Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Giovanni33 once again

Giovanni Part One

JGiovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think we have a problem here. The user was blocked by me for 48(oops) 24 hours edit warring over a sockpuppet tag on his userpage. He has many confirmed sockpuppets, such as...

• BelindaGong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Freethinker99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

...and some suspected such as...

• Professor33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NPOV77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's edit warring over his page is unacceptable. He resumed edit warring as soon as he got off the block. Look at his block log, it's very long... What should be done with him? --Lord Deskana (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you claimed that NPOV77 is a confirmed puppet of mine? Where was this confirmed? I think you will find that this is one of those in the "suspected" category. You know, no evidence, other than the "secret liguistic" evidence presented by ideological opponents who would rather I not be here to make it easier for them to bias articles with their POV. But, confirmed, No, never has been. I also note that you say 'he has many confirmed socket puppets, such as (naming two (one false), so as to suggest there are more than two--which is not true. I suggest you retract your statement, and I give you the benefit of the doubt of an honest mistake, since unlike others, I do assume good faith.Giovanni33 09:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni has two confirmed puppets, and ten suspected ones. And I hasten to add that they are not suspected simply because they have the same POV. Alienus, who sided with Giovanni, and reverted to his version, was never suspected of being connected to Giovanni. Neither were Agathoclea, Drogo Underburrow, or Robsteadman. AnnH ♫ 14:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's about community ban time. He was given the opportunity to come clean about his sockpuppets and turn over a new leaf, but chose to keep up the same old behaviour. He's obviously a smart guy, but he's a net negative at the moment. Rebecca 08:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

unjust labels of this nature, false to their core, will never stay if. I will fight it along with all unjustice with my last breath!. That's what he says regarding the tag. I think it's ban time too. --Lord Deskana (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

But, ofcourse. That is your plan and desire, is it not? If you can't kill the message you kill the messenger. Nothing surprising there. Ban me for objecting to a false label on my own page alleging untruths? But its good to see in the clear the real goal and motive. Truth and honesty is always refreshing.

You also fail to mention that your block was issued by you while you were a party to the dispute to give you an advantage in the content dispute. How is this within the "rules and guildines?"

Turning over a new leaf? Yes, I did, however others did not. That is why they pursued me to my own user page to insult me with a label that purports to make a claim that is about 8 months old!! Yet, it is only now deemed necessary to affront my user page with it? No logical answer has yet been given for this odd timing, other than the obvious reason that such a scarlet letter serves to futher insult and humiliate, to poison the well to whoever takes a look at my user page. Indeed, its precisely because I "turned a new leaf" that I am not confronted with this user page personal attack on my good name. .Giovanni33 09:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm making no further replies to you. I'll let other people judge the situation as it stands. --Lord Deskana (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to reply to me. I'm asking to you review the statements of facts you are making, which severely undermine your crediblity, which I assume is an honest mistake on your part. So, don't reply to me. Just correct your own mistakes, which I do you a favor by pointing out.Giovanni33 09:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Deskana's 24-hour block of Giovanni was most definitely not to gain advantage in a content dispute. Giovanni had reverted seven times within a 24-hour period, when Deskana got involved, and warnings had been sent to his talk page, so Deskana could easily have blocked immediately. AnnH ♫ 14:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Giovanni33 for one week...feel free to extend to indefinite.--MONGO 09:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 should be blocked until the very moment he admits his puppetry, at which point he should be welcomed back like the prodigal son, without prejudice.Timothy Usher 10:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lots of work to do in that department...Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Giovanni33--MONGO 10:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that the user identifies all sockpuppets and is at some point unblocked, are you offering to do the mentorship? Jkelly 17:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean. But it is the right course: blocking is preventive, and once the offender confesses and repents there is no further need for a block. Such is the creed of the Church of WIkipedia :-) Just zis Guy you know? 17:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't say I wish to devote the time needed to monitor this editor, not with the history of prolific sock creation to evade 3RR and to give appearance of concensus where there isn't any. Just this month, besides the Giovanni33 account, this editor has apparently used two other accounts as well, and this is well after previous blocks for similar nonsense.--MONGO 20:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I hope Essjaybot II's feelings won't be hurt, but I've undone the archiving of this section! I was getting ready to make a comment, and found it had been archived after one day. (I had previously been thinking that Werdnabot was over hasty in archiving after two days!) I've also changed the heading from "{{userlinks|Giovanni33}}" to "Giovanni33 once again", as it makes it possible to get directly to this section from the little arrow when looking at the history of the page. (Hope you don't mind, Deskana!) I think this discussion needs to stay active for the moment. AnnH ♫ 10:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have now confirmed Professor33 as a sockpuppet of Giovanni33, and NeoOne, and CleanSocks. Given the continuing sockpuppeting, I don't see any other choice except blocking. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have extended the block to one month from today due to this.--MONGO 22:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni is requesting that it be changed back to one week, on certain conditions, which, if he's sincere in this, would put an end to the sockpuppeting. See Part Three of this section. AnnH ♫ 13:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni Part Two

In case people don't know, Giovanni posted to Danny here saying he wants to prove his innocence by showing that BelindaGong is a real person (faxing marriage certificate, and IDs), so that she can edit here again. He seems not to understand that her existence does not prove his innocence. As documented in various places, he was warned repeatedly, from 16 January, that he was violating 3RR, and continued massive violations. On 23 January, he was sent a message saying that he had reached his maximum number of reverts allowed under the 3RR policy,[1] and less than half an hour later, BelindaGong, from an IP, did "rv to better version. I've been following in talk page".[2] She then registered an account, and made a total of five reverts in just over four hours, and started following him to other pages, to help with votes, and reverts, while they pretended not to know each other. Likewise, with his "friend" Freethinker99. Giovanni wants him to be allowed to edit again. His short career on Wikipedia consisted of:

1. turning up at the Christianity talk page when Giovanni was blocked for puppetry, saying he was new but had read the talk page and agreed with Giovanni,[3]
2. reverting to Giovanni's version,[4]
3. saying he had read the WP:SOCK policy,[5]
4. saying "Geez, thanks. It really makes me feel welcome as a new user." when the issue of more sockpuppetry came up at the talk page[6]
5. making more talk page posts in support of Giovanni
6. this awful signature blunder, which was followed hastily by this
7. saying that he had written the message referred to above, for Giovanni[7]
8. saying that he had allowed Giovanni to use his computer to write that message {well, which was it?) and acknowledging that he knew Giovanni[8] after it had been discovered
9. making two more reverts[9] [10] and several more talk page posts
10. being blocked

The problem with Giovanni is that he seems not to be able to acknowledge that his behaviour has been problematic. For over five months, he denied any wrongdoing with regard to the Belinda and Freethinker puppetry. He posted things about how had had violated 3RR once or twice in the very beginning, when he didn't know the policy, despite the fact that there are numerous diffs to show how he was told about the policy and continued grossly violating it. (See here.) After about five months, he finally acknowledged that getting his wife and friend to join and support himi was a "mistake". He claims that he didn't know that the Belinda meatpuppetry (if that's what it was — there's some indication that he made some of her posts using her account) was wrong, although there are diffs to show that the WP:SOCK policy (which also forbids accounts created by friends for support) was explained to him at the time. He also carried out some rather unpleasant trolling at SlimVirgin's talk page, when she temporarily left Wikipedia, and he took up residence at her page and started telling everyone that this was just emotional manipulation, and that she wouldn't admit it yet but she was going to come back, and that if it turned out he was wrong, he'd convert and be a good Christian, and then started reverting her when she removed his taunts.[11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] He was completely unable to see that it was objectionable, and started complaining about "censorship" and "abuse" and how he was going to "pursue this abuse in the appropriate manner", and even asked someone else to revert for him.[24]

Jayjg suggested here that he should be indefinitely blocked until he admits his sockpuppetry. There was considerable support for that proposal. I was hesitating over it, knowing myself to be in content dispute with Giovanni, and unsure as to whether forcing him to own up would be preventative or punitive — and then Werdnabot came along and archived it. Another sockpuppet has been found since. Is there any solution other than an indefinite block? On the one hand, Giovanni is not a vandal, and his talk page posts, though they're frequnetly objectionable with jibes about the moral and intellectual superiority of atheists over Christians, do not approach the aggressive, abusive hostility of, say, Alienus or FuelWagon. On the other hand, he frequently posts taunts at talk pages frequented by Christians, for example that Christians "don't like to talk about their origins. hehe", that when he looks at the Eucharist, he doesn't "see red blood cells. hehe", that Chrisianity is like believing that the moon is made of cheese, or referring to the Bible as "this particular book of such depraved moral instruction" etc. He has a history of reverting people who remove unwanted posts from their own talk pages. He has insisted on posting REALLY long essays (sometimes more than 3000 words) to "prove" that his POV is right, or pasting long sections of text from some website, again to prove that he's right, and sometimes cross-posting to other talk pages, despite being frequently told that the talk pages are for discussing possible improvements to articles, and not for determining which POV was the correct one. He was asked on various occasions[25] not to clutter up pages, and to link to other material instead of pasting it, but he kept on doing it, and sometimes even re-inserted it after someone else had removed it. [26] [27]. He is a notorious edit warrior, and sockpuppeteer. He has shown through numerous untrue statements that he cannot be trusted. Almost all his edits are connected with his POV on religous or political matters. His very high average of edits per page suggests that he's here for a purpose. You never see him doing chores like stub sorting, reporting vandals, copyediting uncontroversial articles. As David Gerard has said, "He's here to push a POV and will sock frantically to do it; he's not here to write an encyclopedia for anyone else."[28]

For months, we've had to deal with new users suddenly turning up to revert to Giovanni's version, and making the same spelling mistakes and showing the same mannerisms. Any tell-tale sign that he has been made aware of has been corrected. For example, after I drew attention to a post where MikaM finished a sentence and started a new one with a lower case "hehe", no puppet ever did that again. After I drew attention to the fact that BelindaGong, MikaM, Kecik, and Freethinker99 all had redlinked userpages when they turned up to support Gio, his next six (RTS, NPOV77, HK30, Mercury2001, Professor33, and NeoOne) all edited their user and talk pages as first and second edits before coming to Christianity. After I drew attention to the fact that Kecik had 27 reverts to Gio out of 29 article edits (and then 28 out of 30, 29 out of 31, etc.) and that he had never edited an article that Giovanni wasn't at, he made three very minor edits to other pages, and Professor33 took care to make a small number of edits to articles about Global warming (unconnected to Giovanni) while following Giovanni to other pages, reverting for him, and telling other editors in very Gio-like language why they were wrong and Gio was right.

If there were some way to block all his puppets as soon as they appear, I'd be happy with leaving Giovanni unblocked. He's definitely the main account, and when he's blocked the others don't show up to revert for him. But as he's completely unrepentant, what's to stop him from simply creating more? AnnH ♫ 14:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I see here that the ArbCom said "A user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." I challenge anyone to examine the contributions of Kecik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) side by side with Giovanni's and conclude that there's no connection (quite apart from the linguistic connection, and the similarity in location of IPs for logged off edits, which I have asked someone with more expertise to confirm). He has 45 article edits, of which 40 are reverts to Giovanni. The first thirty had 28 reverts to Giovanni, and two minor edits, made shortly after reverting. These edits were at Christianity and Adolf Hitler. In an edit war on something I know nothing about — whether the Nazi regime was fascist or totalitarian — he showed that it wasn't just in theological matters that he happened to agree with Giovanni.[29] (I stated that I would not take sides in that, as I had no opinion, although I was part of the opposition to Giovanni's efforts to say that Hitler was a devout Christian.) After I had pointed out repeatedly on talk pages that his edits were almost exclusively reverts to Giovanni (see also the two edit summaries, side by side, in this edit), and that he never edited anything that Giovanni didn't edit, he made his very first non-Giovanni-related edit[30] after almost four months on Wikipedia. He then made two more minor edits, unconnected to Giovanni.[31] [32] — nothing like contributing content. In the meantime, he turned up at God, supporting Giovanni in his campaign to insert a link to a "create-your-own-God-it's-fast-easy-and-fun" website, and then turned up at Hitler's Pope to revert for Giovanni, there.

He has twenty talk page edits, on pages where Giovanni was meeting opposition. They are the talk pages of Early Christianity, Christianity, Transubstantiation, and God. He always arrived at those pages only after Giovanni. He has fourteen user page edits — mostly removing puppet tags from his own page or those of Giovanni's other suspected puppets. I don't consider that that's compelling evidence of his puppetry, though, because if (and I mean IF) he were innocent, it would be a natural reaction to want to help the other "innocent victims". And he has five user talk page edits. I find it particularly significant that his seventh edit was to vote for including Giovanni's "the-transubstantiation-doctrine-evolved-from-pagan-cannibalistic-rites" POV[33] and that the sixth edit from MikaM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was a vote at the same page, even though the talk pages they started off at did not link there, they would be unlikely to stumble across that page by chance, they did not have e-mail enabled, and no message about it had been left on their talk pages. MikaM started off at Christianity, and then followed Giovanni to Transubstantiation, Early Christianity, Adolf Hitler (where, like Kecik, she didn't just share Gio's POV on religious matters, but also on the "fascist" versus "totalitarian" issue), Homosexuality and Christianity, Jesus, Pope Pius XII, and the relatively-obscure Hitler's Pope, which Giovanni had discovered. She also has the same linguistic idiosyncrasies, and seems to post from the same area.

This has been going on for months and we've been powerless to do anything about it, so I hope we can find some solution before this section of the noticeboard is archived again! AnnH ♫ 14:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest an indef block. He is not here to help write an encyclopedia based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I do not see that changing. I do not think any other sanctions will work because of his love of abusive sockpuppets. I am open to better ideas. FloNight ^talk 22:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I was going to agree with you, FloNight, but went to bed without posting. I see now that Giovanni has come as close as he can get without losing face to admitting to his puppets. See Part Three of this section. AnnH ♫ 13:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni Part Three

Jayjg's original suggestion was to block Giovanni until he came clean about his sockpuppetry. The suggestion gained considerable support, and while I was thinking of what to say, one of those bots came along and archived it. Professor33, NeoOne, and CleanSocks have been confirmed (through checkuser) as Giovanni33 sockpuppets since then. One reason for my hesitation (apart from the fact that I have been in content dispute with Giovanni since his arrival) was that while a parent or teacher would want to make someone "own up", it's not part of Wikipedian duties to assist in the moral formation of other Wikipedians! As the puppetry and denial continued, I becamse more and more convinced that Jayjg's solution was necessary, not for the purposes of character formation(!), but as the only possible way of getting the puppetry to stop.

It seems that Giovanni has now come as close as he can without losing face to admitting sockpuppetry. See this section of his talk page. I'd urge any admin who has time to read it. There's no evidence of contrition, but there is evidence of realizing that continued puppetry won't achieve anything, and it seems that he's prepared to agree to conditions that would render any future puppets powerless to simulate a false consensus or to give him extra reverts.

In my view, there are two possible approaches to take. One: he's not sorry. He's just making this implicit admission as a means of avoiding an indefinite block, and if ever he finds a means of posting (or getting a friend to post) from an IP that definitely can't be traced to him, he'll do exactly the same thing again, but just with a little extra caution. Therefore, he should be indefinitely blocked. Two: it doesn't matter to Wikipedia if he's contrite or not. He seems to have realized that his puppetry won't achieve anything and that it's only hurting him in the long run. He's prepared to agree to some rather strict conditions which would mean that he couldn't gain any advantage in a content dispute through the use of puppets, as he won't be allowed to revert or vote or give supporting arguments if even one of his (present or future) suspected puppets is on a page.

I am prepared to go along with the second approach, though I would call for an indefinite ban if his former behaviour resumes. If we can put an end to the sockpuppeting, there's no need to rub his nose in the mud. If administrators can come to some agreement about conditions, and if Giovanni agrees to them, I'd even (subject, of course, to MONGO's agreement) agree to an early unblocking as soon as he accepts the conditions, regardless of whether or not the original week (not to mention the whole month) has expired. I don't think any of his editing opponents would taunt him over his past. If that happened, I would try to put a stop to it. There would be no need to bring up his past, if he's not making snide remarks about his opponents being meatpuppets, or claiming that there's consensus when it's strongly suspected that the consensus comes at least partly from accounts that were created in order to support him.

In return for this act of good will (though it probably shouldn't be among the unblocking conditions), I would like Giovanni to agree to stop making taunts about the "bigoted, sexist, homophobic" institution that I belong to, or about how he doesn't "see any red blood cells in the wine. hehe", and also to agree that if people remove posts from their own talk page (other than legitimate warnings from administrators or in the case of something like vandalism) it is their right to do so, whether he agrees with it or not, and they should not be harassed with reverts.[34] [35]

I feel that MikaM and Kecik should be blocked indefinitely, as they are both accounts that were set up for the purpose of supporting and reverting to Giovanni, as I showed in Part Two of this section. If they are separate people (and it seems that some of their posts were made from different IPs at times when Giovanni was also editing), though the linguistic idiosyncrasies are hard to explain away, they can make that argument on their talk pages, and give some explanation for how they found the voting at the Transubstantiation page just after registering, and why they spent over four months following Giovanni to unrelated articles to revert for him. If they actually want to edit Wikipedia for the sake of Wikipedia rather than for the sake of Giovanni, they can request to be unblocked on certain conditions.

If all his puppets are blocked (for good measure, RTS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be blocked as well), and since Giovanni seems to have realized that it's not to his advantage to use them, and if he agrees to the conditions he has suggested on his talk page (perhaps refined and modified through suggestions here), which would mean he can't revert or vote or support by arguments if one of his suspected puppets is at a page, then I would even agree to the removal of the {{sockpuppeteer}} tag on his user page, as a gesture of good will, to allow him to start afresh, free from any unnecessary humiliation. It would, of course, be replaced if his puppetry resumed.

That's my proposal. Suggestions, please! AnnH ♫ 13:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

AnnH's second suggestion is fine with me. I don't mind if Giovanni33 edits, as long as he entirely stops using puppets. Since everyone knows about the puppets, and has for some time, I see no point in demanding any more explicit confession. Certainly all the puppets should be indefinitely blocked and identified on their user pages. It's pretty clear that this is his last chance. If it doesn't work out, indefinite blocking is all that's left. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I should have mentioned this in my last post, but I cannot thank Jayjg enough for unearthing this. I don't know quite what's involved in a checkuser, but I'm sure it's a fairly tedious business. I'd also like to thank Linuxbeak and Kelly Martin, who, without having seen the linguistic evidence, and probably with no prior knowledge of Giovanni's sockpuppetry, thought that the block of Professor33 was unjust, but who, rather than jumping straight in and unblocking without discussion, were prepared to ask to see the evidence. I think this case goes to prove that while another admin can undo an unblock in the case of the blocking admin having miscounted reverts (or something similar) and not being online, in the case of sockpuppet blocks, it's always good to ask for the evidence, which often cannot be made public, for fear of teaching puppeteers how to get better at it. AnnH ♫ 17:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• I am the blocking admin of Giovanni33. I recently blocked for one week and then upped it to one month after further confirmed proof emerged that Giovanni33 had just recently edited using sock accounts. I suppose Giovanni33 is not going to simply admit that he has been using sock accounts, but that is what I would like to see. I mentioned on Giovanni33's talk page that I might reduce the existing block back to one week, which should expire about 8/15, at which time I can lift the block. I'll lift the block on the 15th and I'll remove the sock template from Gio's userpage. I would like one last comment from Gio that he will behave which he can post on his usertalk. I'm then stepping aside from the issue but urge that any further incidents of disruption and creation of sock accounts by Gio result in a long term blocking.--MONGO 07:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I (non-admin, I should say) support Ann's proposal, but I think Gio really needs to agree to stop making ANY personal commentary about editors and allegations about their motives for trying to enforce policy. I have found some of his numerous claims about Ann, in particular, and her alleged motives to be really unfair and inappropriate. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to these terms... as long as Giovanni is aware that I won't tolerate further violations of policy and won't hesitate to indefblock him should he violate them. --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

AnnH asked me to comment... so I will. I think far too many words have been wasted over someone of at best marginal value to wikipedia, and probably negative value when you factor in the ttime needed to deal with G. So I would be inclined to retain the block until a promise not to use socks for any purpose is obtained; and not to respond to any more weaselly lawyering from G William M. Connolley 22:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 has now been unblocked, and the tag has been removed from his user page, as I suggested. He has agreed to follow the policies, and has agreed that if users are suspected of being his puppets, he will leave the pages where they appear, and will not support them, revert with them, or vote with them. If he invites a friend to join Wikipedia, he will state this openly. He has also apologized for the commentaries about other editors and their motives, etc. He has not yet responded to a request that he will agree not to participate in any external sites that engage in what could be considered attacking or harassment of Wikipedians, but I imagine that he will respond to that when he next logs on. (I don't accuse him of actually having done that, but point out that an account which showed a clear connection to him did take part in such activities.) I'm hopeful that there won't be any more problems. I think he understands that there are various ways in which puppets can be caught, and that further evidence of puppetry would lead to an indefinite block. Before I go on wiki-break, I want to thank everyone who has helped and supported me in this case. See you all in September. AnnH ♫ 10:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember plenty of public attacks against my character from this editor, but no apology. I'd think one is called for... FeloniousMonk 18:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User:KarlV again

Karl's mistakes

(see [36] for the history of this) KarlV has now posted this on his user talk: "Dear all, I didn't intend to engage in WP:POINT. I was just checking that the same mistake didn't appear in the English Wiki as it had in the German one. I'm sorry for breaking the 3RR rule and I undertake to edit within the policies from now on. My imperfect English led me to call what I was doing an "experiment", which some people have taken the wrong way. I won't make that mistake again, and I apologize to all concerned for the confusion I caused. Please can I be unblocked? Kind regards --KarlV"

I raised it on User talk:Pschemp and User talk:Lar (the blocking admin). I happen to think the user's statement that he won't repeat the behaviour should be taken as evidence to review this block; I think "When he apologizes for inciting people to label me and Samsara neo-nazis I might consider a shorter block, but unblocking right now is unacceptable." is over-severe of pschemp. It seemed to me that it was mainly the user's use of the word experiment that led to him being accused of breaching WP:POINT, and I certainly don't think he will repeat it. User:Lar suggested I bring it back here, which I agree with. Could we please review the current indefinite block? Thanks --Guinnog 23:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Pschemp is absolutely correct to place this condition. "Neo-nazi" is a very severe label that can cost people their jobs and livelihoods. As we have seen (in my case on two occasions), witch-hunting is still very much alive. The label should never be used carelessly in the way KarlV did - in his case implicitly (which is worse!). No go-ahead from me until that condition is satisfied. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What was the "mistake" KarlV is speaking of in the passage above? That internment camp be changed to concentration camp? El_C 23:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The only mistake he is admitting to is using the English word experiment. Hardly an apology. pschemp | talk 00:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm refering to mistake1 (aka experiment) — "was just checking that the same mistake didn't appear in the English Wiki as it had in the German one." El_C 00:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Editors were calling the camp a "concentration camp," although none of the sources were calling it that. Yes, I agree the block should be reviewed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's be very clear on this. You maintain that User:KarlV had the correct view on the issue, but he did not make any effort to improve the article that he maintained was wrong, nor did he provide any direct evidence that the definition given in that article was wrong (the definition of concentration camp which seems to be the centre of the initial controversy). But you can now read the entire discussion, revived as requested for endless hours of reading pleasure, below, so we need repeat none of it here (although, be my guest!) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Vagueness is KarlV's special skill. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did the quoted passage above come from? Can the author link a diff for it, so that we can orient oursleves time/space-wise? El_C 23:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User talk:KarlV, if you mean his apology (and that's his second). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in a clear account of the "mistake," concretely, concisely, and in English. El_C 00:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems clear and concise to me. And it is in English. I also think it's only fair to take into account that, though he ruffled feathers, he actually was right on the content dispute, has apologised for the stress he caused in the way that he did it, and has undertaken not to do it again. What more could we want? --Guinnog 00:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could enlighten the rest of us, then. El_C 00:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you read his manifesto and follow-ups on the German Wikipedia? I hope you can read German, because I can't translate it for you (he has declared he will not accept any translation made by me as valid). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Material written in German is of no use for me. El_C 00:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If you mean what KarlV regards as the mistake, I don't know. If you're asking what happened: in brief, KarlV was told that some far-right editors had managed to become admins on the English Wikipedia. Karl had had difficulty removing "concentration camp" from the German Wikipedia (with regard to a British internment camp), and he was told it'd be even harder to remove it from here because of the right-wing admins. So he came here to remove concentration camp from Bad Nenndorf, and to see whether he would prevented (none of the sources call it a concentration camp). Samsara and pschemp reverted him. He violated 3RR. Samsara blocked him for 24 hours. Then pschemp blocked him indefinitely for WP:POINT. Samsara also posts to the German Wikipedia. I don't know about pschemp. I asked pschemp to unblock because she was involved in the content dispute. For that reason, Lar took over the block. That's it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What was the reason given by him for removing it? On what basis did Samsara & pschemp revert? El_C 00:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

He argued that the sources didn't call it a concentration camp, and he was right. I don't know why Samsara and pschemp reverted him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We reverted to stop an edit war while which term was correct was being worked out. Since when is it crime to stop an edit war so discussion can happen? That is the action that got Samsara and I labeled as a right-wing admin (ie. right wing in German means neo-nazi). Once again, the content is irrelevant, its the experimenting with Wikipedia and subsequent suspicion cast on people trying to improve an article that was his violation. And once again, the original block didn't happen until after the content dispute was over and the current article with NONE of those words was agreed on. I want a personal apology for his actions as they led to two innocent admins being accused of being a right-wing neo-nazi. I can' think of anything more disruptive and harmful. pschemp | talk 00:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How can reverting someone stop an edit war? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It was he who was reverting without discussion. And he who broke 3RR without discussion. Stoping reverts between him and Burke's Peerage is sensible while working to come to a consensus. pschemp | talk 00:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So, on what (content-related?) grounds did you revert him? El_C 00:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't related to content. I don't give a crap what term is used, nor did I ever. I just wanted the constant reverting between him and Burke's to stop while the correct term was worked out. Which it was, and its now not an issue since everyone agrees on the current article. pschemp | talk 00:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you issue protection, or did you only revert to Burke's version (the original version?). El_C 00:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No one had to protect because KarlV broke 3RR. It never got to the point where protection was needed. I suppose I could have protected but instead i asked him to stop reverting. I always think of protection as the very last resort. pschemp | talk 00:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

But you still reverted to Burke's version (the original version?) ? El_C 00:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, while the discussion was going on. Since when is that a crime? The world won't stop because something is incorrect while the issue is worked on. That version didn't even last the night. This is a wiki for God's sake, things change. I ended up changing it myself later as the discussion went on. pschemp | talk 01:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a crime, I'm only trying to doublecheck the facts, still (i.e. the original version?). El_C 01:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm a bit short with you, but if you work through the edit history of the original article, its pretty clear who edited what when. I'm a bit upset with being labeled a right-winger for trying to do the correct thing, thus my patience is worn. pschemp | talk 01:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I simply do not have hours to spare to methodically research this dispute, which is why I'm trying to circumvent that lengthy process by asking questions from the pertinent parties. El_C 01:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case you may also want to note that this is the first time either Samsara or I have ever edited an article even remotely related to concentration or internment camps or anything in that genre. Not to mention we both endorsed the current article which uses totally idfferent terms. Not exactly the actions of people pushing right wing agendas. pschemp | talk 02:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Reflect a moment on why this discussion got so long. It was because people did not research their facts before they went to battle. It could happen to you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"I don't give a crap what term is used, nor did I ever" - pschemp 00:41, 11/8/06. I contend this, quotes: [37] - "As mistreatment, starvation etc. took place at this location, it very well fits the definition of concentration camp." [38] - "Should we bow to their cowardice and POV? What I'm saying here, is that we shouldn't be replicating the bias of sources." [39] - "calling it a concentration camp is exactly what that minister did." [40] - "It isn't OR to call something what it is." [41] - "The Guardian, the same source that also calls it an internment camp, calls it a "Torture camp." Why not use that, as that is what it was?" / "Therefore, let's speak what is true and call a spade a spade and use "Torture camp", as that is the essence of the project". [42] - "call it what it is" --tickle me 18:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Aww, let people move on, will you? Cheers. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's "people ... research[ing] their facts", as requested. Pschemp has been asked for answers, and telling the truth isn't supposed to hurt. Pain free, all yours: --tickle me 20:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You're going beyond the call of duty, honestly. Your distracting from the main action in this plot doesn't help anybody. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes to discussion

See [43]. I'm sorry that there is now no other place to view those changes, or to reply. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a place to view it, in that diff, for example. Reviving that entire thread (which I have already read) is too taxing for this board. El_C 00:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Samsara, you say above that you weren't aware of the previous discussion, but you commented on it on the German Wikipedia. Can you explain, or have I misunderstood something? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Erm... No? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to edit the archive. You've added: "All it would have taken for the dispute to be settled without upheaval was for KarlV to supply two reputable sources that give a definition of concentration camp that would have put that article straight. The fact that he made no such suggestion and simply relied on his claim that the article (concentration camp) was wrong shows his non-constructive attitude that is being discussed here."

