There is a good reason why Wikipedia is not a democracy. Also, one of the reason why only administrators are allowed to close AfDs and not regular users (excluding singular exception). And it is the job of the administrators to weigh all the arguments and ignore those along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT for that matter. That is known as admin discretion. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You were not given the mop to lord it over the community with your opinion at AfD. Wikipedia is also not an oligarchy. —Malber (talk • contribs) 16:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of admins to uphold policy. WP:V is policy, this article violates it. It should not have been undeleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I don't see anything like this at Wikipedia:Administrators. Admins are not supposed to be Wikicops. They're Wikijanitors. It's the responsibility of editors to adhere to policy, but of course it's possible to ignore all rules. —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I quote from WP:DGFA: "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies, and where it is impossible that an article on any topic can exist without breaching these three policies, such policies must again be respected above other opinions." —bbatsell ¿? 18:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but there were several cogent examples given by editors voting keep that there were sources provided and the closing admin completely ignored the fact that there was a criteria for inclusion on the list. Certainly you can go against consensus to close an AfD but to go close to delete agains 20 keep votes is assuming a lot of bad faith. —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of assuming bad faith, it's a matter of balancing between good-faith keep votes and respecting Wikipedia's policies on verifiability (and others, but that's the primary victim in my mind). —bbatsell ¿? 21:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, Guy, someone basically took your suggestion regarding moving the article. -- tariqabjotu 14:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus should not trump policy, especially core policy. I think many of us learned that in the last little while. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

At the top of this page is says: "This is not the Wikipedia complaints department". Why is any of this being discussed here? Where is the immediate need for admin intervention? This whole discussion should be on a talk page somewhere, but not here. --JJay 02:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeated adding of inappropriate external links to the Cheshire entry and other entries relating to Cheshire

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

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

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

---

These ip addresses have all been used today to continually add an external link to the Cheshire entry which is not mentioned in the entry. It is purely a website for a local radio station (Cheshire Radio), making it inappropriate according to the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:External links. Additionally, ipaddress 80.47.85.246 blanked out a user page for one of the users who, along with myself and others, have been reverting these additions (see page history for User:Richard W.M. Jones. There have been other attempts to add this same extrenal link to other entries of towns and districts within Cheshire, but I have not given explicit information about them in this message.

I have discovered that the first and last ipaddresses belong to the ISP, Tiscali in the UK, and the second one to BT, also in the UK. The times at whch the edits were made were as follows:

80.47.85.246 Tiscali 21:38 (UK time) 86.143.95.226 BT 18:59 (UK time) 80.47.220.20 Tiscali 14:16 (UK time)

This might help trace and report the vandals. I wonder if some kind of partrial protection to the page might be a simple interim solution, whereby only registered users can edit it? I know this may be unsatisfactory in the long-term, but temporarily it might help until the vandals get fed up and go to do something else.  _DDS  talk 22:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As none of the IPs have been used in the part few hours, and the simplest explanation is that a user is changing IP addresses frequently, there is no point in blocking any of the IPs for now. This kind of activity is all too frequent, but it is just part of the background noise. All we can do is revert the questionable edits as we find them. -- Donald Albury 02:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)