Are you aware that it is you who must supply a source showing it is a concentration camp; not Karl to show that it isn't? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to his attitude on improving articles. Read again and be enlightened. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I did read it. All Karl had to do was cite the sources, which he did. They call it an internment camp. He called it an internment camp. He doesn't need to supply a definition of concentration camp. No one was calling it a concentration camp. You seem to have misunderstood our content policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand that the whole terminology issue has already been worked out. And I'm sorry but the Guardian did have the words concentration camp in it. Again, this isn't about the content, its about the disruptive manner KarlV acted in. pschemp | talk 00:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian did not say it was a concentration camp. Please show me a diff if you're saying otherwise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember the Guardian did use some sensationalistic terms ("torture camp" if not concentration camp), but that doesn't make those terms neutral phrasing suitable for the article intro. In fact IIRC when the term was added to the article on de, the article also got added to the German category meaning "internment camps". Btw, I got an email from KarlV that I'll summarize later. I let it slide because the discussion had gone off the radar and he said in his email that he'd be away for a month. Phr (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

See the quotes below for where the term was used, however this bears repeating: I didn't say here it was the correct term to use for our article. I'm just saying that no one pulled the term out of their ass. Thus subsequent insinuations that anyone who reverted to that term is a right-winger are incorrect and slanderous. pschemp | talk 01:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you have completely failed to understand what I wrote. I am not defending the wording. That was resolved long ago. The issue I am bringing up is that KarlV stated that the concentration camp article was inaccurate (by his reading, I am not an expert on the subject), yet made no attempt to fix it, which should have been any bona fide editor's first instinct. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you show where KarlV argued that the concentration camp article was inaccurate? El_C 00:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[44] - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like he is asking for a source to demonstrate that this camp was called "concentration camp." El_C 00:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't say in that link that the concentration camp article is wrong. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So what is your concern? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The concern is that I originally asked you to "show where KarlV argued that the concentration camp article was inaccurate," whereas the diff you provided does not appear to show this. El_C 01:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

pschemp:"And I'm sorry but the Guardian did have the words concentration camp in it" Technically this is true. All 3 guardian refs in the article mention the term:

Declassified Whitehall papers show that members of the Labour government of the day went to great lengths to hide the ill-treatment, in part, as one minister wrote, to conceal "the fact that we are alleged to have treated internees I the German concentration camps". [45]

There was also what the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Frank Pakenham, later to become Lord Longford, described as "the fact that we are alleged to have treated internees in a manner reminiscent of the German concentration camps" [46]

As one minister of the day wrote, as few people as possible should be aware that British authorities had treated prisoners "in a manner reminiscent of the German concentration camps". [47]

However, the Guardian never adopted the term to label the Bad Nenndorf internment camp, and if you look closely, neither did Frank Pakenham, the minister in question. --tickle me 01:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said it was an the correct term for our article. I'm just saying that no one pulled the term out of their ass. Thus subsequent insinuations that anyone who reverted to that term is a right-winger are incorrect and slanderous. pschemp | talk 01:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"I never said it was an the correct term for our article": Some quotes of yours:

Um, no government calls anything a concentration camp, even when it fits the definition. Its too much a charged word. Should we bow to their cowardice and POV? What I'm saying here, is that we shouldn't be replicating the bias of sources. That does no good for Wikipedia.

"As one minister of the day wrote, as few people as possible should be aware that British authorities had treated prisoners "in a manner reminiscent of the German concentration camps"". Now that is a direct quote from one of the sources, and although the facts are hedged upon, calling it a concentration camp is exactly what that minister did.

that's from one of the sources already listed, not anything I just made up or is unreliable. It isn't OR to call something what it is. matching something with its definition is not OR either. How does this not fit the definition of concentration camp?

--tickle me 01:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Tickle me go jump in the lake. I was referring to this discussion. As a person I am allowed to work through what is correct and change my mind. If you notice, I eventually edited the article to NOT include concentration camp. And it does fit the definition, but that's OR so we didn't use it. Give it up on the content, its already been worked out.

Samsara, I asked indeed for you to be taken to task, you didn't react then. However, you edited Archive126 now, a funny thing to do. You wrote:

""Bollocks. The creator of that passage is User:I like Burke's Peerage [48] and you would know this if you had bothered to check my contribs. I'm increasingly sceptical of your selective use of evidence and that of several other editors here."

Do I understand you correctly assuming that you want me to elaborate on this issue? --tickle me 01:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, but at this point no one cares about your still continual rants about a content issue that has already been decided. That's the wiki process. Live with it. BTW you seem to be accusing people of being right-wingers again. You might want to stop that behavior. pschemp | talk

(moved here by --tickle me 01:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)tickle me)
If by elaborate you mean that you're going to correct your previous erroneous statements, sure I'd appreciate that. If you mean that you're going to tell us further versions of events that deviate from the truth, I'm happy for you to remain silent. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly where did I deviate from the truth? When I listed Bad Nenndorf edits, showing that Burkes did the initial forgery, while you did the polishing? (0, ctrl+F for "Samsara polishes it") --tickle me 01:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

--tickle me 01:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Above you just repeated that I should be taken to task, which refers to your earlier statement, Creator of the forgery's first, yet uncut version is User:Samsara, he should be taken to task, that you have never corrected. So apparently, you stand by your statement, which I have shown to be incorrect, yet you simultaneously deny that same statement. What is one to make of you? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"correct your previous erroneous statements" / "What is one to make of you? ": What am I to make of you? I corrected that a week ago. Besides, the mistake occured because pschemp withheld information, when I asked her for the forgery's originator. She chose not to tell me and got rude. She changed her mind though, when Slim asked. As soon as pschemp did tell what she knew, I corrected my error.

You left it unmodified on ANI (now in archives), and pschemp had no obligation to do research on your behalf. You could have checked my contribs and got the answer straight away.

[X] You want to check the definition of "forgery".

Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, Slim asked you this on 06:16, 4/8/06:

"And then Samsara tidied the English, [1] adding that the newspaper had provided no evidence, which means he must have read the article. Perhaps Samsara could say which sentences of that newspaper article implied that there were other such camps. That would clear up the mystery."

She erred somewhat with the diff she provided, so she asked the right question possibly for the wrong reason. Is it that because you never answered? Would you mind clearing up the mistery now? I provide the correct diffs again, as I did earlier:

Why did you add a title to the forgery's reference, and why did you add a redeeming qualifier? Both of which you could only do for having read and understood the article Burke had distorted, making pass a neo-Nazi allegation as being a highly reputable newspaper's report. And so you said in German WP:

Ich bin dann die Quellen durchgegangen, um sicherzustellen, dass auch alle Statements durch Quellen untermauert sind

Accurate translation: I then went through the sources to make sure that all statements were supported by sources. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

(I then perused the sources to make sure that absolutely all statements are backed by sources)

--tickle me 02:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

For the semantically inclined. --tickle me 11:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You're taking statements out of context. Yes, I went through the statements in the intent of removing any that would turn out to be unsupported by the sources. You can go and read the sources yourself if you care. That's why I provided inline references. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You [Tickle me] must really like dead horses. pschemp | talk 03:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Por si las moscas: Again, I ask all repliers to cite and quote, not to interpost. --tickle me 03:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Samsara, stop interposting and don't edit what I wrote! If you want to argue about the semantics of "auch alle" you're welcome. --tickle me 05:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

from user talk:Tickle me Regarding this, please don't move people's comments. I don't know what "interposting" is, but I don't think samsara would appreciate your moving of his comments very much. Thanks.--§hanel 05:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree Shanel... moving comments is perfectly acceptable in many circumstances. I do it all the time when a new user posts a note at the top of a talk page rather than the bottom. 'Tickle me' did it here because Samsara had posted comments in the middle of his own (what he meant by 'interposting')... which left 'Tickle me's' comments above the 'interposting' apparently unsigned... or incorrectly attributed to Samsara. See here for the edit by Samsara. Given the potentially confusing nature of such a 'middle post' I don't think moving it down was unreasonable, and reverting the edit Samsara made to >Tickle me's< comments was certainly appropriate. --CBD 13:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, excuse me?

I strongly appreciate people’s attempts to improve Bad Nenndorf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but shouldn’t you be posting on Talk:Bad Nenndorf (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) for that? By the way, is there consensus on what to do with KarlV yet? If not, perhaps a quick survey of condensed opinions (i. e., without several days of threaded discussion in between) might at least provide an estimate of what remains to be dealt with, apart from issues with other editors’ behaviour and the article, of course. —xyzzy_n 01:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus was the first time that he should remain blocked. I don't see anyone new in here saying he should be unblocked. pschemp | talk 01:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"I strongly appreciate people’s attempts to improve Bad Nenndorf...": Nobody's trying - it has been done already, thanks to Karl, among others. Now it's up to evaluate Karl's behaviour's propriety when dealing with Burke, pschemp and Samsara - so their behaviour's propriety is under scrutiny too. --tickle me 03:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There you go, accusing people again. How tiresome. pschemp | talk 03:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is all rather pointless. The disputed material was part of Bad Nenndorf but it's now at the completely rewritten (by myself) article Bad Nenndorf interrogation centre, which nobody seems to be disputing now. -- ChrisO 09:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct. I dispute the propriety of Burke's forging a source and Samsara helping him - and I want them to give sensible answers eventually. I want to know if there's reason behind Karl's motives, even if the involved accuse him of sheer disruptiveness - I mustn't follow suit. He had trouble with them, and I want to know why. And I'm concerned that Burke's actions, not covered by WP:AGF, don't bother most participants. Karl is painted as paranoid. Severe enough a claim to warrant a close inspection of the circumstances, forgery warranting sanction by itself. --tickle me 10:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That's simply not true. I have on several occasions commented on Burke, and he's being watched. However, Burke has so far stuck to policy, and in that line, brought attention to important issues, even though he didn't always get his desired results. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, he forged, and he didn't succeed in the instance on debatte. Forging doesn't equate stucking to policy, afaik. You checked, read and understood the source he forged, polished it and added redeeming qualifiers. That's not commenting as I know it, much less sanctioning. It's chronologically documented in my list. --tickle me 11:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You're completely missing the message here. Nobody else cared whether the statements were supported by the sources. I cared. I made sure that there was nothing there that was not supported by the sources. I may not have paid enough attention on whether "concentration camp" or "torture camp" or "internment camp" or "military prison" or whatever else various people (you can't please everybody) wanted to be used, was the exact wording. And what you call weasel words is what I call balanced presentation. I fixed the exact problem you're complaining about. And where were you when this happened? Did you care? Evidently not. I performed a community service, and I accept no criticism for that fact. As I have stated several times, I am not intimately familiar with the subject and have entirely stopped being involved. The only matters that remain to be discussed is the block length for KarlV and the neonazi accusations he has made. Thanks for letting me know about your "list". I shall diligently review it and insert comments as necessary. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Thanks for letting me know about your 'list'": The list is on a talk page that you contributed to diligently before *and* after I added it: what smear is that? "And where were you when this happened? Did you care? Evidently not": what evidence? Have you evidence that I knew of it, then? For what you or anybody could possibly know, I cared as soon as I noticed. What utter smear.

1. Burke's claims that someting is "prooven"[sic], where the source states it's a neo-Nazi allegation, being "utter nonsense".
2. Here the sentence has been "amended" to state that a newspaper (of undisputed repute, cf. Die Zeit) claims something to be true, allegedly, however, "provid[ing] no proof to this charge". The source -surprise- still states it's "utter nonsense". You, going "through the sources to make sure than all statements were supported by sources", as you say, checked the source and added the article's title.
3. Here, you realise that "claimed" is an outright lie, and amend to "implies". However, the newspaper neither claims nor implies - it still calls it "utter nonsense" and leaves it with just that.

I'd rather not see you performing such "community service". Please explain why AGF applies. I'm still not convinced that Karl was mad. As my post might get tattered beyound legibility, I'll store it here. --tickle me 12:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather not see you performing [...] Well, then today is your lucky day, because you don't have to decide what I do. Kind regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Connel MacKenzie comments

• The misinformation put forward by User:Tickle me, User:SlimVirgin, User:KarlV and User:Guinnog is disgraceful. Your synchronized attack edits on this page make me wonder if WP:TINC should be AfD'd. You four are an embarrassment to wikis everywhere, especially Wikimedia wikis. Tickles's and Slim's campaign of misinformation is rivaled only by Nazi propagandists. If KarlV does not wish to apologize, Lar's block should never be lifted. If SlimVirgin (et al.) wish to press the issue, their impartiality (and suitability as sysops) should be seriously questioned.
• User:KarlV obviously has some serious language problems here. The German term de:Internierungslager doesn't have any currency in English when translated as internment camp; see Internment#Concentration Camp. The English term has propagandist connotations, but is so rare that native speakers invariably do not know the term. In English, the term is concentration camp, regardless of when or where, or under what regime it occurred. In context, I think the Wikipedia article now conveys less information, as a result of having the language weakened (to satisfy a certain Nazi Germany propaganda POV.)
• --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 07:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that my request for Karl's indefinite block be reviewed has now mutated into "misinformation". Rather than rehash the whole story, or get into personal conflicts, can we consider that Karl tried to improve inaccurate wording in an article, broke 3rr, got a block for it, and was then blocked indefinitely for WP:POINT because he described his action as an "experiment". As he has now apologised and stated he won't repeat the action he was blocked for, can his indef block be reviewed? That's all.

Connel, your German may well be better than mine but I very strongly disagree with your translation above. I also dislike being characterised as "an embarrassment to Wikipedia". Please refrain from personal attacks and let's concentrate on reviewing Karl's block. Thanks. --Guinnog 09:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And in his "apology" he hasn't admitted that what he did was wrong, only that that it upset people. He isn't repentent at all about the aspersions he cast on the editors here. pschemp | talk 12:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Connel, great to see you back, unfished for as ever, really fine. Less smear and less pathetic, monolingual OR, and you make my day. --tickle me 10:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should reflect on the occasions that you have described other editors as uncivil. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If I understand your sarcasm correctly Tickle, I suggest you stop making personal attacks at every opportunity. Since your points don't stand on their own merit, I suppose you won't, though. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 16:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you don't call other's, including me, "fished-for support" - and may be Samsara and pschemp should reflect on calling me dude, pschemp asking me to "go jump in the lake", Samsara vandalising my edits or commenting on them by "bollocks", all of you being admins, here or elsewhere. Connel: would you mind not to smear, alleging that I make personal attacks at every opportunity? Else you might want to present diffs and have me banned for good. Or is it just your -undoubted- magnanimity that spares me from doom? --tickle me 09:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the problem is here. Bollocks are wonderful. :) But seriously, calling somebody's comments bullshit is not a personal attack. Please keep your definitions straight. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Making it simple

The above is an absolutely indecipherable mess. Can't anyone in this imbroglio give a straight answer? However, if I read between the lines and assume the worst then it seems like what we have here is a user who violated 3RR to make a WP:POINT about perceived enWP POV bias, and then accused the people who had edit warred/blocked him of being 'right wing' and/or 'nazis'. Anything else? Because if not... that's not grounds for an indefinite block. Short block for edit warring - yes. Short block for incivility / personal attack - yes. Indefinite block? No. Not unless there is alot more to it. Connel MacKenzie just above stated that users weakened the article "to satisfy a certain Nazi Germnay propaganda POV" and compared various users to "Nazi propagandists". Is that grounds for an indefinite block? Or just really ironic (this 'nazi comparison' is just fine... but that other one demands an indef block)? We block users indefinitely when it is clear that they will never be positive contributors. Can anyone make that claim here? Are there other 'bad acts' which haven't been mentioned? If there aren't then I see no basis for this block to be indefinite. --CBD 14:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There might be a continental component related to this. Labeling someone as a Neo-Nazi is percieved much stronger in Europe than in the US, and in Europe, can be the end of your career. As such, it should be treated as legal treats, the accusations oversighted, and the accuser indef blocked. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So... you are saying that Connel MacKenzie should be indefinitely blocked? --CBD 17:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If he accused an editor of being a Neo-nazi without providing evidence, yes. And the accusation should be oversighted immediatly. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Then let me be perfectly clear: the action of rewording "concentration camp" as "internment camp" in my eyes is viewed as a propagandist action meant to weaken the severity of the atrocity. The term torture camp (note: currently a red-link) is as rare in American English as is internment camp; both seem to have astonishingly narrow usage, while concentration camp is the only colloquially understood term. On that basis, I could suggest "neo-nazi" ties for KarlV and his supporters, but I don't think that I have. Instead, I used strong language regarding the action that was taken. Ironically, KarlV has made those insinuations (from my reading of the translation link below.) --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 19:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A few things. One is that Wikipedia is not limited to American English, it should be general. Second is that I have no opinion about you, but about blocking editors who make Neo-Nazi accusations, and I would have to see any towards you for that matter before I would suggest that you should be blocked. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Since the article is about a German town, the terminology should be appropriate. I am no historian, but afaik, in mainstream German historiography, the term ‘concentration camp’ (in either language) is used primarily for certain detention facilities in Nazi Germany. The use of the term for any other purpose is editorialising at best, and therefore very questionable outside of quotations and quite inappropriate if not adequately supported by sources (which was the case). This is independent of the severity of the atrocities perpetrated by British troops in the Bad Nenndorf facility. How advocating a change from ‘concentration camp’ to an historically more proper term, and, moreover, one supported by sources, could suggest neo-Nazi ties is very unclear to me. —xyzzy_n 20:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Connel, I don't think 'internment camp' is all that rare in American English. For instance, anyone who knows much about our WWII era treatment of Japanese Americans is certainly familiar with the term. As to suggestions of 'neo-Nazi' ties... any such which KarlV engaged in were, if anything, far more oblique than your statements at the top of the preceding section. He was apparently condemned for, 'being interpreted to imply that he might have been mistaken in his earlier belief that there were no 'right wing' biases in English Wikipedia'. You said that 'Tickle me' and 'SlimVirgin' were "rivaled only by Nazi propagandists" in their 'misinformation campaign' and that the article was weakened "to satisfy a certain Nazi Germany propaganda POV"... which assuredly must imply that someone, presumably those you are disputing, holds such a Nazi POV. Mind you, I don't think this kind of incivility and personal attack is grounds for an indefinite block, though I strongly discourage it, but the marked difference in response to the two situations seems probative to me. --CBD 21:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The notion that these rare terms are not rare is demonstrably false. 82 vs. 7310 vs. 61,200. (Or 45,600 vs. 538,000 vs. 5,040,000!) --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 00:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet the term "concentration camp" appears to be nonexistent in reliable English sources when used to label the particular camp in question. It's simple, use the terms the sources explicitly use, that's policy here. HGB 00:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are you changing the topic? CBD said my statements were oblique...well, perhaps they were. The specific statement I was refuting was CBD saying "I don't think 'internment camp' is all that rare in American English." His conclusion is obviously wrong. Note also, that the searches listed above do also include some European texts; in American English the difference seems more pronounced. In this discussion, I'd like to emphasize the irony that CBD pointed out elsewhere; that all parties involved seem to be trying to achieve the same NPOV wording. But the European terminology (or at the very least, the German terminology) seems to be at odds with a NPOV American wording of the same concepts. I don't think entry itself has been edited recently; that ship has already sailed. Thanks for the clarification on Wikipedia policy. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 01:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth, Concentration Camp in english is in the scholary literature used as an umbrella term for various types of camps, including death camps, internment camps, labour camps, etc. In Dutch and German, it is uniquely limited to Nazi Death camps. with thanks to my historian neighbour -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Back to reviewing the block

• An indefinite block for this incident seems overly harsh to me. If you really feel strongly that this block should be indefinite, take it to ArbCom. Nandesuka 11:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The blocking admin is User:Lar, and the block currently is indefinite. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite a few people thought the original block was appropriate. I see no evidence that any of them have changed their minds. I might agree to less than indefinite should a real apology be made wherein KarlV admits that what he did was wrong and that his implying that everyone who edited that article was a neo-nazi was wrong, but until then, sorry, no. pschemp | talk 12:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. IF he should apologise in a way that admits fault, culpability and contrition, I'd have reason to believe that we won't be seeing further trouble from him, and would support a reduction. I see no sign of that though. It's also worthy of note that KarlV has placed block review requests on his page more than once, and had them declined more than once as well. However, you will have to look in the history for that, as SlimVirgin, standing on process, has removed all evidence of prior requests by silently reverting attempts to bring them back (the attempts had explanations of why the prior requests are relevant in this case, and she characterised that as reverting without discussion, while denying that her reversion is a reversion without discussion). Since she's trying to make a case that there is no consensus for an indef block, removing evidence that uninvolved admins have reviewed and declined seems to be giving the appearance of hiding things a bit. Some summary of prior requests seems relevant regardless of the wording of the template. and ought to be present on the page for the benefit of uninvolved admins. She has also reverted my attempts to refactor the discussion I had with her to keep it all in one place for convenience. ++Lar: t/c 13:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about, trying to hide things? Lar, I have nothing to do with this block or content dispute. I'm completely uninvolved (and even if I were involved, the allegation that I'm trying to "hide" things by reverting an attempt to repost the entire discussion would be inappropriate). My only interest is that KarlV's behavior does not warrant an indefblock, and several other admins and editors agree. Therefore, it will be reduced. The remaining question is simply how long it should last. Please join in that discussion. And here is the previous discussion. All anyone had to do was link to it, not repost the entire thing, or try to alter the archive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Neo-nazi accusations should be treated as very serious, can end careers, and as such, indef blocked and libellous contributions oversighted. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I took the time to review the edit histories since the explanations above were largely worthless. One thing I didn't find... any instance whatsoever of KarlV accusing anyone of being a Neo-nazi. The only thing even remotely related was that he recounted someone else claiming that there were 'right wing' users influencing English Wikipedia, but that he didn't believe it... which he said on another site... in German. Does someone have a diff for this supposed Neo-Nazi accusation? Because if not I'm gonna be a little annoyed. --CBD 18:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're going to have to read quite carefully. KarlV does not make direct accusations. He insinuates things about alternatively one, two or an indeterminate number of admins, whom he refuses to name. He also simultaneously denies having implied anything. Several people were drawn to chiming in with similar opinions in the archived ANI discussion. Also see translation below. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

CBD, Tickle me has also insinuated this. I've repeatedly used the words "implying" and "insinuating" as that is what was done by both. There is a cultural aspect to this too that English speakers and non-Europeans will likely not understand. Kim has explained it well above. Also note that right-wing = neo-nazi in German. Over and over on this thread and the last thread and the talk page of the article I've been hammered with "Why did you revert to the concentration camp wording?" "Why did Samsara paste in the concentration camp wording", "Why did Burke's Peerage use that word"? with the implication that we did that to support a right wing agenda. I can't speak for Burke, but I was stopping an edit war, and Samsara was merging two articles, trying to help out. These explanations have been ignored and the questions asked multiple times. It is so disheartening that so little good faith was assumed on our part that these questions keep being asked. pschemp | talk 20:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Samsara, I've read your translation twice, and it seems to be a good and a fair one; I suspect your German is better than mine though. I've also read the page history. It seems that you were reverting to "concentration camp"(here, for example), and arguing for that wording on the talk page? Now, to me, the argument about whether that word appears in the reference given is somewhat moot. As you know, "concentration camp" is a loaded term in English. While it may have originally referred to camps to keep people together in detention, to most people now the main association is with the death and labour camps of the Third Reich.

We quite properly don't use the term in our article on Guantanamo Bay detainment camp or on Maze (HM Prison), for example, because it would be considered POV there, even though, by the original definition that would arguably be a very good description of these facilities, and even though you could easily find significant minority views who would like the articles to use the term. So, to describe a British facility for holding and interrogating former Nazis after the war had ended as a "concentration camp", could be seen as defending a POV that some Neo-Nazis would hold. I'm not questioning your good faith in reverting the edit for a moment, although as I argue above I think it was wrong, nor am I for a millisecond imputing the sort of motives to you that you seem to think Karl has.

Both of you, I've looked and haven't seen anywhere that Kurt actually said you were neo-Nazis. He was guilty of not assuming good faith if he assumed that was why you were reverting to a term he (correctly in my view) believed to be more accurate. If you can find where he said you were Neo-Nazis, please post a reference to that. Excuse me if you already have and I've missed it; there's a lot to read and although I read this business up in detail a few days ago, I've only really skimmed the new commentary. I assure you I would think differently of the matter if I thought he had said that.

If, on the other hand, it is a matter of what you thought he implied you meant kind of thing, I wouldn't carry on with the bad feelings you seem to have about this editor, but move on, forgive the guy, accept what I see as a reasonable apology for using the term "experiment" to describe his edits in en: (edits I might have made myself if I had seen the term "concentration camp" used to describe a post-war UK facility)... as I said before, what else can he really be expected to apologise for?

Please, can't we shake hands all round and get on with improving more articles? The Dachau article needed some TLC the last time I looked. Move on? --Guinnog 21:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Guinnog. This seems overdone to me. Pschemp, when El C and others "asked multiple times" about reverts and 'concentration camp' I don't think they at all intended an "implication that we did that to support a right wing agenda". I thought they were just trying to understand what had gone on. If a block was placed by someone who was involved in an edit war with the blockee that's relevant to evaluating the block (yes, I know Lar 'took over' the block to address that issue). Et cetera. Since a good portion of the reasons for blocking here apparently took place on the German Wikipedia people didn't really know what was going on and were looking for info. Personally it seems clear to me that everyone involved is 'anti Nazi' and the accusations/implications to the contrary on both sides seem bizarre. --CBD 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What's bizzare is that the block hasn't been in my name for days and I'm still getting grilled. If the reason for grilling was determining if I was involved, that reason has been long gone. pschemp | talk 21:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your casual use of "Et cetera" is not helping matters. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

CBD, where in his apology does it show that he admits that his experimentation was wrong? Give me a decent apology and I'll drop it. Right now its an apology that says, "I'm sorry you guys are upset about my actions", and I'm sorry I used the English word experiment and that's it. pschemp | talk 21:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And with that... you have completely lost me. My "casual use of 'Et cetera'"?!? Irk? I'd apologize for "not helping matters", but I honestly cannot begin to imagine what you are talking about. It is bad that I said 'Et cetera' rather than listing each and every one of the questions El C and others asked and what their reasons for doing so might have been other than 'implying you were a nazi'? --CBD 22:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

CBD, my patience for vagueness, refusal to name people and, yes, et ceteras has been entirely used up. Either say what you mean or keep your peace. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You won't find the term neo-nazi, its not used in this context. Karl's "apology" has admitted to no wrong doing. His actions caused subsequent editors to assume bad faith and grill me about my actions. If a real apology appears I will move on. Lar (who's name the block is in) also has said this. I think offering to move on with a proper apology is entirely reasonable. Why don't you write to KarlV and ask him to make a few concessions too? pschemp | talk 21:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. —xyzzy_n 22:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Curt, what are we to get from this link? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This. —xyzzy_n 22:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

yes I worded that badly. What I'm trying to say is that no one used that exact word, it was implied. Doesn't matter though, its a decent apology that is the issue here. My English isn't perfect either. ;) pschemp | talk 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog, you should understand that I have no misgivings about the current wording. However, as virtual handshakes are concerned, I offered this to KarlV on 2 August in addition to having emailed him about a day earlier (iirc, I obviously don't have a copy of the email) to try and resolve the conflict off-wiki, which I would have preferred. However, as you can see in the translated document (or the original), he told me on 4 August that the analysis was being worked on, i.e. he was going to continue his witch-hunt on admins that most people now seem to agree are not politically biased. I fail to see where he's really improved beyond "I'll pretend to apologise if that gets me what I want". Lar has written some cogent commentary on this.

I also have no interest in editing Dachau. This was never my field and never will be. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp, I didn't see where he called you "right-wing extremist" either. I don't think he did, though I stand to be corrected. If you think he may have thought you were a right-wing extremist, you may be right; I have no way of knowing, but I tried to show above why he conceivably might wrongly have thought so. However, what you think he thought isn't justification for an indefinite block in my view, or for any block at all unless he actually said it.

Samsara, I am happy to email him. What do you want me to say? If you feel because of something he has said that there has been a witch hunt, or if you feel he has breached WP:NPA, WP:AGF, or whatever, show me where and I will happily challenge him on it and ask him to apologise and guarantee not to repeat the behaviour, if I agree with you he has behaved improperly. If you offered him this earlier, I don't think you should have a problem with my repeating it on your behalf.

Failing that, as I say, I think we should all forgive each other for the undoubted stress that has been caused, celebrate the undoubted improvement of the article, and move on. Really. --Guinnog 22:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A decent apology and I'll move on. Simple. pschemp | talk 22:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What would you regard as decent, what would you say he has done that he needs to apologise for, beyond 3rr and calling what he was doing in editing the article an experiment, both of which he has apologised for? I'm not being Socratic here, I'm asking you to say exactly (with diffs) what he has done wrong, and I'll see if I can ask him to apologise. --Guinnog 22:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It was an experiment. There can be no doubt about this. I am very concerned by the fact that you do not seem to understand this. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

See that's the issue Gunniog. KarlV apologized for calling it an experiment, not for actually doing it! pschemp | talk 22:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow this thing really escalated way beyond what is necessary. I was minorly involved on the page and happened to agree with KarlIV's argument, that we should use whatever term that English sources explicitly used. It seems that was his only gripe. All the content matters have since been worked out and I see ChrisO did a fine job expanding. There's obviously some language barrier issues here and it would be best to AGF and not project so much onto people's intentions over words (i.e., "experiment", "right wing") that easily get lost in translation. I don't see anything warranting an indefinite block for KarlIV. He violated 3RR once, and I wouldn't even go so far as to say he violated WP:Point, but even if he did, it still doesn't merit an indefinite block. That's far too extreme a measure. Give the guy a break and move on. HGB 00:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. KarlV isn't a disruptive user. This was an isolated incident for which he has apologized twice (even if the apology is not worded exactly the way his opponents would like). Those in favor of shortening the block, from this and the previous discussion, are HGB, Nandesuka, Jayjg, InShanee, FeloniousMonk, ChrisO, tickle me, El C, Phr, Ken Arromdee, Guinnog, jossi, and SlimVirgin; and possibly also JoshuaZ, fuddlemark, and xyzzy. It's therefore clear it should be shortened; the question is only to what. Last time, one month was mentioned and seemed to be favored. KarlV has e-mailed me to say he's away until the end of August so it's a moot point until then. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it exceedingly interesting how you arrive at a "consensus" (or whatever this is supposed to be) by counting up the voices in favour of your side of the argument. Number 1, consensus is not a vote; number 2, you've neglected to mention the large number of editors who remain in favour of the block. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, you keep asking for good faith to be shown toward you, but you show nothing but bad faith toward others. For there to be consensus that someone should be indefblocked, there should generally only be a very small number opposed, but in this case, most of those who have commented are opposed, which is why I posted the names. Please post who is in favor of the indef block. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Here, you go; I'll do it for you. In favor of an indefblock: Samsara, pschemp, Lar, NoSeptember, Chairboy, AdamBishop, Celestianpower, Phil Boswell, Connel MacKenzie, and I like Burke's Peerage. That gives us 10 wanting an indefblock, and 13 against, plus possibly another three against who left ambiguous comments. Therefore, there is no consensus for an indefblock. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Samsara, I'm sorry you're concerned. Please believe that I'm only trying to avoid what seems like an unjust block for a user who seems to have helped improve the project, who acknowledges he made mistakes in his methods, has apologised and agreed not to repeat the behaviour that led to a block; my impression on the last discussion was that the block was given for breach of WP:POINT in calling what he was doing (which seemed to me like a good-faith addition to the encyclopedia) an "experiment". I don't see that, other than his breach of 3rr and the above, he has really done anything to apologise for. If you are able to clearly express where else he has broken policy or behaved badly, you should say so and give specific examples. Otherwise I am inclined to think you are just, perhaps understandably, annoyed with this user for what you think they thought of you. Do you know what I mean? Suspected breach of WP:AGF isn't enough for a permanent block. If it were, I'm sure I probably wouldn't be talking to you now. Please think about it. --Guinnog 00:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is what you aren't getting. He violated WP:POINT. He was blocked for that, not for what he called it. His actions are what resulted in the block, not his words. He has not apologized for his actions, only his words. Why don't you understand that? pschemp | talk 00:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

We need to get this in perspective. We're currently discussing elsewhere whether a user should be indefblocked for operating three sockpuppets, one of them an admin while the other two went either for bureaucrat or adminship, the latter trying four times. Plus voting more than once in polls etc. That's disruption, and yet people are still undecided whether an indefblock is appropriate. KarlV's behavior doesn't approach that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you haven't been reading then because I've said multiple times now that I would consider a shorter block if a real apology appears. No one is arguing for the indef to stay if KarlV shows some real contrition. Gunniog and HGB seem to have missed this point too. pschemp | talk 00:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's encouraging. Exactly what would you accept as a real apology? Beyond what he's already apologised for? As before, please accept that I'm not being rhetorical here. Please point to actual things he has done and I guarantee to ask him to apologise, if I agree he has breached policy. --Guinnog 01:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to be careful with the "if I agree he breached policy." Consensus was pretty clear on the other thread that he did violate point. I'd hate to see that kind of community discussion ignored. pschemp | talk 01:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

He needs to admit that his method for undertaking to ferret out right-wing bias was wrong. Instead of editing disruptively, he should have brought it up here if he thought it was an issue, not provoked an edit war. And he needs to admit that he violated POINT by disrupting rather than discussing. This whole thing could have been avoided had he discussed his concerns, rather than experimenting to prove his point. The only thing he has apologised for right now is using the English word experiment, a ploy of semantics. He said he was sorry we were upset, but not that he was sorry he used the wrong method. Plenty of people agree with the fact that he used the wrong method, go read the other thread if you don't believe me. pschemp | talk 01:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote from Lar above since you seem to have missed it, "IF he should apologise in a way that admits fault, culpability and contrition, I'd have reason to believe that we won't be seeing further trouble from him, and would support a reduction" Same thing. pschemp | talk 01:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Translation of the German talk

Since nothing else seems to give, I've now provided a translation of the parts of de:Diskussion:Bad Nenndorf that pertain to the events here discussed. I'm afraid the translation is non-negotiable. If you find bits that haven't been translated (except the trailing speech by tickle me, which I haven't any time for right now as he's been disrupting me all day), let me know. Please note that this translation is officially "not ratified" by KarlV. German speakers may wish to convince themselves that the translation is accurate by viewing the translation and original side-by-side. I'm afraid the translation will not be updated with additional comments made at de:Diskussion:Bad Nenndorf, so if they continue to discuss mostly in German, you'll have to all learn that language. Sorry! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional facts about KarlV

Just so it's all out on the table now, here a few more facts about KarlV:

• he has edit-warred on at least one previous occasion [49]
• he has not replied to an email message that I sent to him from the German Wikipedia several weeks ago in which I sought a private mediation of the conflict, nor commented on the failure of this avenue when I brought it up in discussion (see the translation)

Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

An edit war from January 2006? And he hasn't responded to an e-mail from you? How could this possibly be relevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How could your comment possibly be useful? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's useful so you can explain why you would bring this up; I certainly can't see the relevance, but perhaps you have some explanation. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in the habit of arguing with people whose minds are made up, as your phrasing "how could this possibly" would suggest. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

While im undecided about the legitimacy of the block (leaning towards it being appropriate) this is completely usless and should probably be stricken. An edit war from over 6 months ago and a lack of response to a private, off-wiki communication is completely unrelated to the inquiry and just serves to clutter. -M^ask 22:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It was requested by CDB in the first paragraph of the #Making it simple section above. As I recall, there were other similar requests elsewhere above (if they haven't been archived or edited away,) yesterday. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 00:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

In favor of and against indefblock

I'm posting on top here because people are missing the point. Again. Should a proper apology happen, I don't think anyone would support an indef block. Why not get a proper apology and then we can have 100% consensus and no admin would have to overturn another's block and we could all be happy. Wouldn't that be nice? pschemp | talk 14:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

In case it gets lost in the above:

• Posted in favor of indefblock: Samsara, pschemp, Lar, NoSeptember, Chairboy, AdamBishop, Celestianpower, Phil Boswell, Connel MacKenzie, and I like Burke's Peerage.
  • Slim you forgot JoanneB. Her support is on the karl's talk page. (since we suddenly seem to be "vote" counting.)pschemp | talk 03:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You missed Redvers too: [50] who denied an unblock request. I'd say that is significant, but since you reverted my restoring the request (with a description of why it is significant), I guess maybe you don't think it is? It needs to be tracked somewhere. I wonder if there are others that also have been removed? I'll have to comb the history I guess since they're not currently tracked ++Lar: t/c 13:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

For indef block, until an acceptable promise of not repeating/making similar incidents is received. Within the last week I've seen two other editors who were making mixed edits (by which I mean a good correction at the same time as a deliberate errror) and/or superficial edits to articles to either entrap, provoke or obtain an "in-line" reaction from other editors, the policy WP:POINT unfortunately does not explicitly cover agent provocateurs or breaching experimenters but I feel point makers following these tactics are covered by the spirit of the policy. I have little sympathy for experienced editors who engage in such tactics. --Alf ^melmac 08:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Posted against: HGB, Nandesuka, Jayjg, InShanee, FeloniousMonk, ChrisO, tickle me, El C, Phr, Ken Arromdee, Guinnog, jossi, CBDunkerson, and SlimVirgin; possibly also JoshuaZ and fuddlemark. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Against indef block. Excessive. Tyrenius 13:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't several others post in favor of the indef block in the original discussion? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 02:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that I can see. Name any more that you think did. But even if there are more, what Nandesuka says is correct: for a community ban to hold, the opposition needs to be minimal. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you need glasses then? These names I see in support of the block, there, not mentioned in your list above.

1. User:Jkelly: "...they're not at en: to help work on the encyclopedia, so they don't need to edit here."
2. User:Joshbuddy: "A block sounds appropriate for the situation described..."
3. User:InShaneee: "If he does unblock, I'd be more than happy to reinstate it...and obviously is only here to stir up trouble."
4. User:Kylu: "This user had the intent to disrupt English Wikipedia...the fact that the user is an admin on a different Wikipedia actually should make the charge even more grave." also "I support leaving the block as-is. No change."
5. User:KimvdLinde: "I agree, after reading everything, that the block is valid and should remain."

But then, I scanned the archive quickly...there may be even more in support, such as Xyzzy, JoanneB, Redvers etc. All in addition to your initial list of ten. Ignoring the previous discussion, even after being reminded (it wasn't that long ago) seems duplicitous, to say the least.

--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 19:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Community bans — which is effectively what any non-arbcom sponsored indefinite block is — are generally accepted when there is little to no public opposition to them. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Nandesuka 02:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, could you please remove me from that list for now? I’d like to hear from KarlV before being against the current block. —xyzzy_n 02:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)\

Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of this section? Again, since no one seems to remember, if karlV apologizes for his actions properly I said I'd support a shorter block, and so did Lar, the current blocking admin. That's the real debate here. So lovely its being ignored. In fact I can pretty much say that should a proper apology happen, I don't think anyone would support an indef block. Why not get a proper apology and then we can have 100% consensus and no admin would have to overturn another's block and we could all be happy. Wouldn't that be nice? (for once.) pschemp | talk 03:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The point of the section is that Samsara accused me of discussing only those who supported shortening the block; for that reason, I've listed both here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

pschemp is, as usual, spot on. If we get a proper apology with the features I outlined, I'm all over supporting a shorter block. But we're not getting that. Instead of taking us all through the wringer, why not get KarlV to do that? it would be a lot less time consuming, presumably, if he's reasonable and contrite. ++Lar: t/c 04:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Draft of an acceptable apology

Since this seems to be what people are calling for, here goes (pschemp, Lar, anyone else that would like to see an apology, feel free to edit this; people who don't need any apology, do not edit this!):

• Apologise for having conducted an experiment designed to identify extreme right wing editors and admins on the English Wikipedia, and for inciting "analysis" of the results on the German Wikipedia, as well as posting an invitation for editors on the English Wikipedia to join the "analysis" on the German Wikipedia
• Apologise for thus damaging the relationship of mutual trust between the German and English Wikipedias

I say we wait 24 hours to give everyone a chance to include their gripes here before taking this forward. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

KarlV emailed me on August 7 saying he'd be travelling all month and would not be able to read emails or discussions on en:WP on a daily basis. I wrote him back about 2 days ago and haven't gotten a reply yet. He sent a detailed apology explaining some of his actions; he does sound contrite though I'd say what he sent didn't have all the elements that Samsara has asked for. He also expressed a belief that de:Benutzer:Rufezeichen (now blocked as an "obvious sockpuppet" but it doesn't say of who), User:I like Burke's Peerage, and de:Benutzer:ProIsrael are the same person, as well as de:Benutzer:Der_Claqueur (blocked for vandalism) who I think hasn't come into this discussion. I've had similar suspicions and a sock check may be in order if it's not too late. I'm especially displeased with User:I like Burke's Peerage misquoting the Die Zeit story. Finally, he sent me a pdf flyer about the Bad Nenndorf protest march from http://www.widerstandnord.com (Northern Resistance, a German right-wing group) dated 29 July 2006, which I notice has been removed from Widerstandnord's web site but is still in the Google cache [51]. It has a picture of a flyer advertising the march, which I might upload for use in ChrisO's article. Phr (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well a private apology to you is great, but ultimately not very useful for this public discussion. Why don't you email him again with this? And please, this isn't about content anymore, you can go edit all you want. This is about a decent, public apology, so try to keep on topic. Continuing to assume bad faith about people'

s edits is a bit like the witch-hunt that supposedly isn't happening. pschemp | talk 13:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The email I sent KarlV a couple days ago asked whether I could post his letter. If he says ok, then I'll post it. I don't think it was intended as private but I'll wait to hear from him. It's possible he sent something similar to SlimVirgin. I haven't so far been masochistic enough to read through every addition to this thread that's piled up. FWIW, I'm satisfied with what KarlV has sent and posted, and I don't agree with Samsara's analysis of the trust between en and de being damaged. I can read enough German to see that de's situation isn't that much different from ours, so I can't hold that against them. If anyone is damaging the trust, it's those such as Samsara who seem to wish that this matter hadn't come to the attention of en users If anything is damaging the trust, it's the creation of all this unnecessary drama by those seeking retribution against KarlV, and their making demands that aren't clearly grounded in objective reality. KarlV's error should have been addressed through a message on his talk page. As for remedies from KarlV, I'll settle for an ordinary acknowledgement of error from him and a promise not to do it again, and I think we've received that already. Abjectness and grovelling is not required. (Revision per Samsara's request [52], 16:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC))]. Phr (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we have recieved that. He's never admitted publically that his actions were wrong, only that he used the word "experiment" and that he was sorry people were unhappy with his actions. Show me where he says his actions were wrong please. pschemp | talk 17:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain it again. There was nothing that needed attention in the first place. There was one disputed wording and there may have been a reference from Die Zeit that was used to support a statement it did not in fact support. What KarlV did was completely out of proportion. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a reference from Die Zeit, added by Burke's, that was used to support a statement it did label as "utter nonsense", unambiguously. You edited the ref 10 times later on, adding a redeeming caveat. For that you have been criticised, and you reacted, so you should be able to remember that. You are involved, as was pschemp. You might want to leave it to others to judge Karl's action's propriety. --tickle me 16:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this. I know you're not going to revise your version of reality, nor is there any need for me to revise mine. Peace be unto you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I made a revision per your request, though you seem to have withdrawn it before I got to it. Phr (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It was superceded by the reminder of the facts above. [53] Your revision is much appreciated. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no retribution here. I stand fully behind Lar, who believes that the KarlV will continue to be disruptive unless he admits to his faults, which he hasn't yet done. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not. Requiring an apology, or as in this case a third specifically worded apology, is not remotely acceptable. Blocks are preventative... not punitive. You can't force someone to symbolically lick your boots in order to be unblocked. Some of the things you are demanding he apologize for (e.g. 'damaging the trust between de and en users) are things he denies doing. To date the 'disruptive' behaviour this user has engaged in on EnWp was a 3RR violation... grounds for a 24 hour block. The fact that his motivation for making the correction he did was to check whether there were 'right wing' editors coordinating activities between en and de is, frankly, irrelevant. WP:POINT is a guideline (like the 'do not edit archives' guideline that is being dismissed so casually) stating that disruptions of Wikipedia to prove a point are still disruptions and handled accordingly. The 'disruption' here was a single 3RR violation. Grounds for a 24 hour block... not indefinite. Finally, we are also told that indef is neccessary because, while it may seem a small thing here, the implication that people opposing him were 'right wing' is a deadly insult in Europe that can cost people their jobs... yet his statements which some have interpreted to contain that implication were made on the Deutsch Wikipedia, where the full negativity of them (whatever that might be) should have been apparent to everyone, and yet he was not blocked there. If his behaviour on de Wiki was unacceptable they should deal with it there. --CBD 17:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

For those not following the thread closely: we're not dictating an apology, but Guinnog has offered to mediate and has requested that we let him know what would constitute the kind of message from KarlV that would calm the waves. The suggestion drawn up above was purely in response to Guinnog's question. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:POV is not penalised anywhere. Not even in loony left Europe you'll lose your job for some anonymous wikipedian's soupçon regarding some other, unnamed, anonymous wikipedians: it's not the PRC. This fishing-for-arguments is compelling ludicrous and telling. The waves that supposedly need calming were stirred up by Samsara and pschemp, the admins that opposed Karl's edits tenaciously. Pschemp had him blocked indef - both fought for it tenaciously when it became disputed. The tide is shifting slightly, so boot-licking is it now. Fishing for common sense: --tickle me 20:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. The people who stirred up the waves were SlimVirgin and yourself, if I must say so. Let me remind me of the passage that for unknown reasons, you love citing so much yourself. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Which proves exactly what? That I don't fancy forged sources, much less polishing them, as you chose to do? --tickle me 22:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you imply too much. The word "paranoia", which you are the first to use (see below), is ironically appropriate here. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As for Karl's disruptive paranoia: on July 29th neo-Nazis held a rally in Bad Nenndorf, exploiting the issues brought up by the Guardian. Beginning July 19th these issues are added to both the German and the English WP's Bad Nenndorf entries ([54], [55]). In both cases the label "internment camp" was changed to "concentration camp", which didn't stand eventually as unsupported by the sources, though it was defended by edit war. The German language source's Die Zeit wording was only "distorted" in the English WP. If Karl was mistaken suspecting a cabal, and he could be wrong, it was IMO a honest mistake that should not be held against him. --tickle me 22:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

His experiment was the wrong avenue to take. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Tickle me, that's really quite the reaching you're doing, I must say. I see some beleagured admins here, who came in and tried to help defuse a situation and defend the encyclopedia, who are now beset on several sides by people such as yourself who seem intent, at least in appearance, on smearing them with false labels and assuming bad faith about their actions. I'm not sure I appreciate or approve of your characterisations. ++Lar: t/c 00:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you don't appreciate what you call my characterisations, but it's comforting to see that you do approve of those these admins give of themselves. "tried to help defuse": Samsara polished 10x, where he should've rectified a forgery once. Pschemp reverted Karl and others feverishly, where she should not. Arguably, thus they "defended the encyclopedia" as they understood it - so did Karl by opposing. I agree about the fuse, but the de part puzzles me. Please reason, as I'd like to understand Karl and his partners in trusting interaction. "smearing them with false labels": if you don't fancy smear - may I suggest you don't? I'd be happy though, if you provided evidence as to where my linked chronology above and the list here induces malevolently to unwarranted assumptions. Too little detail? Too much? "beleagured admins": I so wished that you'd show the same heartfelt empathy for one lowly user. --tickle me 02:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

CBD: I think we may have a miscommunication here. The desire for an apology worded a specific way is not punitive. It is to have a reasonable assurance that the behaviour we have seen (disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point) isn't going to be repeated... nothing more. The points in the desired apology (or statement, or assurance, call it what you like) are there to ensure that's the case. As far as I am aware, while it may be true that WP:POINT is a guideline, it's one that you can nevertheless be blocked over for violating (because your violation is also including something else wrong)... ++Lar: t/c 00:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to mediate, but I am frustrated by how long it is taking those who feel aggrieved by what Karl did to describe what he actually did wrong (with diffs, and in reference to policy), and to state precisely what form his hypothetical new apology should take. As I said all along, I'll only pass the message to him if I feel there is actually a case to answer. Failing that in, say, the next 24 hours, we should just lift the block. --Guinnog 08:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog, you're making it hard for me to assume good faith. You yourself said that KarlV was away for a month. Why this hurry suddenly? I don't feel you are occupying the mediating position you claim for yourself, instead pushing one particular POV of the situation. All the evidence is out there. If you haven't read it (as your request for diffs seems to imply), you should not be involving yourself in this way. I spent several hours on providing a full translation of the Bad Nenndorf talk (sporadically interrupted by tickle me's campaigning). You're exhausting my willingness to consider your cause. We've stated precisely the form of the apology, as you requested. It has its own heading above, you could not have missed it. Pschemp, Lar, myself and others have shown willingness to reconsider if remorse is shown. The consensus remains for maintaining the block.

Finally, your mediating should not be conditional on whether you agree with the evidence. There is a distinct difference between a judge and a mediator. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop claiming there is consensus for an indefblock. There is not. HGB, Nandesuka, Jayjg, InShanee, FeloniousMonk, ChrisO, tickle me, El C, Phr, Ken Arromdee, Guinnog, jossi, CBDunkerson, Tyrenius, and SlimVirgin have all said they are against it. JoshuaZ and fuddlemark have indicated they are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Lar, yes I agree that people can be blocked for WP:POINT violations because it implicitly requires doing "something else wrong". In this case, KarlV committed 3RR. For which he was blocked for 24 hours. The fact that he believed he had a good reason for doing so / was trying to prove a point about bias doesn't get him off the hook... he violated 3RR and he had to face the music. But how then do we get to 'indefinite block'? It is infinitely worse behaviour because he did it for what he thought was a good reason rather than just to be argumentative? Irk? As to the 'apology'... if all you are looking for is an assurance that he will not do so again; that's more commonly called a 'promise' and one can be found on his talk page currently. An 'apology' is something else, and yes... requiring one definitely seems punitive rather than preventative. --CBD 16:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Samsara, I'm sorry you are finding it hard to assume good faith. Of course I saw the draft at the top of the section, and I apologise for not making it clear I had read it. It was not I, by the way, who said Karl was away for a month; I think he is definitely still checking his email occasionally. I'm sorry too that you think I have a particular POV on the matter. My only POV here is that I do not think that KarlV's actions deserve an indefinite block. My offer to mediate has always been framed in such terms, I think. In asking for diffs to show where he has broken policy, I wasn't implying that I hadn't read the history of the situation, as you suggest. I have. I was more trying to focus your idea that he maligned you onto a specific incident. Saying "All the evidence is out there" does not progress the issue, as I see it. If you can even find me one diff where he called you a bad name or questioned your good faith, for example, I will gladly call him on it and ask him to apologise for it. Failing that, I do not intend (for example) to chide him for "inciting analysis of the results on the German Wikipedia", as this in itself would not be a breach of any policy, guideline or common-sense principle, in my opinion. I really am sorry that you are finding it hard to accept that unless KarlV can be shown to have done something wrong beyond that which he has already apologised for, there is no good argument for expecting him to show "remorse".

If the evidence really is out there, it would be helpful if you could choose, say, the 3 most egregious examples, post diffs along with the rule each one breaks; I absolutely guarantee then to convey our demand for an apology to KarlV. If, on the other hand, you are unable or unwilling to do this, I suggest you write the matter off and move on from the matter. Either way, please accept that my intentions in the matter are good and that my only reason for getting involved at all in this is that I thought leaving him indef blocked seemed unduly harsh for what I had seen evidence of him actually doing. --Guinnog 19:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the problem we have: you don't think he broke WP:POINT, and no diff I or anybody else could provide will change your mind on this. I'm also concerned that you seem to think that the consensus is for removing the block. This is not the case. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about me. Once again, I'm sorry you are finding difficulty in assuming good faith. However, I think the onus is on you to provide evidence of wrongdoing, as I've requested several times now. Otherwise I think the block should be lifted. I have never claimed there is a consensus for lifting the block; I do think though that in justice the block should be lifted or drastically shortened unless there is a consensus to keep it as indefinite, in the absence of new, specific evidence that he has done something in breach of policy. --Guinnog 07:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should simply agree then that you are against the block and that no attempt at mediation will be made by you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanking talk after indefinite block (Ste4k)

I'm not sure if this is a deal or not: User:Ste4k was indefinitely blocked for, among other things, trying to get her talk history deleted [56]. Since the block, she has twice blanked her talk page, leaving an "archive" link which redirects to her RfC [57] [58]. I've reverted once explaining that's not a proper way to archive a talk page, but I don't want to get into an edit war. Should it be reverted again? Protected? thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanking still leaves it in the page history, where any editor can see it or restore it if needed. I would be in favor of letting her do this, because there is nothing to be gained by antagonizing an already-banned user, and if she is no longer editing articles, she will no longer need it to communicate with other editors. If she comes back with sockpuppets, and we need to have the talk page restored for comparison or enforcement purposes, we can do it at that time. Just my opinion of course. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That was my thought, too. Just wanted 2nd opinion(s). Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. I really dislike the 'make it policy that users cannot blank warning messages / their talk page' suggestion. Whatever problems might theoretically arise out of users 'hiding' information seem vastly outweighed by the problems caused by harrassing them over this issue. It just isn't important enough to justify implementation of a Wikipedia 'scarlet letter' policy. --CBD 13:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with archiving messages after a decent interval. We have an ongoing problem with users removing warnings very soon after they are issued and not archiving them, but we should not be encouraging a situation where an admin asked to follow up a report of a disruptive or vandalising user has to check the talk history to find out if a warning was issued or not. A week later? Sure, archive it, the storm is probably past. But removing warnings and criticism, and leaving only the shiny, nice comments, presents a false picture. Just zis Guy you know? 13:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh oh. She's now made a change that I think might be problematic: [59]. Seems to be holding a grudge... Again, perhaps best just left alone, but thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll deal with it. I have had a reasonably civil relationship with Ste4k. I still think that with a bit of patience we could turn that one around. Just zis Guy you know? 14:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If an editor is indefinitely blocked, we are generally still willing to afford them the m:Right to vanish—they can blank their talk and user pages, and not come back. What we won't do is let them leave behind a list of attacks on other editors (admins or not). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what Ste4k has done with their talk page: it is now a list of attacks on other editors. I think something should be done about this. Can the page be archived and Ste4k be blocked from editing their talk page?

I am all for forgiveness and giving people a second or third chance but it is not going to happen with this user, IMO. Giving Ste4k editing privileges would be like allowing an incurable pyromaniac access to society.—Who123 12:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like nothing's changed. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-12 10:04Z

I don't understand what this edit of hers was supposed to mean: [60]. Is this some kind of personal attack? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Action

I have a belief in the innate goodness of people. Unfortunately, we all have an element of attack and destruction in our mind. Some, such as User:Ste4k, have it to an extreme and actually seem to enjoy attack. I think the entire page User talk:Ste4k is an attack. I do not understand why it has not been blanked. I also do not understand why User:Ste4k has been allowed to blank their previous talk page rather than archiving it. The longer that this is allowed to continue, the better User:Ste4k can hide their earlier talk page.

I request that an administrator that is able to do so take these three actions:

1) Restore the history to the page.

2) Archive the earlier talk page before it was blanked and removed from the history.

3) Archive the current page.

—Who123 23:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for ending this. I have one last request (hopefully). The template that says: "This user, Ste4k, has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of an administrator named Rebecca, without much explanation at all except for "per ANI".", was, I believe, a variation of the normal template by Ste4k to attack Rebecca.

Please replace it with the standard template.

—Who123 10:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like TenOfAllTrades has made that change. I archived the recent, unhelpful discussion, and protected the page. -Will Beback 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User:El_C Vandalism by Administrator(Removing Warnings)

Wikipedia:Removing_warnings: "Removing warnings for vandalism from one's talk page is also considered vandalism...Editors may be subject to a minor block for archiving prematurely so as to hide warnings." He didn't archive, he outright deleted the warning. Per Wikipedia:Removing_warnings he needed to use the proper method of {warning-for-removal} if he felt a template was being used incorrectly.

Furthermore WP:VAND states: Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism.

Tag Added: 22:59, 10 August 2006 Diff: [[61]]

Elapsed time: 17 minutes

Tag Removed: 23:16, 10 August 2006 Diff: [[62]]

Sarastro777 22:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

First, may I say, please don't troll. El_C is a responsible admin and there is no evidence of vandalism, therefore your misusing the warning templates. 216.78.95.229 23:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting coming from someone with only three contributions. Obviously you are either from another IP or a user who does not want to post these messages under their name. Paul Cyr 02:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no unqualified right to hand out warnings at will. Many people consider removing warnings inappropriate, but not in all circumstances. AFAICT, this was an ongoing dispute about the contents of your userpage, and there was existing discussion about it here on AN/I (which seems now to have disappeared?) in which several administrators were already involved. Given these circumstances, the appropriate course of action would have been to engage in the discussion here, or initiate the dispute resolution process, not issuing a warning. Labelling someone a vandal is not helpful, and will likely antagonise anyone who would otherwise be sympathetic towards you. --bainer (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the archived AN/I entry is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive125#Personal Attack by User:Sarastro777. -Will Beback 02:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Attempting to dig up dirt on me (not the subject of complaint) is not going to distract from the fact an Administrator bypassed all procedure and deleted a warning tag, completely against the rules (above). This Admin was blanking my userpage and I was not informed of this incident board until later by an entirely different user. Again, if Admin disagrees he is vandalizing then there is a procedure to remove the tag which does not involve deleting it himself 17 minutes later. Don't attack me because HE broke the rule which is very explicit above. Sarastro777 04:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not an isolated incident. El-C have done this to me as well (removal of my attempts to resolve disputes with her). She has hard time dealing with critism in a comunicative way. She either drop the whole subject of try to remove her opponent - this at least have been my expiriance. It seems she thinks that Wikipedia is a zerosum game. Zeq 09:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

How about you guys give us the full context before just piling on? --mboverload@ 09:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to me, the policies don't give any "context" where it says they don't have to be followed (?) Not sure what you are looking for here. Sarastro777 15:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, All Wikipedia policies are applied according to context. Slac speak up! 19:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The 'context' is that Sarastro777 is irate that his 'manifesto' was removed from his userpage, and is now working at a block for disruption and trolling. --InShaneee 19:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This guy is a master of double standards. In that 'manifesto' he blatantly implies that I am an Israeli government agent, but doesn't say it outright, obviously in a weak effort to avoid being blocked for personal attacks. Schrodingers Mongoose 02:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Lets not forget Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive127#User:Sarastro777's user page and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive54#Sarastro777. This user has a history here. -- Avi 01:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Azskeptic (talk · contribs)

Azskeptic has threatened another user on this site using personal information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ParalelUni#Blocked

"Spike, stop it. Your identity is known and if you keep making threats a mental health evaluation will be asked for in your county court to see if help can be given to you. Sorry to the administrators to witness such a meltdown in public from a SC medical school student. Azskeptic 22:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)"

I ask that this statement be removed and this user be banned. He knows this user from another site and this is def. cyber-stalking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.65 (talk • contribs) .

This drops, and Azskeptic is forgiven.

After advice from other admins, Azskeptic has already removed that threat, and rightly so, making threats such as this sets a poor example for other users. However I will not take any further action; Azskeptic was not acting out of malice, but (over)reacting to the most despicable trolling that I have ever encountered. Any rational user would forgive Azskeptic for this transgression. --bainer (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not actually a threat you know. He's jocular, although angry, and saying that the fellow needed psychiatric help. That's help, not incarceration. It's still inappropriate, and it's well removed, but let's take it easy with this "everything is a threat" bit. Geogre 02:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Jocularity about this sort of thing is not something we should appreciate. Any comment about taking matters off-wiki into users' real life has to be treated seriously in my opinion. Metamagician3000 07:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

(Not an admin) Having responded to the issue, when it was posted at WP:PAIN, I can verify that Azskeptic retracted the offending statement [63]. It wasn't the best idea, but I'd heavily encourage anyone to take a closer look at the intense trolling surrounding that whole incident, before reaching any final decision. Luna Santin 07:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Spike has been banned, and quite properly so. This person has shown a sick mentality, and I understand the extreme provocation; I just don't think we should ever be too quick to dismiss statements of intention to interfere with someone's personal life as being mere jokes. There have been too many cases where it has actually happened. In the circumstances, I'm not saying any action should be taken against Azskeptic, who obviously realised quite quickly that s/he'd done the wrong thing - just making a general observation to my wise colleagues. Metamagician3000 07:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the actions of Spike I see no excuse for this behaviour. There is never an excuse for threatening someone off wikipedia regardless of what they've done. You stop talking and report it on the proper pages if you can't remain civil and within the policies. I don't know the history but the IP has indicated this has happened before, and I don't see any blocks on this person. That is something that seems highly inappropriate about this situation.--Crossmr 23:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggest that the related thread on WP:PAIN should also be closed. Newyorkbrad 23:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Why should it be closed? Crossmr brings up some excellent points. Regardless of the situation, what this user did was not something that can be swept under the proverbial rug. Doing nothing sends the message that this kind of behavior on Wikipedia is okay in certain situations. Is this the message that wikipedia wants people to get about how to interact here? MiloMein 03:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Children

I noticed more and more "children" wikipedians on here, which is probably not a bad thing. However, these young wikipedians are not editing productively and falsely assume wikipedia to be myspace or simply their own blog. (some went as far as discussing sexual activities on wikipedia, see previous AN/I post) I think a policy is needed to raise the age limit on this site (or at least banned the self-proclaimed kid user who use wikipedia for the wrong cause). Please give me some feedbacks thanks. User:Abdullah Geelah User:Kitia User:Aint User:S-man User:Cute 1 4 u (her "friend list" on her userpage prove my point that these users consider wikipedia to be a social networking site, which is wrong and disturbing).--Bonafide.hustla 05:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I hear we have a 14 year old bureaucrat - I hate to be a party pooper :). Cowman109^Talk 05:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

While age is the unifying connection here, the main issue is that they are violating precepts of WP:NOT, which I have warned the last user of doing. It's not bad that these users are under the age of 18; it's bad that they are making chatroom subpages and similar myspace/social networking things. Ryūlóng 05:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, this is the anarchist in me talking, but I'd say that seems like a really bad idea. First off, how would we even enforce such a policy? Second, banning all people below a certain age is unfair. Yeah, sure, some might not be able to edit productively, but there are some who are and we of all people shouldn't make a blanket ban on all people under the age of X. If it really comes down to not allowing people to edit, do so on a case by case basis. Unless you can show that they are causing serious harm to the project, I don't see why we should really do this. And before blocking people for things like this, why not try and explain to them the importance the situation. Make sure they understand that this is not just the place for social networking and that they should be making some type of contributions. I'm sure there's something they can do that's productive. Reverting obvious vandalism isn't too hard. If someone can figure out how to look in the history and how to edit a page, they can do that. Just about everyone has something to offer. Just try and find what it is. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 05:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, but if someone is putting a friend list on their userpage and over 90% of their edits are on some else's talkpage, they are using their accounts for the wrong reason. Next thing you know, they probably start net-dating or spreading pornographic contents/sexually suggestive languages to minors. We can just tell them nicely to take the social-networking stuff to myspace or you'll be blocked.--Bonafide.hustla 05:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I would not go for an age limit on Wikipedia, since that is going to be hard to prove. However, the conduct of the said-users should be looked at, and if they try to turn WP into myspace or something along those lines, we can either turn the direction to help them edit WP, or we can persue other methods to stop the behavior. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Young_administrator_candidates gives some insight as well. Oh, and anyway, this topic is innapropriate for ANI as it doesn't require immediate administrator intervention. It may be better off in the village pump proposals area. Cowman109^Talk 05:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing's wrong with Children chatting with their peers on Wikipedia, just as there's nothing's wrong when adults do, nonetheless, this purely social interaction needs to be proportional to the amount of productive work being done. They also need to be protected from predators and trolls (who might pretend to be children). In short, some (more, as I keep saying) supervision and oversight is needed. But so long as we're straight-forward about these principles (and dangers) with them, I think it's well worth every extra effort. El_C 05:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've kept an eye on these ones, and I think they're contributing enough. When their behaviour turns less than productive (i.e. User:Shakim67 who I'd lump in the same age range), we'll just have to deal with things on a case by case basis. Would be good if we had someone nice (for want of a better word) who they'd be less intimidated by when we need to intervene -- Samir धर्म 07:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

How about her? I think she qualifies as nice. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 22:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't their, age, it's our attitude towards them. If you tell them it's not allowed, and they persist, block them. There's no excuse for proceeding after a valid warning. --mboverload@ 09:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Stopping people under a certain age from editing seems to me to be going against our principal of anyone being able to edit. I agree with Mboverload, we shouldn't treat them differently, they are users like anyone else, some will edit well, some will edit badly. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Stoping our "children" editors would probably have a dramatic effect on Wikipedia. I'm willing to bet there are a lot of children administrators (under a legal age) right now and blocking all editors whom are children would certainly put them in jeopardy for a block. There would no way to tell who's behind the screen of a computer, no age-o-meter, to tell how old someone is. They could easily lie about and get away with it, thus a policy couldn't do much about it. Plus, I read somewhere that most of the newcomers on Wikipedia and frequent editors are around the age of 13-15 years old , so blocking them wouldn't help the project. Plus, I think "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" didn't mean "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit as long as you over the age of [insert number here]". If someone treats the site like myspace rather than an encyclopedia, warn them on thier talk page about it, and don't make threats of a block in the process. :) 216.78.95.172 13:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the above... my summation of the consensus here that I see: age is irrelevant, it's behaviour and maturity that matter, and agree that no age limit is needed, but rather, explanation as needed, perhaps a bit more patiently than normal, followed by warnings, and (reluctantly, and only if needed) blocks. Agree? As for who...Phaedriel certainly has the touch, but I don't think I want to see everyone dump all the mentoring and counseling of children on her, how would she get anything else done? Perhaps she could teach more of us how to be kinder though? ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with (216.78.____). As long as they are productive, there is no issue. For every child WikiMyspacer there are probably at least twenty WikiNerds who contribute to the 'pedia in a constructive mannerBakaman _Bakatalk 00:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should really take a strong stand against Wiki-myspacer. Make a new rule and enforce it on them.--Bonafide.hustla 00:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I mean no offense by this but why don't we start with your user page. From your user name and page, I was convinced that you were a Wiki-myspacer, until I saw the JD userbox. Is it necessary to list chickz that you think are hot, or advertise your varied sex life? -- Samir धर्म 00:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of admins do that too, just to give other wikipedians a glimpse of their lifestyle and belief. I don't see anything wrong with my userpage. And of course, I'm not a wiki-myspacer, I got a myspace account to take care of that (even though I hardly ever use it). A look at my contributions show I never use wikipedia as myspace or self-promotion of any kind. Again, I am only bringing up a recent emerging issue on wikipedia, treating me with hostility or questioning my own conduct has nothing to do with the issue.--Bonafide.hustla 02:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. I think you'd be hard pressed to find an administrator with chicks he finds hot on his user page (I believe you had the pictures up until recently also). Compare User:Abdullah Geelah's user page (who you complain about above) to yours. I don't think you're in any position to complain about the behaviour of others. If you really don't want this to be Myspace, I'd suggest starting by fixing your own user page before complaining about other users -- Samir धर्म 03:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If Wikipedia made any attempt to collect minors' ages, that would create responsibilities under COPPA that we probably don't want to deal with. The board and lawyers would have to be involved, and enrollment procedures would probably have to change quite a bit in a not-nice way. Phr (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

People can be quirky at any age. It's easiest to notice on their userpages when they're young and want to customize them like MySpace, but I don't think that these users can account for any significant share of problems on the encyclopedia itself. Ashibaka tock 04:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Just come up with a template that explains "Wikipedia is not Myspace" to be used as necessary. I don't see this as an age issue. Most of the serious problems on Wikipedia do not come from teenagers. --John Nagle 16:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

About my userpage, it's off-topic, if you have any constructive criticism about my conduct, plesae take it to my talkpage. I may have used to wrong word, I don't have anything against children wikipedians, but we really have to make a definite rules/policy to users who use wikipedia strictly to meet others people with similar interest instead of doing something productive to the site. ie, wiki-myspacing. It doesn't matter if they're children, teenagers, or adults.--Bonafide.hustla 03:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User:MSTCrow: time for a community ban

I think the time for a community ban has come. MSTCrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been up for discussion here before, though I can't find the threads. Full disclosure: he doesn't care for me... but that's not it. The history of his talkpage is a history of ranting and lawyering, and a lot of warnings and stuff. But the present state of his talkpage is the meat of the matter, and the reason I suggest banning at this specific time is that he now declares that he's not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. See his lists of "What I Do on Wikipedia", for example "Support users abused or harassed by abusive administrators", and "What I Don't Do on Wikipedia", for example "Edit articles". Anybody got any patience left? Bishonen | talk 14:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC).

• I'm amazed at the patience shown so far; MSTCrow seems the classic case of "I'm right and everyone else is wrong." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If User:MSTCrow is not here to help write the encyclopedia but cause disruption, then the answer seems easy. Indef block until the user convinces Arb com or Jimbo that they can add something beneficial to Wikipedia without disruption. FloNight ^talk 15:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree, really. I agree that he has exhausted patience, and if folks wanted to do up to a month on a block, I could understand, but I really want his actions to trigger ArbCom investigation rather than to do a very long block simply on his being useless and aggravating. Geogre 15:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Arbcom first, then we'll go from there. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 16:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Unsure. Clearly the events of August 2 including his week-long block were deeply scarring for MSTCrow, who indeed did edit articles before then. His talk-page, uh, manifesto makes me very angry, but I'm prepared to wait, as Geogre suggests, for actions. I think. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• MSTCrow's manifesto is worrying, but it may simply represent blowing off of steam after his block. As others have noted, he was editing right up until his most recent blocks. I certainly would support putting him on a very short leash – the next block should be a month if he goes back to the same bad behaviour or follows through on his manifesto – but I'm not entirely comfortable with blocking indef over what might be a mild and well-contained temper tantrum. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense as long as someone is keeping an eye on MSTCrow besides the editors and admins that he is likely to annoy and disturb. No reason that they should be burdened with being a his target and a watchdog too. FloNight ^talk 04:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Having reviewed this person's talk page I question what they are doing here and what we are doing letting them stay here. Metamagician3000 05:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades and Bunch, I wouldn't call it a well-contained tantrum, as the reason I blocked the user on August 2 was bad behavior. I'm a notoriously brief blocker and I gave him a week, so obviously I don't think the previous behavior was mild. But it doesn't matter: this discussion shows that there's not consensus for a ban, which is all I wanted to know. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC).

He has recently started offering mediation to articles that have requested it of the Mediation Cabal. This being subsequent to his being booted from the cabal. I consider this disruptive.--Rosicrucian 02:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is disruptive in so far as he has offered it to groups that specifically requested the Cabal, and in the case I looked at, he made no attempt to disclose that he was no longer in the Cabal. This is worrisome but I am not convinced anything he has done yet merits a permanent ban. JoshuaZ 03:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is not hard to say that he is anti-admin, and skirting dangerously close to WP:Point on various occasions. Bottom line, what does he contribute?--Rosicrucian 03:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Parc wiki researcher

So what's up with Parc wiki researcher (talk · contribs)? Looks like a role account. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

From my experiences with the guy, it seems Parc wiki researcher is just one researcher who's decided to do this by himself. There is, as of yet, no evidence to prove that it's either an "official" account on behalf of Parc (and they'd know better to do so without contacting wikimedia anyway, generally they're very bright people), or that there are multiple people acting on the account. Best solution would be to AGF and simply ask the user, pointing out the policy regarding role accounts just to make sure. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It sure looks like a beard for the loose conglomeration of complainers who could never agree with each other on anything except that Wikipedia sux0r because it won't let them do whatever they want. Geogre 04:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

When this guy first showed up I did confirm that it was someone who at least had a PARC email account. I do think this person is who they say they are; whether we should allow this on-wiki is something else, of course. --Cyde Weys 03:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ulritz (talk · contribs)

This has apparently been taken to mediation. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

User recently created an article, it is redundant and incorrect not to mention biased. I added a deletion request template, while Ulritz refuses normal discussion on talkpages. Instead, he removed it 3 times.

• I
• II
• III

I warned him multiple times that I would inform admins, as can be seen on his talk page and the edit summaries on "Franconian languages". Rex 16:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Im too tired to repel RG's string of misrepresented attacks. Let the edits, talk pages and good judgement decide. Cheers. Ulritz 16:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Rex, the template you used is inappropriate, since there clearly is a dispute about the merits of deletion (please read Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion). Please take note that one page redirects to the other (i.e. the two pages you're complaining are duplicated are the same page), and refrain from personal attacks on fellow editors. Thanks for your help. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Do please read WP:PROD as Samsara suggests. PROD is for articles that are uncontroversial, uncontested deletions, and anyone, including an article author, can contest the deletion simply by removing the template, which is what Ulritz did—and once removed it should not be put back. Even if the article were deleted under PROD, it could be undeleted on anyone's request. So your assertiveness about his removal of the template is simply wrong, and Ulritz is doing precisely what the policy was made for. It looks like, if you want this article deleted, you will have to take it to AfD. · rodii · 04:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks, insinuations and taunting.

User Ulritz has in the past days done nothing but harm wikipedia articles, mainly on the field of linguistics especially the ones I regulary work on or articles in which he thinks I take interest. Because of some personal grudge he does not allow me to revert his edits and instead offends me and engages in edit warring. This is a short list of what he has done.

Attempts to irritate me:

• User:Ulritz watched my contributions and decided to make a comment, most likely trying to irritate me.

• User:Ulritz while making a comment on one of my messages on a talk page (in which I said I am not "happy" with him turning an article into a redirect) he feels the need to add a ps. Saying the redirect works beautifully

• User:Ulritz watched my contributions and decided to make a comment, most likely trying to irritate me.

Denial of Nazi War crimes:

Perhaps the most offensive thing he has done lately: denieing German war crimes.

Full Personal and Semi Personal attacks:

• 14:32, 12 August 2006: "please consider people who actually seek unbiased information"

• 14:11, 12 August 2006: While asking another wikipedian for a comment he calls my edits nationalism

• 13:57, 12 August 2006: "rv nationalist-driven OR"

• 13:55, 12 August 2006 "after your rabid splitting, nationalist-driven spree"

• 13:54, 12 August 2006: "rv misleading nationalism"

• 13:52, 12 August 2006 : rv nationalist dribbel

• 13:33, 12 August 2006: "no place for nationalism in Wikipedia at the cost of knowledge"

• 13:22, 12 August 2006: "rv germanophobic edit"

• (23:11, 12 August 2006) "troll"
• (23:10, 12 August 2006) "vandal"
• "troll" ( after warning from sysops)

NOTE:Full Personal and Semi Personal attacks has already been dealt with by the guys at wikipedia No Personal attacks. The taunting is "fresh" as is the denial of German warcrimes.

Can something please be done about this?! Rex 12:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs for the war crimes denial claim? Thank you. Also, why did you repeat the complaint about personal attacks here if it is already being dealt with, as you say? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had a brief look at your contribs and his, and it seems that in your edit summaries, you are doing your bit of taunting, too. You should also be unsurprised to be met with skepticism given your username (which translates as "German King"). Please take a look at WP:COOL and try to cool down the conflict. Thank you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see those diffs in which I taunt please admin, nevertheless thanks for acknowledging user Ulritz is doing it.

Also, your translation of my name came close, but actually means Germanic King and points at my linguistic interests ... Germanic languages. Of course in Latin, Germanus can be interpreted several ways, but I myself would use Teutonus when meaning German King.

Evidence for denial of German war crimes, as asked for by Samsara,

• User removed mentioning of war crimes because he feels they do not match crimes committed in Ostland. To me this is like a historian saying well we know there were many nazi war crimes but none of them compare to the holocaust so we're not mentioning them.

• User claims Nazi occupation of the Netherlands was one of the most lenient, I do believe the talk page proves otherwise.

• User removes mentioning of war crimes because he feels it is POV, which it is not anyone can see that.

Rex 16:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither of you have given any sources for your statements. Can you please do so, otherwise the article may have to go on AfD for lack of a better alternative. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by sources? Do you require sources of these war crimes or something else?

Rex 17:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Some people advocate deleting everything that is not referenced. Your version of the disputed section implies that the Dutch "hate" Germans. That's a fairly strong, blanket statement, and I'm doubtful that a reliable source can be found for it. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No I do not claim that, I claim the word "mof" embodies hate for Germans due to German war crimes against the Dutch people. A source for this all is "Vreemde buren (which has a German version as well) starting at page 28 (entitled "Anti-Duitse instelling") I assume this counts as a source.

Rex 18:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Will something be done about this revisionism? Rex 22:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You've already opened a mediation case on it. How much more attention do you need? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully not more than it takes to stop the madness.

Rex 23:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope you do realise that people's time is limited. I can only repeat my advice to calm down. The sun hasn't turned supernova yet. If you really think the guy's after you, then you're definitely not helping things by responding to him. I've explained to you about sources, and you've shown you understand how to use them. You'll find out that people will respect you if you make a well-researched, well-balanced contribution. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No offence, but what are you talking about? This is not about people not respecting me (they do), nor is it about sources. I don't want this users respect, I want him to leave me alone and stop harrasing me so I can get on with improving wikipedia. For some reason after numerous personal attacks, insults, revisionism and proof he is fixed on annoying me, of which I provided diffs, he apparently still hasn't gone far enough to allow you (admins) to stop him. I hope the mediation will result in something, so I hope Ulritz accepts ... that way I can try to resolve this matter: myself. Rex 23:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

New (semi) personal attacks and edit warring

• 12:09, 14 August 2006 "rv obnoxious behaviour"

• 12:02, 14 August 2006 "rv crude editor, please accustom yourself with Google Books and any academic book on the subject"

But more importantly, user continues in not providing references, sensible edit summaries, and not participating in talk page discussion in a constructive matter. What can I do? I cannot work this way. I cannot continue in providing sources, starting discussion and taking all these insults, it gets me nothing. Sources get ignored or "overruled" by some theory or reference to wikipedia policy which doesn't exist. Discussions are simply (I'm talking about the one in which he responds of course) messages in which I (again) provide sources and explain why he is wrong, these then get answered either by insults or a simple message that basically says; "despite all your sources, and eventhough I have none of my own I am still right". I cannot go on like this. So far he has 3 admin warnings, and it simply doesn't help.

Before Samsara mentions the mediation I'd like to point to this post by Ulritz: [64] in which he says he'll never talk to me again. Which is why I posted another message on this page. Rex 11:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I look into the edit history, and I see that your taunts and insults are as bad as his. Other people on talk pages have asked for both of you to stop. Would you support action being taken against both of you? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Article tagged

I have placed this article on my watchlist, and tagged it as {{unsourced}} and included {{cite}} tags following any statement that I believe requires a reliable source. Since these editors cannot work together to improve the article, I will step in and remove anything that's not up to Wiki standards until they (or someone else) can. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Admin abuse by Kilo-Lima on Pedro Carmona

An admin shouldn't edit an article and then protect it as this editor has done here at Pedro Carmona. If he wants to remove the NPOV tag he shouldn't protect the article and vice versa especially as there is no copnsent for his POV and he is actring as both editor and admin, SqueakBox 19:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The protection is there to avoid you adding in your original research and "false facts" for the good of the article. Iolakana|^T 20:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no NPOV dispute. SqueakBox still has presented no reliable source references to back up his POV, and he deleted well-referenced text several times while inserting original research. The NPOV tag was gratuitous, as he never presented a source to substantiate what he calls POV. Sandy 20:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. SqueakBox is wasting everybody's time by getting us to run a mock everywhere looking for sources that show Pedro Carmona was president—when he was, and SqueakBox just can't handle that phrase. Iolakana|^T 20:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if my opinion counts, there was a POV dispute indeed JRSP 20:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Which continues. Just look at the talk page. What is distressing is that these Carmona supporters are manipulating wikipedia to impose their false view of history, ignoring the abundance of sources that Carmona was not President but a criminal usurper, and many people are disputing this not just me. Thje only pointy opf relevance here is whether Kiln has abused his admin powers by both editing and locking the article. If he has wikipedia is thje only loser, SqueakBox 20:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please provide one of those "abundance of sources"? Unless you have a source (and we must aggressively enforce sources of criticism on BLPs), your insertions were original research, and additionally violated WP:BLP. Both you and JRSP state that there was an NPOV dispute, but you have yet to present a single source backing up your POV. Sandy 22:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop attacking me, I'm tired of your sly abuse. Anyway, pretending you didn't say that, Pedro Carmona is listed as a president on list of presidents of Venezuela and {{VEpresidents}}. How is this wrong? Iolakana|^T 20:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I had removed that inaccuracy too then you reverted it so I NPOV tagged the article but you reverted that too. What sly abuse is that you are talking about? SqueakBox 20:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You calling everyone who disagrees with you a " these Carmona supporters are manipulating wikipedia to impose their false view of history, ignoring the abundance of sources that Carmona was not President but a criminal usurper, and many people are disputing this not just me." Iolakana|^T 20:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This was the revert that Kilo-Lima performed shortly before protecting the article. Jkelly 20:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hard to see where the introduction of false facts, removal of references or introducing original research occurred, ie none of those things happened, SqueakBox 20:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The revert before this? Iolakana|^T 20:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is User:Kilo-Lima at the same time was acting as an editor and as an administrator. You cannot be judge and part at the same time JRSP 21:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Editors are required by WP:BLP to revert poorly-sourced criticism from articles. SqueakBox reverted referenced text, and inserted unreferenced text calling Carmona "the leader of the coup" in violation of WP:BLP. WP:BLP demands that this text be reverted, not subject to 3RR. Sandy 22:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

My view as well, SqueakBox 21:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hugo Chávez's article implies he wasnt the former Prersident, neither he or his criminal accomplice who some claim was also President, so wikipedia has been claiming 2 different things for ages. Hadn't you better fix the "vandalsim" on that page, SqueakBox 21:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

]] indicates there has never been consensus on this viewpoint which at the end of the day is just a viewpoint. The Carmona supporters refuse it appears from the talk page to even source their outlandish clasim, not surprising as they are trying to impose their POV by treating a POV dispute as a vandalsim case. Such behaviour can only end in disaster for the encyclopedia, SqueakBox 21:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, I am British, not Venezuelan; the article stated for some time that Pedro Carmona was a president, and the article List of Presidents of Venezuela and a further template, Template:VEpresidents, also confirms this. Iolakana|^T 21:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There are eight reliable sources in the article and on the talk page (BBC, CNN, PBS, Latin Business Chronicle, to name some). The people arguing this is a POV dispute have yet to present a single reliable source to back up their POV. Where was the POV dispute if SqueakBox was reverting referenced content and inserting unreferenced original research, never based on a single reliable source ? Sandy 21:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The administrator took a stance on the article's contents. On the Carmona talk page he stated: "You're false facts... are... quite simply... false". You cannot be judge and part at the same time JRSP 21:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Since no sources were presented, Kilo-Lima was not taking a position: s/he was stating the obvious. SqueakBox was inserting original research, based on no facts. Sandy 21:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Squeakbox is boisterous in his protests here, which should be toned down, but I do not find Squeakbox's edit (the one linked above, by JKelly), to be any less accurate than the one Kilo-Lima reverted (for the second time) to before removing the POV tag and locking the article. There was a reasonable debate underway on what sources validate a "president." If some media articles of the time refer to Carmona as "president" or "interim president" or "defacto president," does that make Carmona a president for historical and encyclopedic purposes? If other nations, the UN, or OAS do not recognize him, is he a president? If he "proclaims himself president" does that indicate he was president (lolakana/Kilo-Lima says it does, read the discussion page)? If the elected parliament of Venezuela disavows him or not, does that affect whether he is president?

There was a fairly civil argument going on on these points, but then Kilo-Lima, a party to the argument and one who had reverted good faith edits of another, not only reverted and locked the article but removed the NPOV tag, and this I find to be questionable behavior for an admin. DanielM 22:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps, DanielM, you missed this edit by SqueakBox, which was a violation of WP:BLP, where he not only reverted referenced content (for at least the third time, when you include the same discussion at List of Presidents of Venezuela and the template), but also inserted the unreferenced claim that Pedro Carmona was "leader of the coup". Violatons of WP:BLP must be aggressively removed, and that is a strong Wiki policy. Your arguments about the UN, the OAS, etc, are interesting, but you've given no sources. The content that Kilo-Lima reverted was original research, which violated WP:BLP. There are now about 12 reliable sources in the article and on the talk page backing that Carmona was interim president, which include CNN, PBS, MSNBC, CBS, BBC and others. We don't make the decision as to whether Carmona was president: we report what reliable sources say. Was SqueakBox engaging in civil argument when he said, your claims are ridiculous, SqueakBox 21:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC) ? Sandy 22:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Very hard to remain civil with someone whose first point of contact with me was a brutish attack [65] that has made me assume since then that Sandy is not a serious editor, SqueakBox 23:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That was not a brutish attack; Wikipedia warning templates, which that was, were substituted from a warning template. I see no brutish attack against you, unless all WP templates try to scare off their users by attacking them, which you seem to claim. Iolakana|^T 10:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

to post It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. to someone who did not vandalise as per WP:VANDAL is not an attack? Not a humiliation attempt? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

He was adding in content that goes against WP:BLP. Whether it counts as vandalism or not... Iolakana|^T 18:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The LA Times [66] referred to him as "coup leader," are you suggesting he wasn't? DanielM 23:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandy has attempted to humiliate me from the beginning and continued in several ways to show bad faith and to try to get his way by abusing wikipedia procedures. Perhaps an Rfc is in order as his behaviour has been completely unacceptable, SqueakBox 17:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hardly so. You are the one that has no respect for Wikipedia's policies. You created an abusive sockpuppet, per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SqueakBox. Iolakana|^T 18:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That doesnt give you or anyone else the right to abuse and humiliate me at will. What you are talking aboput has nothing to do with this case, people under arbcom are not fair targets for the abuse of admins or others, one way or another you will have to learn that, as policy is very clear on this issueSqueakBox 19:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That is very hypocritical. The WP:BLP policy is also very clear on adding in unsourced statements and original research. Iolakana|^T 12:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Further admin abuse by Kilo

Now Kilo is editing the article while keeping it protected. Looks like an Rfa for gropss admin abuse to me, what wityh his justification of my humiliation basedc on another case entirely, this young man is clearly not to be trusted, SqueakBox 19:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, it is not a crime to edit a protected article. The debate was not about the use of the <ref> tags, so stop trying to blame me for every edit I do. The dispute is about whether or not Pedro was president, no how the page looks—i.e. formatting issues. Iolakana|^T 21:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What squeak is trying to get at is that if you were the one who protected the said pages, it is bad form to edit them yourself, since it gives the impression that you are locking it to your prefered version. Just keep it in mind, please, kind sir. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I added in <ref> tags! It was never like this before. Iolakana|^T 21:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It is unacceptable to edit an article you protected. Administrators do not have greater authority over content than any other editor; they must refrain from uses of their administrative access to push their preferred version of an article. Failure to exercise restraint in this matter is a sign of a person who is not capable of maintaining neutrality wrt administrative access. --FOo 01:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem if it's just improving the article's ref system unrelated to the content dispute. --mboverload@ 11:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

POINT violation by PEAR

PEAR seems to be gaming the system, using Wikipedia to make a point. Please see user's page. However, I cannot see cause to issue a block so I placed a warning on the user's discussion page instead. --Yamla 21:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT's proper name is Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please explain in detail what the disruption is that you're claiming this user is doing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that this is exactly why I am not blocking the user. As I noted on the user's discussion page, the user does not seem to be disrupting Wikipedia. However, the user is most definitely gaming the system. --Yamla 21:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong on that userpage; at it's current version, it is just listing his edits/milestones, which many Wikipedians do. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice that the pages he edited, when read as a sentence, suggest that the Bush family is responsible for the September 11 attacks and John F. Kennedy assasination? That cannot be construed as coincidence. Hyenaste ^(tell) 21:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see my message to Yamla [67] regarding this coincidence, which is nothing more than a coincidence. --PEAR 22:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous to try to claim that's a coincidence, of course. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose this claim is more rediculous than the claim that a bullet could go through two people multiple times without even being scratched or having blood on it? Or the claim that the 3 first (and only) large buildings to collapse due to fire all did so on the same day at the same place? What I am trying to say is, coincidences happen everyday. People need to be more understanding of this. --PEAR 22:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

hey he's a pov warrior anyone surprised?i am --Golbez 22:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Who me? What's a POV warrior? (I'm new here, I just finished my 100th edit) --PEAR 22:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

(de-indent) While you did make me chuckle, it's ludicrous that you expect us to believe that the following five consecutive articles edited over three minutes were not thought of beforehand: Bush Family, IS, responsible, For, September 11, 2001 attacks. -- Samir धर्म 00:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Samir, the third article I editted was Responsibility not responsible.

--PEAR 00:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that you couldn't find responsible then. Don't get me wrong though. I think it's benign enough to stay on your userpage (and pretty clever). -- Samir धर्म 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't think of any constructive edits I could make to responsible because it's just a redirect.

--PEAR 01:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose PEAR is improving Wikipedia articles to illustrate a point, which is different from disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Except for the disruption caused by this AN/I thread due to the ambiguity in disruptiveness caused by point-illustration... *head explodes* —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-13 01:17Z

Which is more important: the disruption part or the point-proving part? And what point is being proven? Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what this has to do with WP:POINT...this is just a misuse of userspace as a soapbox for conspiracy theories. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also a blatant indicator that this editor likely has little interest in stowing his conspiracy theories and POV issues. --Golbez 02:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

: I'd say let the user keep it. The edits have been harmless and/or helpful, many people have various political statements on their user pages, as long as the user continues to make useful edits we shouldn't be too worried. I'm more concerned that the user initially claimed it was a concidence and then acknowledged that it was deliberate. Lying and taking up our time as a result is disruptive and will inevitable make further work with the user difficult. If the user becomes a serious POV pushing problem then we will deal with it then. JoshuaZ 02:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did I ever say it was deliberate?

--PEAR 15:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The edits may be harmless, but the list of them on PEAR's User page are not. I would suggest an MfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sake. As things stand, there is no disruption of Wikipedia being caused by the Userpage, the contributor's edits are constructive - so where exactly is the problem? That s/he chooses to make a political statement on the Userpage using the first 5 edits in a witty and original manner is not reason for hysteria. The subsequent edits suggest to me that this is an editor who is probably here to do positive work. Let's not alienate someone over a non existent "problem" that is being imagined for no good reason. Whatever happened to WP:AGF? If this new account becomes problematic in the future, deal with it then, but let's not bash a potentially valuable contributor about the head needlessly. Time to move on. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, PEAR hasn't done any harmful edits, but (s)he just did a number of edits that are not constructive, leaving a "Hi" on a number of seemingly random user talk pages (possibly found the users to target from recent changes). I assume he's doing this to quickly get to 150 or 200 edits so he can keep his milestone structure in line while continuing his sentence structure. Whitejay²⁵¹ 16:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to promote WikiLove by saying Hi to random users. It seemed like a good idea. Since I recieved complaints that it might confuse people, I've decided to instead put my efforts towards welcomming new users.

--PEAR 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

<-- On the topic of sequential edits made to prove a point, I'd submit the case of Über_Nerd_2000 (talk · contribs). His contributions were clearly intended to spell out a personal attack. On the matter of PEAR, the listing on his user talk page is not a simple copy of his contributions log, so the arrangement does not appear coincidental. -Will Beback 21:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Angela Beesley

Hi all! I'm not quite sure if this is the appropriate spot to converse, but I'd rather be bold then let what is now a flurry of reversions turn into something more serious. Apparently, as a result of a lack of consensus to redirect the Angela Beesley article to Wikia, there has been some moderate edit warring. I was first made aware of the situation off-wiki on #wikipedia, one of the Wikipedia IRC channels. User:Appleboy apparently met Ms. Beesley at Wikimania and per a conversation they had, he decided that he liked her and she shouldn't have a Wikipedia biography if she doesn't want one. Obviously, I can see how this bit might be rendered moot as conjecture, since logs are disallowed from being publicised. Regardless, User:Appleboy and to a lesser extent, User:Zscout370 have taken it upon themselves to create the redirect. While I'm fully aware that consensus is certainly not needed for a redirect and could be construed as simply being bold, I thought that given that the article had been AfD'd three times and kept (as a default result stemming from a lack of consensus) each time that a mention of the redirect on the talk page and an explanation might be in order. I've no personal investment in the article and was not part of any editing or discussion of the article prior to now. The only reason it was brought to my attention was that I saw it being discussed in an IRC channel, so I was wondering if an administrator might take a look at the situation to prevent any escalation of edit warring. Thanks and I apologise in advance if this should be directed elsewhere! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 23:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The situation has since escalated a bit, as User:Appleboy has attempted to circumvent the 3RR policy by enlisting User:TehKewl1 to revert per Apple's liking. Please see this diff for an explanation of what I'm taking about. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 23:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest, if I may be so bold, that we leave messages on both users talkpages, and something on the Angela Beesly talkpage as well, explaining that there should be a commuinity consenous for a redirect of this kind. I would also warn both users very sternly for circumventing the 3RR. They both should know better. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Getting others to revert is simple meatpuppetry, also gaming the system --pgk^(talk) 11:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I hate to give others more work than absolutely necessary, but isn't this something the office should deal with? I'll also point out that a cross-wiki redirect in the article namespace disagrees with WP:NSR. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The redirect I did was not directed to Angela's userpage, but to the company she founded called Wikia. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I do apologize if this set off a powder keg, but I have no intentions with this article now; I did my edit, it got reverted so now I just move on. This is not worth fighting over. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess Angela is a subject of WP:LIVING and we usually remove info by request of the subject unless it is backed by multiple reliable sources. We also protect privacy of the non-public people even if an info is backed by RS. Thus, I guess if Andgela want any info to be removed from her page it is up to her. abakharev 00:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• As the article has been subject to 3 AfDs and kept each time (last was no concensus to delete), redirection is probably not appropriate. The most recent AfD was only last month--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ex-Homey

Ex-Homey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly emailing me about allowing him to edit wiki-wide rather than being restricted to his arbitration cases, which was the condition I imposed when I unblocked him. I would not agree to this; if for no other reason than that he has been such a pest. Any thoughts about relieving the restriction I imposed on him? Fred Bauder 23:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Strongly opposed to allowing him to edit any place but arbitration pages. I blocked his original account for abusive sockpuppets because of his involvment in the WordBomb case. Additionally, Ex-Homey mistated the reason you unblocked him in his statement on RFAr that he has against me. I'll post more later. I sent an email to the Arbcom list about this before you posted here. FloNight ^talk 23:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel I should wade into this mess since I missed most of the earlier discussion. I am strongly opposed to considering Homey to be under an indefinite community ban. He has unquestionably gone way beyond the pale of acceptable behaviour in recetn weeks, but this does not negate the fact that he has made several tens of thousands of valuable edits and several years of good behaviour. In the Canadian areas Wikipedia, where I am most familiar with his work, he was for a long time considered a pilar of the community. - SimonP 00:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Not an admin...but...As the goal here is to create an encylopedia, as long as that is what a user is doing I don't see a problem with it. I am sure you guys know better than I since I haven't followed this all that closely, so if you feel that if he is unblocked he wouldn't be helping to create an encylopedia, disregard this uniformed comment. Arkon 01:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This is also my view. Looking through the edit histories of his alternate accounts they, for the most part, have done little disruptive and almost all the contributions have been totally legitimate. If another account like User:Fluffy the Cotton Fish appears and starts making a stream of productive edits, I see no reason to not let Homey quietly work under the new name. - SimonP 01:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to this as there is strong consensus for him to be under a community ban for his use of sockpuppets and other behaivor see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive126#Proposed_community_ban. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm also strongly opposed to any relaxation. These are just some of his recent sockpuppets, and here are some others. Some of them have been used abusively e.g. to file a false 3RR report, to pretend to be another banned user in order to cause confusion, or to harass editors he's been in conflict with. Any editor behaving the way he has would have been community-banned by now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

SimonP. Could you give me some idea what you think the proper sanction is for abusive sockpuppets made to break rules, harass perceived advocacies, and avoid sanctions being handed in several arbitration cases on Homey's main user account?

Seems like your buying into Homey false assertion that his block is punitive when in reality it was preventative. And you therefore look like you are giving him a get out of jail free card. In reality Homey was blocked for refusing to follow dispute resolution by instead fake leaving and coming back and engaging in deceptive and abusive editing with sockpuppets. Knowing his recent history, I think blocking his accounts and forbidding editing outside arbitration pages is prudent. Preventing future disruption in the face of his past disruptive editing should be our purpose. I think limiting him to the arbitration case pages is the only way to make it happen.

Also, I think letting him freely edit now sends the wrong message to him and other disruptive editors. Why should they bother involving themselves with the arbitration case against them. Just leave and come back with different user accounts and do the same or worse. FloNight ^talk 04:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree as per FloNight and SlimVirgin's concerns. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is even being raised, at this point. He's created all sorts of sockpuppets, many for the purpose of harassing, deceiving, or confusing other editors. He's still pretending some of the sockpuppets aren't him, and he's using his active sockpuppet to try to spread as much FUD as he possibly can, including making various false and arguably defamatory claims. When faced with an ArbCom case, a responsible editor would not pretend to leave Wikipedia, then create a dozen sockpuppets and harass other editors with them. This is just disruption. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I oppose giving him free reign. Homey and his various incarnations have been a constant source of sockpuppetry, 3RR violations, ceaseless RFArs and disruption. FeloniousMonk 06:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

These arguments would hold more water if the majority of the new accounts and IP addresses had done anything remotely disruptive. Even if you look at his ArbCom case, which tries to bring up every poor decision over the last several months, I have to agree with CJCurrie that "most of the evidence presented in the case is extremely dubious." Certainly any account that is being disruptive should be blocked, but blocking one that is only making goods edits is purely vindictive. - SimonP 12:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

SimonP, which Arb case are you discussing? FloNight ^talk 12:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeontherange. - SimonP 16:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SimonP. This user has made over 35,000 edits in a period of several years. This is not a user you block through a community ban, this is a case that requires the arbcom. Homeontherange has already indicated that he will appeal a community ban, and I support him in that. People claim the many abusive sockpuppets, I would like to see the evidence for the many abusive ones, and equally about the remaining accusations. As the tenstions between groups have gone to high, I think this needs to get away from the discussion boards.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add, that even editors as User:Blu Aardvark are not indef banned by the arbcom, and Homeontherange's 'disruption' is not nearly as bad as Blu Ardvark's. With that comparision, an indef community ban is way out of proportion in this case. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is rather odd that some people's reasoning for not banning Homeontherange is basically "but some of his sockpuppets are making good edits!". The idea that we should only pay attention to the example's of one's best behavior seems kinda odd. I would also argue that Homey's recent behavior has been worse than that of Blu Aardvark, think of what he has done in a matter-of-fact way: Harrassment, vote stacking, malicious sockpuppetry, abuse of process, and continuous incivility, plus all sorts of behavior that cannot simply be explained in terms of wikipedia policy. He has caused a huge amount of disruption by pretending to leave and then acting as if his account has been "hacked into" for the sole purpose of getting out of an arbcom sanction, and then he tried to launch an RFA against two admins because they called him on his recent behavior. I don't really see how all of this is canceled out because some of his sockpuppets have not yet engaged in any violations of policy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen evidence of maliciousness from Homey. Many of the people commenting here have been very involved in disputes with him with regards to the article Allegations of Israeli aparthied. --Ben Houston 18:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)--Ben Houston 18:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You sadly miss the point of the Israeli apartheid articles. They were simply a part of Homey's disruption, not the cause of this situation. He has been editing and behaving disruptively for a long time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And what is the relationship of the people defending him?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

More to it than that, but based primarily on SimonP's position I am relieving Ex-homey from the condition I imposed on him. He says he may create another account to edit with quietly. Should it be found using checkuser, please leave it alone unless it is doing something wrong. Fred Bauder 20:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, there were no sockpuppets. I recently had a few alternate accounts, none of which were used to edit the same articles or vote stack in AFDs or do anything opposed to WP:SOCK. Several of the accounts were single purpose accounts that made a handful of edits before being discarded because I didn't want to be drawn into anything on an ongoing basis - I will not be using such accounts in the future. No one has pointed to one edit made by these accounts that is at all worthy of a saction - the closest was SV pointing to a request for a 3RR that was made feigning ignorance of how to do a 3RR. Only one of those accounts was blocked initially and that was because someone wrongly suggested it of being a Wordbomb sockpuppet because it asked for the checkuser results of Mantanmoreland to be posted. Without the erroneous Wordbomb suspicion there would have been no grounds to block.

As for the supposed Sonofzion sockpuppet, I deny having used that account and checksuer did not "confirm" that it was me, rather it produced a "likely" response. There is evidence that Sonofzion was in fact User:Dervish Tsaddik using a Toronto are proxy or zombie computer since other posts signed "Sonofzion" originated from Sweden as did one signed "Daughterofzion".

According to the ruling on the Saladin 1970 appeal:

"The touchstone of an appropriate "ban by the community" is that there is no administrator who after examining the matter is willing to lift or reduce the ban."

This is not the case here as per Fred and SimonP's remarks as well as several other admins who have either spoken publicly or sent me emails. There are no sanctions against me, there have been no findings against me thus there is no reason to harass me with a witch hunt or arbitrary blocking.Ex-Homey 20:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence that User:Sonofzion was a Dervish Tsaddik sockpuppet, "using a Toronto area proxy" or anything else, and none of the posts by the account User:Sonofzion "originated from Sweden". This is another example of the kinds of disruptive falsehoods that Ex-Homey has been spreading. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg's accusations above are opinion, not established facts -- that should be kept in mind. --Ben Houston 00:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, they're established fact, and that should be kept in mind. Sonofzion did not edit "from a Toronto area proxy", nor did it edit from Sweden. And this is the kind of disruptive edit I was talking about. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Then why was the checkuser result "likely" but not "confirmed" Jayjg - you never did answer my question about whether checkusdr showed "same system" or not? And yes, there was a poster from Sweden who signed himself "sonofzion" [68] and then "daughterofzion".

I am changing the other sockpuppet tags to "alternative account" tags, following the example of Mantanmoreland and User:Lastexit (lastexit and manatmoreland edited the same articles and voted in the same AFD's, what normally would be called "abusive sockpuppetry). If you want to change the tags back then also change his tag.Ex-Homey 03:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fred Bauder unblocked you so you could specifically participate in arbitration only, not edit war over notices on your sockpuppets [69] and harass others at their talk pages. Again, another opportunity from the community squandered. I've reinstated your block. FeloniousMonk 04:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Felonious, please take note of Fred Bauder's comments above: More to it than that, but based primarily on SimonP's position I am relieving Ex-homey from the condition I imposed on him. He says he may create another account to edit with quietly. To the specific point, there seems to be some disagreement as to whether or not these alternate accounts can be described as "Sockpuppets" -- Ex-Homey has acknowledged using some of them on a per-day basis, but only after his previous account was voluntarily blocked. This doesn't correspond with any definition of "sockpuppetry" that I'm familiar with. CJCurrie 04:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

CJC, perhaps you haven't been following this closely. Homeontherange used the accounts for the purposes of deception and harassment. He turned up at articles his "opponents" edited a lot and tried to start trouble on them; he filed at least one false 3RR report against one of them; he tried to interfere with the election to the medcom of another; he pretended to be another banned user in order to cause confusion; etc. It has been the worst disruptive behavior from a former regular user that I've encountered in my time here. Anyone who wanted to create a new account simply in order to contribute to the encyclopedia could have done so without interference, and would not have engaged in any of this behavior. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware that HotR has specifically denied most (if not all) of these charges, and that they remain unproven. In any event, Ex-Homey was not restricted to participation on the arbitration case and from a procedural standpoint he should not have been blocked. CJCurrie 05:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie, please don't post here and on my talk page. I don't want to waste a lot of time discussing Homey. You used to engage in what Homey would call "tag teaming" with him (note: this would be Homey's term for it, not mine), so you're well aware of the trouble he used to cause. Then you stopped editing with him so much, which I can only hope was a recognition on your part that he had gone beyond the pale, so please don't start up again. That Homey denies something is no reason not to believe it. He is disruptive, malevolent, and disingenuous, and is thoroughly enjoying causing this fuss. If he had wanted to edit the encyclopedia quietly, there was nothing stopping him. But it's not what he wants. What he wants is THIS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to your comments on my talk page, but as you wish. I do not agree with your assessment of this situation: I've worked with HotR on Wikipedia since 2004, and consider him to be a knowledgeable and productive contributor to the project. I acknowledge that he's made some mistakes in recent times, but I do not believe that anything he's done merits punishment on the level of a community block.

My intepretation of recent events is that Ex-Homey's decision to recategorize the "Sockpuppet" pages may have been unnecessarily provocative under the circumstances, but it was not disruptive (ie. it did not jeopardize the integrity of the project; designating these alt. accounts as "Sockpuppets" was always questionable). In any event, I don't believe that it's sufficient procedural grounds for a block. CJCurrie 05:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you distinguish between "unnecessarily provocative" and disruptive. Using your def of disruptive, almost nothing would meet that standard. Look, the situation with Homey is sadly very simple. He has lost the confidence of almost all the editors who edit the pages he inhabits. More than "lost the confidence of": he is strongly disliked and not trusted by them. Even you, his staunchest ally, are forced to admit that his behavior is "unnecessarily provocative." Therefore, his editing of those pages is going to cause misery and trouble. That is a fact that nothing will change now, because he went too far, and there is now no way to repair those relationships. I tried very hard to get formal mediation started in order to avoid that total breakdown in relationships, but several others, including Homey initially, scuppered it, and then his sockpuppetry (or whatever you want to call it) started, and things went downhill from there. Therefore, in a case like this, it's not a question of deciding whether someone has lost the confidence of the community. He simply has. It has gone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect we're not going to reach full agreement on this matter. In any event, I should clarify that I said his recent behaviour "may have been" unnecessarily provocative, by which I mean that it rekindled animosities that might have been better left dormant for the time being. I do not believe this behaviour was "disruptive" to the project. CJCurrie 06:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Btw, Jayjg, what exactly is your rationale for listing "Sonofzion" as a HotR sock, when this was never confirmed? CJCurrie 04:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It was confirmed as well as any sockpuppet can be confirmed by CheckUser. CheckUser is not a magic crystal ball, it's just another piece of evidence. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

SonofZion turned up as soon as Homey was blocked for 3RR and started reverting to his versions of articles, then edited articles Homeontherange had edited a long time ago under different names, and the check user evidence was consistent with it being him. SoZ claimed he knew about these articles because of a post on a discussion board for leftwing students, but he refused to say which one. It was clearly a sock or meat puppet and we don't distinguish. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe my reading skills are less than yours, but I was reading likely, not confirmed. Furthermore, I have seen a Swedisch IP signing off with Sonofzion, so I am not surprised that there is doubt. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Kim, please, please start reading posts before responding to them. I wrote "consistent with." The check user evidence was only a part of it, and there is no reasonable doubt. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, please stop bashing people. I have read your post, and for me, likely is not equivalent with consistent with, especially not when Swedisch IP's sign of with Sonofzion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Dervish Tsaddik pretended to be Sonofzion, in order to assist Homey in sowing confusion; however, Sonofzion never used a Swedish IP, so that's irrelevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Then you don't know what "consistent with" means. Please stay out of this. Every single thing you get involved in ends up with people at each other's throats. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I will NOT stay out of this. If my pressence causes you so much stress, please take a break before responding. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie asked me a question. I answered it. There is no need for YOU to get involved in everything. Please stop responding when I discuss issues with others. I want to have nothing more to do with you. You make no contribution to the encyclopedia. All you are is trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Kim has made very significant contributions to the encyclopaedia, and to my mind, a noticeboard is not the place for two-way conversations. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that she'd e-mailed you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we e-mail, already from the beginning that I was at wikipedia. So? You e-mailed me too several times, and I am sure you e-mail with a bunch of other editors as well, so what? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may interject, I have watched this situation looking from the outside. My personal belief is that this is a clique war, and Homey became the casulity. Putting that remark aside, I see no point placing Ex-Homey under a block. This only encourages Homey to re-enter Wikipedia under an assumed name, and after his treatment, I can't blame him. It is better to know who your enemy is, rather than not knowing, there is nothing to gain from his ban. If he chooses to change the template of his banned accounts, so be it, I do not feel there is any harm done. I feel as though the Admin who revert those User page edits, are just spiting him, and incorrectly asserting their power. I think the behaviour of most the Admin invlovled here, really looks poorly on Wikipedia. Pete Peters 05:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "from the outside"? From Queens University, which you attend/attended, and where Homey often edits from? Do you know Homey? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, as you are very involved with the disputes regarding Homeontherange, you should undo your denial for unblocking as that should be done by an uninvolved admin, as you repeatedly has indicated yourself towards other admins. Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I second this request. I have specifically refrained from unblocking Ex-Homey myself, for the simple reason that I do not want to create even the appearance of a conflict of interest. CJCurrie 05:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read my post above. Homey could be unblocked a thousand times, he will always be reblocked eventually, because the confidence of the community has gone. KimvdLinde, you are in large measure responsible for this total breakdown in relationships that occurred, because you encouraged him. What was needed was formal mediation and a complete end to wikilawyering in order to get Homey back into the fold, as it were. In your wisdom, you forced the situation in the opposite direction, and now the editing relationships are beyond repair. If you want to stop making things even worse, you might consider staying out of the situation completely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read your posts, stop assuming I do not. He is continuosly reblocked by the same small number of admins, most who had conflicts with him, or have made their opposition towards him more than clear. As such, neither of you is uninvolved, and neither of you should block him. If the community is so fed up with him as you claim, there should be sufficient number of uninvolved adimins who want to block him. Your accusation that I encouraged him is beyond the pale, but I have gotten used to your wrath by now. I suggest that you finally proof your accusation that I am to blaim for the breakdown of the RfM, you have made the accusation now so often without any evidence. And I suggest you stay away from homeontherange completly, because it is very clear to me that your continued emotional involvement causes the situation to escalate time and time over again. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with the abouve statements by Kim van der Linde.Pete Peters 06:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no emotional involvement. All I know is this: things around Homey were always tense, because he got into a lot of conflict. But they were manageable. Then you came along with your craving for trouble, your insults, your wikilawyering, and your process fetishism. You got involved in his disputes, made them a thousand times worse than they would otherwise have been, and destroyed the remaining trust that some editors still had for him. Then you scuppered the formal mediation which might have saved him. What you forget (or never knew) is that I have known Homey a lot longer than you have, and he and I used to be very supportive of each other, so I didn't particularly want to see him go down the tube. It was in order to save those long-term editing relationships, which you neither knew nor cared about, that I tried to arrange mediation. I asked your permission to reproduce your e-mails — in which it is clear that you scuppered the mediation — for the first ArbCom case involving Homey. You refused, and said not only could I not reproduce them; I should also not mention their existence!

I don't know what you're up to, or what you hope to achieve, but this is the result, and I can only hope you'll stop before you make things even worse. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As usual, you just assert things, with no evidence linked to it. You even now claim that some unpublished e-mails will provide the evidence to that accusation. So you want to continue the claim that my involvement was essential for the RfM?

As for the e-mails, I asked you why you needed them (Fred Bauder was cc'ed on these second series of e-mails), and I even provided you with the diffs at wikipedia that provided the same information you wanted to use the e-mails for, so there was no need for them to become public, as people write things different, and sometimes are less nuanced in e-mails than online.

If you are so affraid to make things worse, I suggest you take a few steps back yourself, and let uninvolved admins deal with the issues. You are very deeply involved now in this extended conflict, but you still try to maintain that you are not, resulting in making admin decisions even with regard to homeontherange. This is very troublesome because of your strongly expressed opinion that admins that, when they are involved even marginally in a dispute, they cannot make decisions. Apparently, you use two standards for that and that is a clear indication that you should take a step back and think some things over before telling other people not to be involved. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

CJC, I have done as you requested. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll remove my comments accordingly. CJCurrie 06:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you as well. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fred has said he supports the current block, [70] so I hope that's the end of this latest round of disruption. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to weigh in here to point out two key things:

• The fact that an admin has taken action against an editor (through blocking, requesting checkuser, tagging socks, etc) does not mean that the admin is somehow "tainted" and not permitted to deal with user conduct problems with the same user in the future. This is a misconception that comes up frequently in the project's dealings with tenacious troublemakers who game the system. Policies such as WP:3RR, WP:BLOCK, and WP:PP only discourage admins from intervening in users with whom they have an editing dispute, that is, a content dispute. Were it not so, we would constantly have to rotate admins in dealing with a conduct problem, which is burdensome to the project because of the time it takes to understand the history behind a particular individual, as well as the very human tendency of admins to give second chances to anyone whose misconduct they have not witnessed personally.
• Given that there is widespread consensus that Homeontherange has edited with a considerable number of sock puppets, thus making it difficult for the project to track his activities, there is no need for proof or even necessarily strong evidence that any particular sock puppet is either (a) homeontherange or (b) disruptive before it can be blocked.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• My reading of this situation is a bit different. JayJG had been involved in numerous content disputes with HotR prior to the "sockpuppets" controversy, and his actions have created (at minimum) the appearance of a conflict of interest. To your second point, I don't believe there is a widespread consensus that HotR "edited with a considerable number of sock puppets". He has acknowledged creating one-day alternate accounts after quitting the HotR handle, and has specifically denied the most significant sockpuppet accusation.

• Given the contentious nature of this controversy, we should be especially wary about jumping to conclusions not supported by the facts. I do not believe it's appropriate to list "Barbamama" or "Fluffy the Cotton Fish" (for instance) as socks, when the evidence clearly points in a different direction. CJCurrie 04:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible WP:POINT violation

Displaced Brit (talk · contribs) seems to be out on a vendetta to delete lists. Is this is a WP:POINT violation? --CFIF (talk to me) 01:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. He has not made any nonconstructive edits, and he provides valid reasons for the deletion proposals he has initiated. His announced hatred for lists appears to stem from a support of the policies on WP:NOR and WP:NOT, policies not upheld lists he has proposed for deletion. Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• I found that this user, CFIF has made this accusation with out even the courtesy of leaving a note on my talk page. I took a look into the history of this user and he/she seems to jump to conclusions rather quickly and without any conclusive evidence; something which I did unlike him acting like the boy who cries wolf. I do hope that he/she can give us some insight on his/her standard of proof. On the various deletion pages I stated clear and valid reasons why the articles should be deleted and I have now placed this on my user page as well just to be clear. I do not have a bloody vendetta against all lists, just those which do not meet the established guidelines. I have encountered some pages of lists that I felt did not violate Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. The purpose of deletions is to establish a consensus. How can a consensus be established if a user with out any real evidence screams that the nomination is in bad faith? This adds a bit of doubt to a perfectly valid nomination for deletion that was based on the established guidelines of Wikipedia. I feel that CFIF's behaviour is bordering on vandalism and given his/her prior history I feel that he/she may be in need of some form of censure as he seems to over react against those who do not meet your viewpoints. Displaced Brit 18:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This user has resorted to using personal attacks to harrass, stalk, and intimidate me. [71] [72]

[73] --CFIF (talk to me) 15:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Retard barnstar

Javsav (talk · contribs) has decided to place a "retard barnstar" on his user page (it's also appeared in trolling by IP's) [74]. It contains a depiction of a child with Down syndrome. This is in ridiculously bad taste. When removed, this was the comment: [75]. I'm removing it a second time, protecting the user page, and submitting here for review in light of this user's comments -- Samir धर्म 07:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

How can you remove it a second time, when I already removed it? I took heed to your suggestions because I had to, considering you were in a much higher position of power than me. I removed the barnstar, so there's no way you could have removed it a second time. Javsav 07:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you removed it. Thank you for doing so. Making such a barnstar and defending it in the diffs above is highly insensitive and in very poor taste. I trust that this will never happen again -- Samir धर्म 07:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I didn't make the barnstar. I found it on another userpage. Javsav 07:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use it again. As Samir says, it's in very poor taste. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The image isn't funny. Out of all the pictures on teh internets and that's the one you found? XD. Oh yeah *scolding for your bad taste goes here* --mboverload@ 07:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to set the facts straight, someone else created it, another person then posted links to it all over the place, Javsav noticed a link to it when posting a comment on someone's talk page and copied the code. He didn't create it himself. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to all of the above - "you were in a much higher position of power than me" - That is your misconception. If you were adding some useful verified content to wikipedia, then he has no power to remove it even if he is an admin. Don't view him as some higher authority or yourself as someone lower in the heirarchy of wikipedia. There are no levels of power here. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 08:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This is all very sad. The image purports to be a photograph of the son of Excalibur, who has not been active here since the end of last year. It appears that the image is now only being used in 2 articles: Down syndrome and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles), so the copycat barnstar problem is hopefully eradicated. I guess the moral of this story is to be very careful when posting personal information online, or teh internets will subvert it for inappropriate use. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the poor-taste barn star intended to disparage vandals as "retards", while Javsav is claiming he intended to call himself a retard? At least grammatically, it's consistent... —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-13 08:52Z

Ok thanks for all the discussion and clarification, I won't reoffend. And yes, the irony of it all. Javsav 09:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that everyone has had the chance to take a swing at Javsav while he was made to run this gauntlet, has someone assumed the chore of periodically reviewing Image:Drill.jpg to guard against further improper use of this image? (I just looked, & both current links to the image appeared to be reasonable.) -- llywrch 20:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Namespace and inappropriate naming: Wikipedia: Admin Policy

User:Mugaliens has created Wikipedia:Admin Policy. It has the look of policy and, in fact, says that it's policy. User:Doc Glasgow attempted to defang it a bit by putting a tag on it saying that it's an essay. My concern is that it's still called "policy." It's still called "Admin Policy." The author seems to be disgruntled and fairly displeased with what he sees as a majority of administrators who are abusive. The problem here... well a problem here ...is that it's in name space rather than user space, and we have few real rules about name space. One common sense rule, however, is that name space is where we put policies, and anything that's not a policy that is in name space that calls itself policy is absolutely forbidden. (The lack of rules, incidentally, doesn't mean that things are untouchable. The reverse. It means that any administrator can delete without discussion.) I'd like to see this userfied, but I want this to be the community's point of view rather than merely mine. Geogre 13:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I say userfy it. The author has been here less than a month and appears to have little experience with the workings of Wikipedia. There are external links to policy pages and poorly paraphrased versions of the rules he considers important. In addition, it seems to switch between giving advice to admins and non-admins. This "essay" clearly isn't ready for prime-time. Aren't I Obscure? 13:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, userfy it, and rename it Mugaliens’ suggestions for Admin’s or something like that. -- Avi 14:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that User:Mugaliens also recently filed this arbitration case. I see from his talk page that someone is trying to explain things to him and hope they can get through. Newyorkbrad 15:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved to User:Mugaliens/Admin policy essay as this was not policy. Vsmith 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Good. Given the fact that the user felt picked-on already, I thought it would be better and more calming if we demonstrated some community consensus before we made the move. Geogre 16:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've written a note to the user, referring him here for any questions and trying to explain the process for making policy proposals. Let's hope that the light touch will forestall misunderstanding. Geogre 17:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I appreciate the light touch, George. I created the admin policy as while searching for clarification on the comments I've received, I noticed that policy was scattered all over the place. That page was merely a consolidated version of the policy pages that are already out there. I was hoping it could remain a starting/jumping off point for others so they wouldn't have to dig around so much. Mugaliens 17:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • Those are laudable goals. A single sheet would be helpful, or a sheet that had links to all the dependent sheets. We have a general prohibition against subpage organization and cross-namespace directs, but your point is well taken that our Welcome kit ought to have an overview sheet on administrators -- what is expected of them and what is expected of those interacting with them. I'm not entirely sure the best way to move forward with it, except that others will probably have an idea of which projects are at work on summaries and overviews. Geogre 20:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Handled very thoughtfully, Geogre. I also think that someone (more experienced here than I) might want to advise Mugaliens to withdraw his RfAr as premature and point him in the right direction there, before it's unceremoniously rejected by the Arbs or de-posted by the Arb Clerks. Newyorkbrad 17:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not taking a position on that, not having reviewed it, but the arbitrators will accept or deny the case, and it looks like Metamagician is trying to explain the sometimes-frustrating policies. Let's all hope for the best for all involved. Geogre 20:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

He expressed appreciation for my efforts, so I hope it all calms down now. As far as I can see, it's been misunderstandings of our policies rather than any malice or bad faith. I've tried to explain that everyone else has been acting properly and the RfAr was not wise. I hope he'll withdraw the RfAr or that it'll just fizzle out with no harm done. I'll drop him another note. Fingers crossed. Metamagician3000 01:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

He has indeed now withdrawn the case, after a couple of arbitrators had voted to turn it down, and thanked Metamagician3000 for clarifying the situation. Hopefully a more positive outcome for everyone than a flat rejection of the arbitration case would have been. Good work Geogre and Metamag. Newyorkbrad 18:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm delighted. Some of the new users have chips on their shoulders, but some are just lost in the maze of our policies, which seem to contradict each other, and the onslaught of an administrator's pronouncement can make anyone defensive or hostile, so it's great when we can defuse situations like that and show that, in general, we really do make sense. Geogre 20:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User:AntiVandalBot

AntiVandalBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

... has 3 times reverted removal of a list from Category:Parsis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Block the bot. Of course the thing is a User:Cyde creation, and doesn't work properly. --William Allen Simpson 13:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, maybe the bot didn't know about WP:3RR ;-) This Cyde person should put that into its programming before it's used again. Carmen Chamelion 13:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, four times! Oh, it knows about 3RR, it just put the {{test4}} on my Talk page. It merely doesn't obey 3RR itself.... Also, it doesn't obey the rule that posting to its talk page should stop it. --William Allen Simpson 13:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The bot is run by User:Cyde but not his "creation". As it is supposed to revert vandalism, WP:3RR doesn't apply to such reverts, so the problem is not if failing to be aware of WP:3RR but it's mistaking your edits for vandalism. Since an admin has now reverted the bot it won't revert that admin. --pgk^(talk) 13:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll block it, as if it's doing this once, it'll do it again. Do you want to leave Cyde (talk · contribs) a note, or shall I? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, you handle it. I've no respect left for Cyde. Over at WP:CFD, he's been unilaterally overturning consensus decisions on closed discussions, with the edit comment "rv., I'm making a decision now that the "consensus" was incorrect...." The guy's definitely not "Rouge". --William Allen Simpson 14:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Like him or not, this kind of incivility has no place here. Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, you need to stow the attitude, William, even if you dislike what his bot is doing. "Of course the thing is a Cyde creation", "I've no respect left for Cyde"... and if you have a problem with his actions on CFD, don't be passive agressive and whine about them here, do something about it in a more official venue. --Golbez 21:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

And when saying "Such-and-such did so-and-so" always give a diff. People take a complaint more seriously if they can click once and confirm it.
brenneman ^{L} 08:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually it's a clone of Tawkerbot2 which I assume most people here have heard of (and freak out when it's not running). Someone, for reasons unknown to me set it on angry mode, I have no idea who did it but somebody did (and there's lots of people who could have). Seriously, it's a bot, it's not perfect. Over 150K edits, it's bound to make the odd mistake... -- Tawker 07:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith AfD motivated by religious hatred

BookwormUK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) today submitted Islamophobia for deletion. In reviewing her edits relative to the article I came across this bit or original research she concurrently added:

"Reasons for Islamophobia

Islam is hated because its followers believe that they have the God given right to force their beliefs down other people's throats."

Please see this Illustrative section from her talk page as well. Her antics began when she tried to add to the Black Stone article the theory that it is a Hindu lingam (for those who are not familar with it the Black Stone is one of Islam's most ancient and revered relics). An anonymous editor had previously been trying to add this theory to the Black Stone article repeatedly and had been repeatedly reverted by several editors. In order to further her desire to integrate this theory into Wikipedia BookwormUK (talk · contribs) began an article entitled, "ShivLing of Makkeshwar" (which should be just speedy deleted as patent {{db-nonsense}} with one Google hit for a blog on it, but has been AfD'd by Zora (talk · contribs) ). Now User:BookwormUK is tagging articles with {{POV}} seemingly in revenge (note tag additions here as well). Is there any way that this AfD can just be shut down (speedy kept) as an abuse of deletion process and this user warned against religious hatred motivated editing? Thanks. (→Netscott) 14:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Following further serious disruption from this user, including WP:POV pushing, personal attacks, talk page blanking and an egregious WP:3RR violation I have blocked User:BookwormUK. I have to conclude that the AfD nomination was indeed made in bad faith. I concur with Netscott that this should be closed as a speedy keep (previous AfDs for this article resulted in overwhelming keep consensus). I would do it myself but would like another admin to confirm my assessment as I have expressed my opinion in the AfD debate already. Thanks, Gwernol 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD closed as a speedy keep. Yanksox 16:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwernol 16:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance you two. (→Netscott) 00:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Icon ads spam making it like Wikipedia promotes commercial sites

Regularly, ads icons are inserted in front of external links, that make it look like Wikipedia treats them special, promoting or endorsing those sites. This gets worse now with the templates used for external links to IMDb, MusicBrainz, etc.

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:MusicBrainz_album&diff=next&oldid=41410972 Diff of the latest insertion of an icon ad in the template for MusicBrainz external links
• Last.fm spam icon This external links icon ad for Last.fm keeps popping up right and left.

We really could use a specific, explicit point of policy against this (and a direct WP:ICONAD or WP:SPAMICON or something), that could be immediately cited in the edit summary for removing or reverting this spam without long discussions with each "new user" doing the spamming for those sites. We could also mention it in bold as a NoInclude warning in the related templates, so as to remove plausible denial to future offenders.

-- 62.147.37.34 23:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Just revert it like it was normal spam. Plus, it is a violation of fair use rules to use images in this manner. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:MusicBrainz Album Icon.png is supposedly GFDL, though. [76] --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but we do not need icons, IMHO, to denote links to random websites. Just remove them. If there is any more problems, come see us. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think getting some background may be useful, from the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject_MusicBrainz, for example. They may have some reasoning you're unaware of. · rodii · 00:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not opposed to the linking, since I have used template-links for FOTW, but the main issue for discussion is the little icon that appears next to the link. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We should get rid of these even if the MusicBrainz project wants to keep them. We would not insert Apple logos all over Wikipedia even if there was an Itunes project that wanted to keep them. Yeah, Musicbrainz is a .org and releases some stuff under free licenses, but the interesting stuff is under CC-NC, making it nonfree, and who knows what will eventually happen with it. This sounds like Gracenote all over again. Fool me once... Phr (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't care if it were Feed the Children.org, personally, as that's them, and we're us. We don't priviledge links, and putting an identifying graphic in front of a link is priviledging or deprecating. We don't do that. Geogre 02:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

it's not as simple. We privilege competent and important sites for being competent and important. This is a content dispute like any other, to be addressed both on a case-by-case basis and by policy debate (what sort of icons do we want, at all?). dab (ᛏ) 09:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, Dab, we priviledge the good ones by inclusion or by classification within the article. The question raised here is, I think, wider than a particular article, as it is asking for policy on the use of graphical elements with links. In the absence of policy we do what? That seems to be the crux of it. My version would be "in the absence of policy, we make an article look like all the others and do not use graphical elements in links, whether the links are good or bad." We can, in text body, say, "See Linktext for more information," or, in the links, "Linksite: An excellent review of the subject," but I would suggest that inserting graphical elements is a bad idea. It is a bad idea for a variety of reasons, but the chief one is the one the questioner brought up: it makes the link special on a universal basis and without explanation. Geogre 12:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just saying, this is a case for WP:VP/P, not for admin intervention. I tend to be generally anti-icons, but there are various icons in use with external links, and some templates even have built-in links to external databases. dab (ᛏ) 14:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

With the caveat that this is indeed the wrong place for this, I'd be against any sort of icon propogation in links. It's decoration (which is avowedly against fair use, as we all now know), and even if it's a free-use image, it's tacky and prejudicial. -- nae'blis 15:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any of those templates (e.g. Template:Imdb) including icons. This spewing of Musicbrainz icons might be an example of BEBOLD but should be reverted as BRD. They are a departure from existing practice that's existed for a good reason. There's nothing wrong with a VPP policy discussion but the initial state of that discussion should be with the icons gone, not with them presented as a fait accompli to possibly be reversed. Phr (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should be putting icons in front of links. They're just reference external links, they should be treated the same as any other. Images should really only be used in an article as necessary, not gratuitously for decoration. Remember, we are making an encyclopedia that is to be as freely and widely redistributable as possible. The excess images might get in the way of that. --Cyde Weys 15:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the insidious thing, the rationale for these icons is that Musicbrainz has made the icon itself GFDL. All we need next is for Discount Viagra Spam dot Com to make some GFDL icons and start spewing those in the encyclopedia too. Phr (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent summary, User:Geogre @ 12:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC). Sorry if I wasn't very clear about two things:

• I have nothing against MusicBrainz, or against external links to MusicBrainz, or against templates for external links to MusicBrainz (and IMDb, etc.).
• I am only very concerned about the Pandora box of those little spam icons that keep getting added to external links, and thus make some sites look special and endorsed. And the templates just make it easier to spam (the spam icon on the MusicBrainz template stayed for 10 days until I reverted it, and is already on display on 400+ articles).

Also:

• To answer User:Phr, it's not a matter of BEBOLD (because of the persistent additions after some debates), but the lack of an explicit point of policy against it: those icons keep getting added or sneaked in -- today again it was sneaked in for the 3rd or 4th time by CyberSkull who just sneaks it in every time he works on the template, and just shrugs that MusicBrainz is nonprofit when called on his sneaking it again.
• Besides, after all those putting back the spamicon, isn't there ground for a Wikipedia:Checkuser of the false newuser User:Preacher Bob against User:CyberSkull (sneaked it 3 or 4 times) and User:Cparker (asked for it on the talk page)?

Last but not least, User:Dbachmann is right about my posting here, of course: all my apologies for forgetting to mention here that this message was actually crossposted for

• → WP:VPP#Icon_ads_spam_making_it_like_Wikipedia_promotes_commercial_sites

-- 62.147.39.42 02:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Odd user page edits

I stumbled upon an odd chain of user page edits...with editors who seem to have almost all of their edits to each other's pages. User:Dylan Vidovich, User:Mister_Destructo, User:Breaky, and User:Zombieman of the streets. I'm not sure about this...User:D.K.V. it's showing up as not being a registered member [77] but Zombieman has been editing it, it looks like it's a "user page" in the namespace. Can someone examine these members further? Metros232 23:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the fake userpages. This guy is just vandalizing all over. I'll take care of it. pschemp | talk 23:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's impossible for me to keep straight who edited whose user page in that bunch. And then that obscene amount of edits to the Wikipedia template (I think it was over 100) just makes me wonder what's going on there. Metros232 23:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Np, its a string of socks, vandalising and editing Futurama related articles. All taken care of now. pschemp | talk 00:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User Evading Indef Block

• JohnniCanuck (talk · contribs) is quite clearly JohnnyCanuck (talk · contribs) attempting to evade his indef block. -- pm_shef 01:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

According to JohnnyCanuck (talk · contribs) block log, he was blocked today indefinitely because he is a "sockpuppet", but a checkuser was done on August 10 and it did not find that he used sockpuppets. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Return_of_VaughanWatch JohnnyCanuck's block should be lifted. Mangerno 01:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if JonnyCanuck is unblocked, JonniCanuck should not be unblocked, since it could be either a sock or imposter account. Plus, given how there are different spellings of the name, it can cause confusion, and this a violation of WP:U is present. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note that Mangerno (talk · contribs) is suspected to be a sockpuppet of VaughanWatch (talk · contribs) based on their similar contributions and Mangerno's seemingly intimate knowledge of the Vaughan conflict. Not to mention that he was blocked based on Sockpuppet evidence deemed likely. -- pm_shef 01:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What? I was never blocked from wikipedia. However just from what I'm reading, you have a habit of trying to get people that disagree with you on pages blocked... however you took them to checkuser, and what was the result? You were wrong. ADMINISTRATORS - I am removing these labels from users who were found by checkuser to be innocent.... ban Pm_shef if he disrupts. Mangerno 01:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether JohnnyCanuck is or is not a sockpuppet, he's a vandal, and shouldn't be unblocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

ED209 (talk · contribs · email) looks like another one, with multiple blocks on those areas, now socking on JohnnyCanuck's page. Note also that CheckUser can never find evidence that an account is not a sock (much less prove it conclusively); it can only find certain types of evidence that an account is a sock. Phr (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu sock blocked

I have blocked VandalismCorrecter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a likely sock of Leyasu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This newcomer has also been using surprisingly deceiving edit summaries ([78] [79]) and removed numerous references from Gothic metal, both of which would probably warrant a moreor less short block anyway. Circeus 01:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User has sent me a mail requesting unblock with at best misleading argument. It'll be available to whoever is interested. I am not planning to make a detailed explanation of the multiple issues with this user's editing, as the last thing we want is a harder to spot Leyasu. more Circeus 02:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I wasn't sure, I requested a checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Leyasu. VandalismCorrecter's arguments were slightly more convincing to me than they were to Circeus, but the IPs that Leyasu and VandalismCorrecter are using (see WP:AE) are very close and look like they must be from the same range. I've asked Circeus to unblock VandalismCorrecter after the checkuser request comes back, unless the result is Confirmed or Highly Likely. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it kind of looks like a violation of USERNAME with the name... or is it just me -- Tawker 08:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It does to me too. At best, if the two usernames belong to different users, VandalismCorrecter should consider changing his username. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

YaR GnitS

Policing this sock farm is getting increasingly tedious, mainly because of the sheer number of socks and the puppeteer interfering with the process.

Any suggestions?--Rosicrucian 01:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And this is what I'm talking about. Twelve socks and counting, and this one's not even banned yet.--Rosicrucian 04:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, now it is. Next letter in the alphabet, I guess.--Rosicrucian 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Now the lovable scamp has left me the following via one of the usual AOL proxy IPs--Rosicrucian 05:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not bashful about listing my puppets, I'm dead serious User: AOL yada has no official affiliation to User: YaR GnitS. I'd never even heard of Aol yada until I saw it listed here. If it really follows my posts, then I guess it's just a fan. But if I was hiding puppets, why would I post them myself?

Listen, this deeply offends me, and if User: AOL yada isn't removed from the list by Tuesday 08/15 12:00am GMT, YaR GnitS & co. will double its efforts daily!

Also, FYI your post on the talk page is incorrect, all my info is pre-set, so I just add a suffix, and I'm good to go. For clicking "create a account" to submitting my ICP post, on an edit it takes less than 2min., often less than 1. On a create-a-page, it takes less than 3min. I'm pretty sure the greater effort is on the admin's end. ~YaR GnitS

And he's now trying to remove the sock tag from User:AOL yada via anonymous IP, and spamming this message on that page.--Rosicrucian 15:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, why did you tag my account as a sockpuppet? Just becuase someone decided that creating a sockpuppet tag with an autoblock feature was 'disruptive' doesn't mean that I'm a sockpuppet of anyone, and I wasn't removing sockpuppet tags, I was replacing them with the now deleted template. I got tired of getting hit with collateral damage from YaR GnitS so I created a template, someone didn't like the template, so block, and delete, nothing about that is sockish. If you care to do a checkuser you'll see I wasn't even logged in from an AOL proxy range, rather from a 172, which is not the least bit anonymous. So, if you wouldn't mind....--172.148.239.154 21:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone would like to take a look at the template in question, is just a sockpuppet tag, with an autoblock feature and notice to watch for collateral. The same feautre was worked into Template:Sockpuppet a few hours later. Just after the discussion here, not to mention here.--172.148.239.154 22:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have contacted the original banning admin to see if he can lend some insight. However, since you made a broad sweep of switching the sock tags on the socks of YaR GnitS, and since it is a violation of WP:DENY, I just thought it was more likely you were a sock, considering his own edits.--Rosicrucian 02:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Reneec (talk • contribs)

I posted this at WP:PAIN, but was advised to bring it here because there are multiple, non-static IPs involved, though they are all being used by one editor.

Reneec has been editing as 66.239.212.34 (talk · contribs), 66.239.212.23 (talk · contribs), 66.239.212.68 (talk · contribs) et al (confirmed by this checkuser request back in February, see complete list of recently used IPs below) on the Memphis, Tennessee article and talk page. The editor has made numerous personal attacks on User:Vary and me (and perhaps User:Dozenist as well) on the talk page, such as calling me childish, saying that we've engaged in lackey, sycophantic crawling, calling Vary ignorant, a Wiki Cop on a cycle of deletion, and clueless, calling me ignorant, unfriendly, and an embarassing, obnoxious despot, and so forth (there are more attacks, but I think that's enough to fairly assess the situation).

While the IPs are not static, making communication with the user directly nearly impossible, numerous attempts to get the user to stop making the attacks have been made on the Memphis talk page itself. I realize that the requisite NPA warnings do not currently appear on Reneec's talk page. Reneec has, however, been warned on his/her talk page in the past, see this and this (the warnings were removed by Reneec immediately after the warnings were given. The IPs have been warned at Talk:Memphis, Tennessee and on their talk pages here and here. Additionally, the user has violated 3RR in the article itself. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 01:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As User:66.239.212.73, Reneec just suggested that Vary see a "behavior modification specialist." Perhaps I need to list each personal attack here? Talk:Memphis, Tennessee#In the Matter of Memphis Musician David Saks is an excellent place to start for anyone who wishes to assess this situation. I would really appreciate some attention in this matter. Thanks! · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 03:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the attacks at Talk:Memphis, the user has attacked Vary and me on our user talk pages. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 13:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The following is a list of IPs that have been used in the last three days by Reneec on the Memphis article and talk page:

1. 66.239.212.90 (talk · contribs)
2. 66.239.212.55 (talk · contribs)
3. 66.239.212.37 (talk · contribs)
4. 66.239.212.101 (talk · contribs)
5. 66.239.212.68 (talk · contribs)
6. 66.239.212.64 (talk · contribs)
7. 66.239.212.46 (talk · contribs)
8. 66.239.212.23 (talk · contribs)
9. 66.239.212.34 (talk · contribs)
10. 66.239.212.85 (talk · contribs)
11. 66.239.212.73 (talk · contribs)
12. 66.239.212.5 (talk · contribs)
13. 66.239.212.63 (talk · contribs)

I hope this makes assessment of the situation easier; I apologize for the length and complexity of my earlier post. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 13:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Kerrywayneburgess

Keep an eye on Kerrywayneburgess (talk · contribs). He created an article called Kerry Wayne Burgess which I have speedied as it made slanderous comments about Microsoft and one of its members, with zero Google hits for the nonsense claims that the person made, and no references to back up his claims. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

He recreated it and User:ERcheck redeleted it. I've warned him that if he creates it again, he'll be indefinitely blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In order to guard against recreation of a potentially libelous/slanderous article, I've protected the page. — ERcheck (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting and salting? Endorse. Threatening to indefinitely block? Not so sure. This is all within the realm of ignorance still. He could be the average vanity author who doesn't know what the yellow banner means and doesn't see his messages. Instead, he doesn't understand why "his" article went away and recreates it. No one dislikes vanity articles more than I do, and I'm not full of wiki-love, but I have abiding faith in human ignorance. Geogre 02:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, I admire you greatly, but did you read the deleted article? It was full of slander against a particular person at Microsoft by name and against the Microsoft corporation in particular. I won't go into the details here, but admins can read it. It's also ... bizarre. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice words, and I confess that I hadn't read it. Now that I have, it seems much more...bizarre...than malicious. It looks like the winky blinky stuff that shows up here in paroxysms. I still stand by what I said, though, because the author seems so...marginal. I.e. a true believer in conspiracies that fringe is going to get knocked out pretty quickly in any event, but ... Nah, never mind. I take it back: it's not worth being a scold over someone this out on the edge. There have been some people with unaccepted ideas who have turned to profit on Wikipedia, but not to any great profit. They mainly act to countervene other people with competing unaccepted views. (E.g. some of the people with extremely personal views on aliens are useful because they revert other people with personal views of aliens.) The military conspiracists haven't yet, to my knowledge, been profitable. Geogre 03:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is a hoax, given claims like this, "Ray corrected the problem but he was thrown out of the (space) shuttle when the gear went down prior to landing. It is unclear from current information how he survived the fall but the author assumes he deployed a parachute." There is also this, "Corbis was founded is an interest of Bill Gates, who also is known to control Microsoft." Everyone knows that Bill Gates controls (or controlled) Microsoft and it was never a secret. The manner in which it is said makes it seem like it is meant to be humorous. Finally, the author suggests there is a connection between the man's approximately $2,000 paycheck, his 2,000 stock options and the 2,000 pound bombs used to destroy an Iraqi nuclear reactor. That is not a conspiracy theory, it is a hoax or mental illness. -- Kjkolb 13:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha, the infamous conspiracy theory parody double switch! Ain't doing us any good, but maybe not the low level crank. Geogre 14:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ati3414 Threatenning to call the police (again)

User:Ati3414 has already been banned for one month after he called the police when I and others repeatedly removed his spam links. He has a history of self promotion, for starting editting wars, and of removing other user's comments in talk pages (and has been warned about this).

I noticed that he once again removed another user's comment on a talk page, and added it back in. Upon doing so, he threatenned to call the police and my employers again.

Here is his comment: "Do I need to talk with your professors again? Do you want Lt. Frost to give you a call and remind you that you should stay away?"

When he was previously banned for this, I pleaded leniency for him, as I hoped that he would correct his behavior. Apparrently his bans have taught him nothing. I no longer believe leniency is appropriate. -- Gregory9 01:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait..wtf? He is going to call the police because someone on the internet removed his links on Wikipedia? --mboverload@ 01:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Should you need me to remove his links you can get my contact details on my userpage. I am immune from any attacks from him. --mboverload@ 01:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe you misread my comment (sorry if I wasn't clear). He was previously banned for calling the police after an editting war regarding his link spam. Now he is threatenning to call them again because I replaced another user's comment that he removed from a talk page. -- Gregory9 02:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. If something like this happens again feel free to contact me. --mboverload@ 02:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. This is simply over the top. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I support the indef block--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

:* Also endorse. JoshuaZ 02:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) I'm not sure I can endorse this just yet, after rereading the section, it appears that there was some sort of prior contract between the users. It would be helpful to have some explanation what the heck they were talking about before I endorse the block. JoshuaZ 02:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that Ati3414 had previous contact with me outside of Wikipedia, this is how he knew who I was to harass me through the police. He also previously harassed me by calling my employers (and police again) over a contract dispute, but this was unrelated to wikipedia. The matter at hand is that in a recent post on wikipedia he threatenned to call them again due to reverting his deletion on a talk page. While I don't really feel it is necessary or relavent to go into the details of the contract referred to in a later post, I might as well state it since it is ridiculously simple: I would return money he owed for documentation I located for him, if in return he would agree to not contact me or post on the website (not this site) that started the nonsense in the first place and if he violated that simple task, he would immediately owe me the money back. (He of course didn't keep his word.)

I really don't feel any of those details of how he knows my identity is important. What is important is that he called the cops once claiming harassment when I removed his wiki spam. And now, despite being warned by the police and being banned on wikipedia for it once already, he is threatenning it again when I restored another user's comment that he deleted off a talk page. That's what matters here: His edits and actions on Wikipedia. -- Gregory9 05:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Given this and additional info, now back to endorsing the block. JoshuaZ 17:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Calling the police over minor Wikipedia issues? They must have been delighted! Endorse block. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>` [discl.]} 02:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

'Comment' User talk:Gregory9#Ati3414.27s continual refusal to answer direction questions Here is one part of their discussions Wjhonson 02:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely support the block. If he has a problem with it, he can call the cops..how ridiculous.--Crossmr 05:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Human experimentation

I recently had to remove a totally fabricated line from this article that claimed that the late Rep. Frank Church, of the CIA-Church Committee fame, was "mysteriously killed in a plane crash." This is totally untrue as he died of natural causes. I can't believe that such a thing was allowed to be in the article for so long.

This is just the kind of crap that gives Wikipedia a bad name and lends people not to take it seriously.Courtney Akins 01:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Since this is the administrators' noticeboard, I'm curious, what action are you looking for an administrator to take? Metros232 02:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

To take notice of it and prevent such travesties in the future thanks.Courtney Akins 02:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The higher the profile of the article, the more likely subtle vandalism will be caught. The lower the profile (like John Siegenthaller), the more likely volunteers will miss it. Given the age skew of Wikipedia's volunteers (often satirized in The Onion), missing something in Church's article isn't that surprising, which is why each should monitor according to his ability. If you're saying, "We need more older folks well informed on American politics," no one is going to disagree. Geogre 02:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

How? Monitor every single edit on every single article 24 hours a day? Fan-1967 02:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Page is on my watchlist User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism will not be the main issue for wikipeida, we revert that. It is the large amount of subtle vandalism, good-intended faulty edits as well as subtle POV-pushing is what makes Wikipedia weak. This is and will remain the biggest source of trouble for wikipedia. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, since having a politician die in a plane crash is not that infrequent, this sort of conspiracy-laden false edit is very plausible, which makes it very dangerous. Hardly anyone knows about the Church Committee (which looked into illegal CIA plots) which would allow an edit like that to persist and take on a life of its own. Who knows how many people read that and took it as a fact, then passed it on to friends in casual conversation, who passed it on, etc...Courtney Akins 02:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So what do you expect us administrators to do about it? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just watch the page. However, I think this would be better placed on the Noticeboard instead at WP:AN. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

All people with expert or above-average knowledge should watch every page daily within their field to monitor for spurious posts such as that one and remove them quickly before they desseminate.Courtney Akins 03:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Where are we going to find the people to watch 1,315,472 articles? Fan-1967 03:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The people that are already on here and joining everyday? Have you so little faith in the Wikipedia community? Or do you think we are all young a bunch of mindless slutty kids?Courtney Akins 03:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear you feel that way. Pick several dozen articles on subjects you know and start watching them for any spurious edits. The more people doing that, the less this sort of thing will happen. Fan-1967 04:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it becomes painfully clear why this type of vandalisme will remain. I am one of those experts, and I am not watching anything anymore, because you can just keep 24/7 busy with checking and undoing vandalism of all degrees. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The original poster is a troll. AN/I is not McDonalds. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The Frank Church error was inserted here by John robinson (talk · contribs) who appears to be a POV pusher needing warnings and/or blocks. This is the kind of situation that makes me wish we could have watchlists on contributors to check all their edits. I'm not able to follow up on Robinson right now but it would be good if someone could look into his contribs and take appropriate steps. Phr (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This reminds me that it would be nice to have a (last) link from User contributions, to see if the change is still in the article, with one click. With tabbed browsing, it'd be much easier to go through a problem user's contributions that way, rather than having to click on the (diff) link, then go to the history, scroll to find the correct change, and then compare them. Surely this is already on bugzilla? -- nae'blis 15:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the vandal of the FC article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying, then, that the edit didn't occur/should be ignored? Otherwise I can't see the point of mentioning that here... the problem still exists regardless of who brought it up (even if they were the same person, on a troll/sockpuppet combo move). -- nae'blis 19:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Toadfish7530 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and bad edits to John Goodsall, Brand X, and others

There is a persistent vandal who has been vandalizing Brand X and John Goodsall, among other articles. This vandal has insisted that someone named "Ian Hart-Stein" was a guitarist in Brand X, and he has also vandalized other articles with poorly sourced facts. The first vandal was Kenwood 3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been blocked. He's used a number of sockpuppets, but the most recent two have been Norman3412 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who created a bogus John Goodsall article yesterday), and Toadfish7530 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who reverted my attempt to remove bad information from the article.

I'm getting a little bit pissed off about this. No, I'm getting really pissed off about this. In a world where I can get in trouble about the title Minnesota State Highway 100, as opposed to State Highway 100 (Minnesota) (or Trunk Highway 100 (Minnesota) or Normandale Boulevard (Highway 100 (Minnesota)) or whatever the hell it's supposed to be called today), I'm really at the short end of my fuse in regards to this blatantly false information being propagated here. I'd suggest an immediate ban on any socks of Kenwood 3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), semi-protection on the affected articles, and an immediate LART to anyone who says anything about "Ian Hart-Stein". --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 03:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Strange pattern, connected with previous problem user(s)?

A look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.xkkk.org shows that no less than five IP-editor talk pages (User talk:213.232.194.246, User talk:24.215.188.4, User talk:70.152.242.47, User talk:67.186.195.85, User talk:82.99.219.16) and one newly-registered user talk page (User talk:DocFisherKing) have had the entire contents, or so it appears, of David Duke transferred into them. I would not presume to guess at who is behind this or why but I will note that I only discovered this because I was looking for possible recreations of Johnny Lee Clary (a.k.a. TheKingOfDixie (talk · contribs)), whose website is http://www.xkkk.org. Supporters of Mr. Clary have been trying repeatedly to either re-create Mr. Clary's article under different names such as Johnny Clary, J L Clary, John Clary, etc., or to write articles that still feature Clary heavily (Operation Colorblind, Clary's ministry; Johnny Angel (wrestler), still about Clary but focused on his wrestling career; or Wade Watts, which in an early draft had two sentences about Wade Watts and four about Johnny Clary -- and a link to xkkk.org.[80]) This may be related to that, or it may not, but I thought the Duke-duplication should receive attention. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You can use Special:Linksearch to find pages that contain specified web links. xkkk.org is linked to 2 articles (Imperial Wizard and David Duke and a bunch of user pages including the IP's you listed. I'm not sure if it should be deleted as linkspam or not. Thatcher131 (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably an attempt at SEO'ing the site. I suggest warning and/or blocking these people and removing the links, and if the problem persists, nominate the link at m:talk:spam blacklist to prevent it from being inserted into articles. Phr (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

MakeChooChooGoNow

Could someone check out what he is doing with the Sun Myung Moon article? I hope that I am doing the right thing. I removed a tag he put on three times. Steve Dufour 15:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User:MakeChooChooGoNow has not violated WP:3RR. I have left him a note to make sure he is aware of the 3RR policy. I don't see any other issue with this editor. I would also note that Steve Dufor is a member of the Unification Church and the self-proclaimed "unofficial "watch dog" of the site" on behalf of the church. He has a clear WP:POV that needs to be taken into account. Gwernol 13:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I admit I do have a POV. Please see the discussion page of the article if you like.Steve Dufour 15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)p.s. When I told ChooChoo I was the "unofficial watch dog" for Unification Church articles I was only trying to describe what I was doing. I was not threatening to bite him.  :-)

Besides it's kind of hard to dislike a person with the name MakeChooChooGoNow.  :-) Steve Dufour 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User 0111

See User:0111 (also uploading copyright image and removing the copyvio template with such erudite messages as "Suck it"). Yomangani^talk 14:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted two more of their images as obvious copyvios, tagged another, and left another warning. Jkelly 17:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

{{User Modernbushido}} and Cyde

It's this one again. For the THIRD TIME, this template has been deleted without a TfD, and without my notice by Cyde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Thi is very disconcerting to me, especially since it was deleted for "Cross-namespace redirect, see WP:ASR", which makes no sense, since its a template (not a redirect) and not a self-reference. Normally at this point I would contact Cyde, but I have found that Cyde tends to attack, flame, and ban people who speak against him for no reason, violating basically everything in WP:CIVIL at once.

I undertstand that the German Userbox Solution moves the templates to User Space, but also, compromise and consensus must be followed. according to WP:GUS, "Compromise is the source of community."

Someone should speak to Cyde about his problem with civility and the way he treats other users. He seems to have a lack of Wikilove, and that should be addressed. Perhaps he does not understand the full impact of community consensus, especially when it applies to controversial subjects. Admins should not be above the law, they should be the epitome of it.

~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 14:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had similar problems, so I can endorse this (minus the incivility). Cyde has spent alot of time deleting templates without discussion, without a TfD, and with no better reasons that unclosed polls such as GUS. When questioned, Cyde barely says two words. Since then, a template I use for a WikiProject has been moved to another namespace. This leaves me with the notion that it was done so an admin can get his/her way, and be done with it. SynergeticMaggot 14:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just userfy it and be done with it per WP:GUS. I'm rather annoyed that you kept on recreating it behind my back hoping I wouldn't notice, by the way. --Cyde Weys 15:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Its been userfied, if you bothered to read my comment. And this is exactly what I mean. If you bothered to read GUS, there is more of a consensus to leave WikiProject user boxes in the template namespace. Mind if I ask under what criteria you are using to delete these? SynergeticMaggot 15:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What would be wrong with putting WikiProject userboxes as subpages of the WikiProject? That makes it them who own it. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just deleting the newly created userboxes, which go against the spirit of WP:GUS (what's the point of userfication if dozens more templates are created each day?) WikiProject-related userboxes should be housed under the projectspace to which they refer, i.e. "Wikipedia:WikiProject BlahBlah/Userbox", rather than just being out there stranded in template-space. --Cyde Weys 15:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't like templates very often. I don't like userboxes at all. I don't like tags, except procedural ones. I don't even like categories all that much. All of that, and yet I've been surprised and unhappy to see the way some people have been speedy deleting these things without using existing structures. Use the process, Luke. Use the process. When we don't use the policy, we establish a two tier site, where admins do what they like, and regular users are at their mercy. That's not our structure, it has not been our structure, and it should not become our structure, lest we empower all the administrator-paranoiacs. Geogre 15:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's easy to say, very hard to do in practice. You want me to file 40 new TFDs everyday?! It doesn't make sense that anyone can create this stuff en masse, but then we have to go through the whole rigamarole of process just to get rid of them when they shouldn't have been created in templatespace in the first place. --Cyde Weys 15:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand, and I'm no more enchanted with these things than you are, but, pending an injunction or something clear about what they can and cannot be, we really don't have much choice in the matter. Whenever I've gone to a longtime problem user's page, it has been lit up like a pachinko board with boxes, and having more than one "joke" box stops being funny and crosses into juvenalia, but we don't have the bones yet for doing anything about it. Geogre 19:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Where is the process? A large portion deleted by Cyde did not fall under the speedy criteria. Cyde says it goes against the spirit of GUS. I dont seem to see this under CSD either. This appears more like an admin's opinion rather than policy.

Cyde: Maybe if you took your time and didnt rush into things, they would end up so complicated? Whats done is done I suppose? I'm asking for them to be undeleted as well. If you feel so strongly that so many templates need to be deleted, maybe you should request for a speedy be added to CSD, or some other more valid reason to one of the policies. Instead of what appears to be abuse of adminship. SynergeticMaggot 15:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of adminship? Sigh. If you want these things preserved, just userfy them. It's that simple. That's really all there is to it. That's what WP:GUS is about. --Cyde Weys 15:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What else should I call it? You have gone against a poll, which is not closed, and has current consensus to remain in template namespace. For reference: WP:GUSP#Wikipedia-related. I'll ask again, under what criteria have you deleted these? This time, I'd appreciate an answer. SynergeticMaggot 15:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The difference between the letter and the spirit of WP:GUS is probably worth remembering, as is WP:BITE, since I would suggest that this also applies to editors venturing into a new area. Obviously, informing people of what's happening via leaving them a message in their talk page would prevent so much hassle - with a polite enough notice, people would probably appologise and move it themselves. And once people have been warned once about this, there is better ground to stand on. LinaMishima 16:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional - surely Cydebot could be made to automate the entire process of notifying authors, changing templates on userpages and moving the userbox? Since then their pages will be without red text, most people would be non-the-wiser, and the author would understand why. That way Cyde can continue to attempt to impliment the WP:GUS, even if it's not policy? LinaMishima 17:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So wait, you're suggesting that Cyde's bot can continue to ignore process now? I'm still waiting for another admin to tell me that what Cyde is doing it correct. That admins can ignore consensus and do what they please. SynergeticMaggot 17:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, of course not. I am, however, suggesting a compromise. I'm quite sure that although the lack of due process would still irritate, a fair ammount of upset would be reduced if the authors were kept informed and no-one's userpage was broken. LinaMishima 19:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I should note that I am suggesting a compromise until such a time as this matter is properly settled, rather than a compromise as the solution. That is not to say that the compromise cannot be a solution, but such a think is doubtful. LinaMishima 19:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyde:I'm rather annoyed that you kept on recreating it behind my back hoping I wouldn't notice, by the way.

Ok, what? I recreated it because I thought that it had been deleted by mistake, since I had received no notice, and there was big red link on my page; I commented as such. I didn't go behind your back. It had nothing to do with you. And yes, I think that "abuse of adminship" is a correct term. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 19:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain. I had requested via IRC that the template be restored. I checked the category linked from DRV, for admins who will undeleted, so long as it is in good faith. So I contacted AmiDaniel. And in turn, AmiDaniel undeleted. I have never previously discussed the matter with any other admin, so I hope this clears up at least that much. SynergeticMaggot 20:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is all very, very simple, and I'm really sick of everyone on both sides bickering over userboxes to no end. 1) WP:GUS does not justify the deletion of anything except resulting redirects. 2) The deletion of userboxes in templatespace that are not divisive and inflammatory is not justified without a TfD. 3) Nonetheless, WikiProject affiliation userboxes make a hell of a lot more sense in project space than in templatespace. So the solution is very simple: Stop creating the userboxes in templatespace, and, Cyde, when you come across such a userbox in template space, use the nifty little move tab to put it in project space and then delete the resulting redirect. Then we can stop having these annoying and pointless discussions about absofuckinglutely nothing and get on with work that actually benefits the encyclopedia. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yay. --mboverload@ 22:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand the situation. the problem is not with WP:GUS. The problem is with an adminstrator who abused his powers in order to throw all procedure out the window...again. You said it yourself: WP:GUS does not justify the deletion of anything except resulting redirects. The deletion of userboxes in templatespace that are not divisive and inflammatory is not justified without a TfD. The userbox was simply deleted, not substed or userfied. It was just GONE, leaving a red link. I had to recreate it myself on user space. Now do you see the problem? ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 01:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The process works. If someone wants it userfied, it is. If no one wants it userfied, it stays deleted. There's no point in userfying hundreds of templates that no one cares about and that no one is going to use. --Cyde Weys 03:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Gene Nygaard pages moves

Hi, this user is moving pages with diacritics to versions without them only because there was no redirect from the unaccented version (e.g.). He refuses to make simple redirects because it does not teach the involved editors to make redirects. Three users protested his actions, but he is still insisting on his own way. See related talk section. I have no time or will to babysit him and revert the moves. Please do something about it. Thank you. Renata 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Nygaard seems to be on the edge (or beyond) of WP:POINT, but well-intentioned. Perhaps if a few admins weighed in we could channel his desire to help more effectively. Martinp 01:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have restored this comment to the noticeboard as this editor has continued moving pages despite eight editors asking him to stop or reverting his edits - a clear action against consensus.

Just one example: Rétság was moved to Retsag today. Now, for no encyclopaedic reason, it is the single Hungarian place in its category without the correct diacritics, and all the internal links point to a redirect. This is not a good thing.

Gene claims on his talk page that he moves the pages (rather than creating the necessary redirect) to make a point to the original page creator that they should have created a diacriticless redirect earlier. As mentioned by Martinp, this breaches WP:POINT; this editor should not be working against consensus, disturbing consistent naming schemes and creating needless redirect, RFM and page move work for other editors in order to attract attention to a cause.

Administrator help for the clear-up would be much appreciated, too. Aquilina 16:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I would add that he does not seem to look for a compromise. Renata 16:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Something should be done about this. —freak(talk) 17:01, Aug. 14, 2006 (UTC)

If we can collide him with User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (who did a huge number of disruptive pagemoves in sort of the opposite direction recently) would there be a matter-antimatter explosion? Phr (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted Gene's latest moves. He does seem to be doing more harm than good, despite having a perfectly valid point about unaccented redirects. — sjorford++ 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've left a warning on his user page. If he continues I think a 1 hour block would make sense (I don't want to block for longer because this is minor and Gene is a generally good contributor). JoshuaZ 17:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have left a message on his talk page as well. Regardless of his motives - and I believe, from long experience, Gene has the best interests of the project at heart - this is not the way to go about things, and only inflames people. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue of non-English-alphabet names needs to have a clear policy -- something to be decided from above. I have made it my rule so far to create articles with the native name, creating redirects for all the Anglicized versions. I agree that Gene's policy of anglicizing article names (without that being a clear WP policy) does more harm than good -- Palthrow 18:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a big issue, I thought we have guidelines (see the RAN incident) that we name the article with the most common English spelling, e.g. John von Neumann instead of Neumann János. But in the cases where the name isn't commonly used in English, we use the native spelling. Phr (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So, according to the very valid points you are making--no determination has yet been made as to the proper English Wikipedia title in the articles I am moving. Therefore, no one has any real grounds for complaint against my moves. The unaccented form has not yet been considered by anyone. If you disagree with my choice as to the particular title, you can discuss it on that articles talk page. Or, you can even revert me--but at least we don't end up with the totally unacceptable position which prevailed before. If you do revert me, the redirect will remain. That means that someone who sees some word or name of a person or place in an English language newspaper or magazine story will now at least have a reasonable chance to find the Wikipedia article on the subject, if one exists. That wasn't the case before.

Sure, in many cases it really doesn't matter all that much which of the various spellings and forms appears in the article title, as long as you can find the article by slapping on the squigglies after I have moved it to the English form, or whatever. What is totally unacceptable is not to have a search for the English alphabet version work. Gene Nygaard 02:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple of other things to consider:

1. After my moves, all links from forms with accents still work and still get you to the proper article.
2. After my moves, entering the accented form into the "Go" box still works.
3. After my moves, many former redlinks are now blue, and take you to the correct article.
4. After my moves, entering the English alphabet form in the "Go" box works as well, something that wasn't true before.

Actually, there are almost no places where you will even notice that the article has been moved, when it comes to finding information in Wikipedia.

Furthermore, many of these articles are accompanied by another problem--not being indexed properly in the categories. It isn't a one-to-one correspondence; some of those missing any connection the the English alphabet form have already been indexed properly (and in most cases, appear as they should in the same place in the list whether the accents are included in the article title or not), and some with the article title in an unaccented version have improper use of diacritics in the indexing sort keys. But quite often the two problems go hand in hand. Gene Nygaard 02:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Jtkiefer

Some rather ugly things coming to light at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jtkiefer 3: Jtkiefer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is also apparently Pegasus1138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has had various interesting interactions between his accounts, including responding to his 3RR report, telling himself that he won't block himself for 3RR, supporting himself for a bot flag (but opposing his own RFA), double-voting on RFAs, and other such things. What do we do now? I would suggest an indefinite block of at least one of the accounts—perhaps with a shorter block on the other—and possibly a checkuser to see if he has any other sockpuppets waiting in the wings. Kirill Lokshin 16:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Pegasus1138 as an admitted sockpuppet engaged in devious activity. I would support a long block -- even an indefinite one -- on Jtkiefer, but will not impose it myself, given his history of hostility to me. Xoloz 16:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Support, way beyond anything acceptable. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Some other strange goings-on here that may relate to this case. Kirill Lokshin 17:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for top-posting, but use RFAR. This is a picture perfect RFAR situation and the living example of a thing not to be done by head nods on AN/I. Geogre 19:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So is User:Thygard another sockpuppet? A checkuser seems strongly in order. JoshuaZ 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What makes you suspect that? Editor88 17:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Never mind... I've got it figured out. 17:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am in the strange position of having some good memories of Jtkiefer (and incidentally, bad ones of Pegasus). At this time, and based on this evidence, I would not yet be willing support an indefinite block. While there is evidence of abusive sockpuppetry, and the puppets should be blocked, so far I don't see enough evidence of the kind of persistent disruption that normally motivates an indefinite block. Dragons flight 17:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Thygard for the same reason as Pegasus1138. Xoloz 17:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN

Due to the gravity of the persistent and repeated abuses of trust reported in the course of Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jtkiefer_3, I propose that we ban him from Wikipedia [81]. --Tony Sidaway 17:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. His actions convince me that he should never be an admin, and any future RfAs should be speedily closed. He should also be limmited to one account. But aside from that, I think probation rather than a ban is in order. There is no evidence (that I know of) that he's been a particularly disruptive editor. Arbcom might be better than an outright ban. --Doc 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Per Doc, I would suggest an RfArb over anything else. — FireFox ^(talk) _{17:21, 11 August '06}

Hi, everyone. I must say that I disagree with a community ban. I know I'm not an admin, but I have just finished looking over the situation out of my own curiosity, and I don't believe that he's actually harmful. I agree that his potential future RfAs should be speedily closed and he should be limited to one account, but I don't think an indefinite ban is necessary - I'd say ArbCom. Sorry if I'm out of place... Srose (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are certainly not out of place. (Particularly since you are agreeing with me - which shows your inate wisdom ;).) --Doc 17:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Doc is, I think, quite right, and his suggestions seem roughly orthogonal with those of Cyde infra. Jtk should be limited to one account, of course, with the provision that his creating a sockpuppet for the purpose of disrupting projectspace will be strongly disfavored; his mainspace participation seems to be altogether fine, and I don't think there's any risk of disruption relative to work on articles. I'm not certain that a year-long ban from RfA is in order—his only sockpuppeteering at RfA seems to have been relative to his own RfAs, and I can't imagine that he'll be requesting adminship anytime soon—since he may have particular prescience apropos of the judgment of prospective admins, but I don't think such a ban would be particularly wrong. Joe 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So how about this: Jtkiefer is put on a standard one-year probation with an added provision of being banned from RFA and its subpages (for one year). He is also limited to only one account. --Cyde Weys 17:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Concur, for reasons enumerated above. Joe 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

He should also be banned from WP:FPC for sockpuppet voting there as well. -Ravedave 18:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should close the admin window on him permanently - changes can happen outside of one's imagination. I do, however, prefer that he be required go through Editor review before his next admin application. Editor88 17:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I say ArbCom and RFC (should have been RFCU). I definitely feel there should be consequences over this, but a community ban seems a bit much. So ArbCom to get official status of some consequences/limits, and RFC to find any other current problem socks. - TexasAndroid 17:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

RFC? Maybe a straight checkuser would be more effective in actually finding out what his other socks are? Kirill Lokshin 17:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Checkuser is exactly what I meant. I just typed the wrong acronym. Sorry for any confusion. - TexasAndroid 17:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I was going to say. RFC in this case would just become a venue to bash him. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of ugly in that RFA, but if he can agree to having only one account, there's a possibility he can still be a useful editor (though not an admin or anything with additional trust, apparently). Very sad to see this occur...I think Cyde has an acceptable compromise here. Are you actually intending to forbid him from voting on RFAs, though? -- nae'blis 17:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Given his use of sockpuppets to get muliple votes on at least three previous RFAs (that we know of), there need to be some consequences and provisions to ensure the integrity of the process. --Cyde Weys 17:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I was just making sure I understood your proposal. I'm not entirely certain how CheckUser works (not having the bit), is it only done on comparison of users, or does it reveal all users at a particular IP? I ask because it would make a difference in my confidence of all socks being caught/gone... -- nae'blis 18:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with finding his various sockpuppets, it would help over at WP:FPC -Ravedave 18:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Indef ban may be a bit of an overkill, but I would support a RfAr hearing on all these. - Mailer Diablo 17:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• ArbCom is probably a cleaner way of going about this than a straight ban; but the various sockpuppets should be blocked outright. There's no need to risk having some of them slip under the radar at this point. Kirill Lokshin 17:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just bringing it to everyone's attention: [82]. — FireFox ^(talk) _{17:36, 11 August '06}

• I think indef block is too harsh, but placing Jtkiefer on probation for a year would be suitable. The socks should be indef blocked of course. Doubt an ArbComm case would be productive, there's really not much to arbitrate. -- Миборовский 17:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think that Jtkiefer could be a good article editor again but should not be given any positions of trust, or allowed to comment or vote on them, until maturity has been demonstrated. I'd rather see him restricted to his current account with some curbs in place (no standing or running for admin, arb, or 'crat, and no commenting on other candidacies, not commenting/voting on anything else either) instead of his setting up another identity which then has to be managed/monitored somehow (and without fishing around it might be hard to do that anyway...) ++Lar: t/c 19:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• One oppose vote by a new editor was odd to me in Jtkiefer's RfA. Namely by Republitarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The user registered 2 days ago and started editing with edit summaries etc. Just strikes odd, with that previous self-oppose incident also. feydey 19:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not one of mine, sorry to burst the bubble of anyone who expects to find more socks, Pegasus and Thygard were my only two. Jtkiefer 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother

Don't bother, I am perfectly capable of knowing where and when I am not wanted and I am obviously not wanted here, please also indef. block Jtkiefer if it'll make you feel better but I'll save you all the trouble and go through a self imposed wiki-ban, for the record all I ever wanted to do was help the project, everything I did was an attempt to help though I honestly don't expect you all to believe that, well so long and thanks for all the fish. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, you are wanted so long as you make good contributions, and not the types of shenanigans that have upset so many. - Taxman ^Talk 17:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, while recent revelations have been distressing, the person most hurt by Jtkiefer's behaviour is almost certainly Jtkierer, himself. And the fact of opposing his sockpuppet's RfA suggests that this is not a straightforward case of duplicity for the motive of gain, but that the user may have been going through problems that we know nothing about. AnnH ♫ 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

(sigh) It's not that you are not wanted, just that certain behavior is not wanted. All discussion here seems to be related to project-space problems; can you handle being "just" an article editor for a while, to re-establish trust? -- nae'blis 18:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Jt, I don't believe you would dispute that your actions have been less than appropriate. People are responding to them differently, and at this point the community has not come to any kind of decision -- and I don't suppose that it would be reasonable for you to expect that all of this be forgotten at the drop of a hat: if you want this to be let go eventually, the first step is to own it, that is, accept responsibility for the mistakes made.
I don't have a crystal ball, of course, but if I had to guess, I'd say you are not likely to be banned, but you are equally unlikely to become an administrator, or to hold any kind of special position in this community. If you can settle for being an editor (and doing it from a single account), who knows, in the future (granted, it would take a lot more time than "usual"), you might even arrive at a point where the community will we willing to trust you with Admin tools again. But if you up and leave now, nothing gets resolved, and the last memory of your participation in the project would be this debacle. Would you say that's fair? Be patient; accept responsibility. And don't get angry because people are having a hard time digesting what has happened, since that's not fair either. Redux 18:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

<de-indent> I thought I did, anyway yes I do take responsibility for what I was doing was wholly innapropriate and wrong and I apologize for violating everyone's trust, in my defense of Pegasus1138 though that sock was actually known and permitted by both Jimmy Wales and the arbitration committee in respone to the RFA/RFB incident that happened between the two accounts. Jtkiefer 18:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Jt is correct to some extent. He/She certainly IS unwanted by some of us. The unbelievable and offensive arrogance he/she showed at WP:FPC speaks volumes. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention to arrogance of self-nominating a sock puppet for RfA four times. -Will Beback 20:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Good article editors are welcome always, but this user should never be an admin. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The regularity with which this user has attempted to gain "authority" over others here (and the underhanded tactics utilized) indicates (IMO) that he/she should be banned permanently from the Wikipedia. There is no place in our community for someone with the mindset that this user displays. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Solution

As I've said I am going on a self imposed Wikiban from this account and the other 2 have already been blocked and I fully agree to a community enforced one account probation, however due to the strong feelings in this case I am loathe to do it on this account and once this discussion has died down I will be scrambling my passwords on this and the other two accounts to long letter/number combinations to prevent abuse by myself or others. Considering that if my one account would not have a fair shot of being a good editor I would not publicly reveal what the nick is (when I have created it) however if a few trusted Wikipedian's would come forth and swear secrecy I think that having them as oversight would be a good idea, that way the needs of the community knowing what I'm doing and the needs of me being able to make a fresh start under one account would be met. Jtkiefer 17:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to this, on the one additional proviso that, if you ever want to seek RFA on the new account, you must publically reveal the link in the process. This may result in it being impossible for you to ever get adminship back, but I'm afraid that that would have to be part of the consequences for you actions. For you to ever seek adminship again, it must be done in the public light. I have no problem with you returning to edit quietly, but I have a big problem with the possibility of you using that secrecy to try to get adminship once again. As for who could be trusted to know your new account, User:Kelly Martin, for one, appears to have been trusted by you for quite a while, and could possibly be one of the people, IMHO. - TexasAndroid 18:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering that Pegasus dissappeared with a very similar claim, I still think an RFCU would be in order. JoshuaZ 18:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Already filed. - TexasAndroid 18:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've taken this to Requests for arbitration [83]. --Tony Sidaway 18:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And the request for checkuser was shot down as a fishing expedition, I have already created my single use account btw, and as per the community imposed terms (and I don't think anyone will disagree if I say that this is the probation version of a community ban decision} of the single account probation I have created my secondary account, and as of now am limiting this account to this AN/I thread, my user, talk, and subpages, and the pending RFAr against me. Jtkiefer 18:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would not call it "Shot Down". Mackensen said there were no "extant accounts" other than the 3 we already know of. (And he deliberately did not reveal the new account, if it had been created before the check) I read this as check performed, nothing found beyond the known ones, and possibly the new one. As such I consider the RFCU issue to be closed. - TexasAndroid 18:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a very accurate analysis of it actually, so hopefully that can be put to rest. Jtkiefer 18:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just a status update, I have scrambled the passwords for both Pegasus and Thygard so I no longer have access to either account, nor is there an email address set for either account. Jtkiefer 18:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Both accounts are blocked indefinitely, so that's a moot point actually. - Mailer Diablo 18:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but I think it's an attempt at showing good faith on my part in me accepting using only one account if nothing else. Jtkiefer 19:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be quite irresponsible for us to Assume Good Faith on your part after your behavior. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I support arbitration to examine the entire history and all areas of potential abuse by the editor. For the record, I was seconds from blocking him for his utterly unacceptable attack of JDG ^[84], only to find out this was his (not his 1st) "I'm leaving" note. El_C 21:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:FPC

For the record, Jtkiefer has been involved in some potential irregularities on the WP:FPC. See here for details. His/Her consistent attempts to act as if he/she has "authority" over others or some special status seem in the same vein as his/her attempts to achieve adminship. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Userpage deletion

I have requested several times that User:Thygard be deleted using {{db-owner}} perfectly in line with policy it has been confirmed that I am the owner and it is not a talk page. The sock notice which should be preserved is also present on the the talk page so that's not an issue eithyer. My requests while inline with policy have been deemed "vandalism" and my userpage ad been protected against even me editing it. Could an admin please fulfill my request? thanks. Jtkiefer 20:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC) CanadianCaesar has brought up the good point that there may be an administrative need to keep the page, I disagree since my userpage is just links and notes created as a listing of my interests and some of my comings and goings and unlike my talk page has no real administrative substance but more comment is probably needed in that regard. Jtkiefer 21:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It is useful in that it serves as a link to the contributions of that "user". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Per policy and common practice, the userpage may be blanked, deleted and protected; the talk page may be blanked as a courtesy but will not be deleted, to retain the history of comments, warnings, etc. Even at a blanked/deleted user page, the contribs link will still work. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you learn something new every day. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Resolution

I'm bringing this back out of the archive to bring a final resolution. It seems there is consensus for a one account limitation for Jtkiefer and he has agreed to this. Because the issue was already more or less decided here, the arbitration request was declined. The only outstanding issue is for Jtkiefer to disclose to a number of people what new account he is editing under so they can prevent future abuse. While Jtkiefer wants that to be permanently secret, he has abused that in the past, so it seems reasonable to keep the identity secret unless he tries to do anything irregular (such as supporting the positions of his sockpuppets or anything else in WP:SOCK or tries to stand for adminship or another position of importance. There has been a checkuser performed, and it looks like another would need to be run unless Jtkiefer voluntarily discloses his new account to at least a few members of the arbcom and a couple bureaucrats. I'm willing to be one of the bureaucrats the account is disclosed to, but I'm also fine if people don't want me to be one of them for whatever reason. Once the account is disclosed the people that know should confirm they know and by private means confirm it is the same one. Thanks all. - Taxman ^Talk 17:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you have informed Jtkiefer about this discussion on his talk page. I suggest that, if he should want to continue editing under a new account, he should contact a bureaucrat and disclose his username. It doesn't need to be generally published, as long as it is known within the bureaucratship. If he doesn't come forward within a month or so, I guess we assume he's not interested. If he is then detected at some time in the future (due to problematic behavior) then we'll deal with that when it arises. --Tony Sidaway 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agreed to use one account and continue to agree to however I do not agree with mandatory disclosure should I request adminship and that's holding me back from full agreement from this. I understand the community has an interest in knowing if I ever go up for adminship again, however statements like dante's "oppose indefinitely" make me weary of disclosure since I feel that I will never be able to get a fair chance again for adminship due to people who will infinitely oppose even after I've earned trust again, also I am not sure if the community will accept anything short of the arbcom and even though I am trying to assume good faith I do not have faith that this won't be done then I'll end up being perm banned by some admin who can claim that this isn't a "community wide decisions". Jtkiefer 18:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we reallize that you want to be able to reapply without having to disclose the situation, but that is unacceptable. Many RfA's pass with some opposes and some with a significant amount. If significant time passed where you were able to demonstrate an exemplary edit history and some patience, then I believe you could have a successful RfA. Heck, not that many Wikipedian's stick around forever. If you're patient enough, you can out-wait them and then your candidacy would be fully judged on the merits. - Taxman ^Talk 18:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We're at a bit of an impasse then since disclosure while not originally unacceptable to me has been made unacceptable by comments by people who will hold a permanent grudge against me and to answer the accusation that I might do something suspicious that would warrant another checkuser, as I said before this account is only being used to respond to these threads and to notes on my talk page and on my undisclosed I'm going back to my basics and trying to get some article editing done in peace. Jtkiefer 18:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorry, but then I think the only option is forced disclosure or community ban. Restriction to one account with disclosure if need be was just a compromise to allow you to edit. If you are unwilling to disclose the situation should you choose to try for a position of importance, it would be disclosed for you. You made your choices, now you don't want to have to live with the consequences. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. - Taxman ^Talk 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It sounds like you want to create a new identity, rack up some edits, promptly apply for adminship again, and a month later for bureaucratship. I can sympathize with you wanting a blank slate for editing, but your constant need for more power is very suspicious, and any future applications for adminship under a new identity should include your past history in this area. If there has been sufficient time and good behavior then I'm sure people can overlook your past deceptions, but it's not going to happen in 2 months like I think you expect. If you don't agree with the terms Taxman outlined, then I would propose that your other account be revealed and blocked, and you be restricted to editing as user User:Jtkiefer. 12.75.4.22 20:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Jt, the only reason it seems that people will hold permanent grudges is because they do. You burned a lot of bridges, did you really think that people would just ignore it? Your actions have consequences, and one of those is that you don't get a free pass to have a secret identity so you can be an admin. This is not a matter of us failing to Assume Good Faith, you've PROVEN (more than once) that this community cannot trust you and that you do not care about the opinions of the people who make up the community. If you want to be an admin, you go ahead and convince a sizable majority of people that they can trust you. Now, I doubt you'll be able to do that, but you are entitled to try... OPENLY. I would also like to make a special request that someone who's a regular on the WP:FPC page be made aware of Jt's secret identity, as there are concerns about his behavior on that page specifically. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A possible other solution, since it appears that I risk being banned if I don't give into being railroaded, what if I edit only as Jtkiefer and do a 6 month voluntary ban on all spaces outside of article/user/and user talk with a one year ban from FPC and RFA and all subpages and related pages, which of course would be enforced not only by myself but the community at large I guess since I can assume that from now on all my contributions will be gone over with a fine tooth comb, this is not my first choice for a solution and the conversations above so that you do not have a legitimate excuse for a community ban as the community by and large is split over possibly banning me but I'm willing to abide by it if it will appease Taxman, Dante, and the community. Jtkiefer 00:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Threads on AN and AN/I directly about me would be exempt from this as would RFAr's and RFC's against me of course since even though I don't forsee ever having to use it again I should be able to take part in the dispute resolution procedure if needed. Jtkiefer 00:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that I have no special weight here, other than that I have been especially vocal in my disapproval of Jtkiefer's recent controversial behavior. As such, Jt has referenced me by name above, and accordingly, I am responding. I will grant that "permanent" was perhaps a bit harsh on my part with respect to a ban. I suppose it is possible for people to "reform" and change their attitude, so leaving the door open in the future is not wholly unreasonable. I would not oppose Jtkiefer's proposed solution (listed above), specifically with respect to the one year voluntary ban from FPC and RFA pages. I am uncertain whether the 6 month ban on "generic" non-article/user pages is necessary, and do not consider it required for a reasonable solution. As Jt's objectionable behavior appears to have been limited to FPC and RFA pages, I have no problem with the punishment being confined to those pages, especially if he continues editing on a known account (User:Jtkiefer, for example, with no socks). Based on a brief check of Jt's additions to the article namespace, it does appear that his "problem" is limited to administrative tasks, and that he would probably be capable of making useful contributions to the 'pedia if they were limited to the article/user space. I maintain my position that his behavior with respect to seeking authority is absolutely unacceptable, but acknowledge that he has contributed outside of that capacity and should probably be allowed to continue to do so. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're not being railroaded. You just don't want to deal with the consequences of your actions. But from my perspective you don't need to agree to any namespace bans as long as you agree to edit from one known account and to have that be enforced. You'd be free to e$it as you please and build back trust with the community. That seems like a reasonable solution to remove the problems but allow you to continue the good editing you do. - Taxman ^Talk 01:32, 1u August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me, I'll only edit via this account without any namespace restrictions, though I think I'll for now just vote on FPC's and not close them, and stay as far away as possible from RFA for the most part. Jtkiefer 02:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok from me at least, but one account means one account — you have to disclose the other account(s) you've been editing under. Also, the no restrictions bit is subject to approval by others of course. - Taxman ^Talk 02:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And therein lies the rub, the unfortunate side-effect of the arbcom rejecting the case is that means that anyone can reject this "solution" and block me in an instant and this is not binding in any way, shape, or form, beyond those of us involved in this thread or indeed really between you, me, and maybe Dante if he feels so inclined. Jtkiefer 04:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Lets get this straight, you were found using sockpuppets abusively, abusing your previous admin powers and you are now presented with two options (a) A community ban (b) And alternative which still has a risk of a community ban (though it since I have no reason to believe Taxman is not dealing with this honestly in which case consensus for the ban would not be met). I'm sure many editors wouldn't be given an option (b), yet this isn't good enough for you, as above you seem to want to avoid dealing with the consequences of your actions. I can't speak for anyone else but reading through this thread, this seems to wearing a bit thin and perhaps we should consider withdrawing option (b). --pgk^(talk) 06:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Community ban isn't really on the table actually, since the above conversations show that there is strong dissent against a community ban, probably due to something your forgetting, like my 2 years of editing productively, since I am still convinced that I cannot and will not ever get a fair chance under this username anymore I will be invoking my m:Right to vanish and you will all have to trust me when I say that I will follow the guidelines laid out here in terms of FPC, one account, and RFA though I will not rule out doing any of them in the eventual future. I'd appreciate being left to my edits but if you really feel the need to continue this then I am as you so aptly keep reminding me, not in a position to argue about it. Jtkiefer ^talk 07:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that blocks are meant to be preventive and not punitive and treating my refusal to tell you what nick I am going to be using even though I have sworn to obey policy from now on as a blockable offense would be a big mistake and blatantly against blocking policy, as would assuming you have community consensus for a community block as there is not widespread support and I have apologized for and rectified all policy violations so there's no policy basis to block or ban me either. I hate to wikilawyer and usually avoid doing so but I just had to say that. I don't see how blocking me would be productive either and I suggest that we just drop this and get back to writing an encyclopedia which is what Wikipedia is really about. Jtkiefer ^talk 08:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User 67.114.45.132

I first encountered 67.114.45.132 on the femininity page, where he/she continually reinserted inappropriate material that was rejected by multiple editors. The user then went on throw around inappropriate insults on the talk page. When I checked the user page, I found that it is full of complaints from other editors. Trnj2000 18:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

He obviously doesn't care much about whether his edits are helpful so I will block him indef. Ashibaka tock 21:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't do that, it's an anon IP. Unless it's a proxy, limit the block. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to rotate. If it does, the next user can just use {{unblock}}. Ashibaka tock 03:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Morton Devonshire AfD vote stacking

Hi, user has been blocked/warned before against this, and is doing it again today here, here, and here (so far). rootology (T) 18:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that constitutes vote-stacking. Morton says, "I could use your help over at State terrorism by United States of America -- the editors over there are blatantly disregarding Wikipedia policy with respect to citing blogs and self-published sources." Compare this to Travb's Need vote in AfD, which I don't actually think is vote-stacking either. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Notice of community ban

Karmafist (talk · contribs · block log) was blocked on August 10 and has been added to the list of community bans at Wikipedia:List of banned users#Banned by the Wikipedia community. According to the policy for community bans notice of such blocks should be given on this page. --JWSchmidt 19:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds about right ... Cyde Weys 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunate, but seemingly inevitable. --CBD 21:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

IIRC a ban was mooted on this page a month or two ago, and I said at the time that it would be very unlikely that I would oppose a community ban on a user whose last articlespace edit was over 4 months ago (at time of writing it would have been 2 or 3). Nothing's changed to alter my opinion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's quite alright. This has allowed me to metamorphisize into many people on Wikipedia. After all, Karma is everywhere, and it applies to everybody. Those of you who know they have bad karma will reap the costs of their actions, and I will be around to give it a push.

Karmafist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.213.251 (talk • contribs)

I agree that the notice represents proper procedure. *sigh* When I first registered my account, Karmafist was the first to welcome me to Wikipedia. This was a "conventional" welcome, prior to or unaffected by the controversy that arose concerning his messages, and I appreciated it. I'm sorry his attitude toward the project has now reached the point that this action is necessary. So very sad. Newyorkbrad 01:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked the above IP with Karmafist's above threat and then immediately got my user page vandalized. It is a reasonable assumption that this occured from Karmafist. Based on this, I have no choice but to endorse an indef ban. JoshuaZ 01:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Also given this [85] and other similar claims, I would not object to a liberal use of RfCU to search for socks. JoshuaZ 01:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, he implied one or more of his sockpuppets voted in Phaedriel's RfA, so that would be a good place to start. --W.marsh 02:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

When I saw that comment of his, I realized Karmafist was up to no good. Either he was attempting a malicious use of sockpuppets, or he was lying about it, possibly to see if he could get the checkusers to violate a bunch of users' privacy. Mangojuice^talk 05:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism of your user page with text from Stapleton International Airport strongly suggests that Karmafist is connected with (is?) The Airport Vandal. FCYTravis 02:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wonder if he'll put that in his book... --W.marsh 02:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we can confirm it. The IP which vandalized User:JoshuaZ vandalized Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport in the same timespan. Just look at the contribs. It's The Airport Vandal, alright. FCYTravis 02:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I further note that the Airport Vandal's history of subtle vandalism to airport/airline articles and destinations is consistent with karmafist's admission to committing subtle vandalism. FCYTravis 02:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Or it could just be the airport vandal impersonating Karmafist. Let's not rush to conclusions. This latest string of edits actually seems kind of unlike Karmafist. For instance, the bit on my talk page was poorly formatted. Karmafist used Wikipedia long enough to know wiki syntax; would he really have started off his first line with a bunch of spaces, thus throwing it into an ugly pre block? Now, of course, I think Karmafist should be indefinitely banned for a variety of other reasons, but I don't necessarily think that airport vandalism is one of them. --Cyde Weys 03:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's not 100% certain, but the circumstantial evidence is too much to just ignore. FCYTravis 03:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional data point: Although I was previously aware of the Airport vandal, I'm pretty sure I have never reverted it, blocked it or in any other way attracted its attention. JoshuaZ 04:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sad to see it come to this, but I think an indef ban is the right thing here. We can't let an admission of that sort of deliberate and malicious vandalism slide. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Racist and abusive accusation by user:JoshuaZ

I post this here quickly as i will be shortly tagged as sockpuppet by abusive JoshuaZ. I saw my page linked to User:Etmabitedanstonculcalefaitoupas where you accused me of being a sockpuppet.

1. I am not a sockpuppet. I'm not tagged as a sockpuppet and there is no clue, nor evidence, showing that i'm a sockpuppet.

   I did no vandalism nor sockpuppetry as demonstrated by my blog Vous Ai Compris !!

   The only connection with Etmabitedanstonculcalefaitoupas is i've corrected a mistake i've noticed on his talk page.

The conclusion is your socketpuppet accusation is nothing but a clueless racist and abusive accusation based on the clueless "best guess" of another racist and abusive editor. Shame on you! Je Vous Ai Compris !! 19:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be me. I'm not sure where the racism comes in, I don't know you from Adam. But, a new account pops up, almost immediately makes a strange rantish post to ANI, and has no useful contributions, that account gets blocked. --kingboyk 19:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm didn't know whether they were sockpuppets before, but the fact that both of them refer to their contributions as their "blog" strongly indicates that they are the same user. In any event, I don't know why Compris is complaining if the sock isn't his, Complis isn't banned (although given his edits here and at my talk page, I wouldn't be surprised if he did get blocked shortly). JoshuaZ 20:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This site is a big joke! The accused ones are the judges, what a fake!! This is totally absurd. A bunch of "chosen ones" are ruling it editing, protecting, accusing at will... A big joke! Je Vous Ai Compris !! 20:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Congrats. That's another user:EnthusiastFRANCE sock. This is all his mo, and he's quoting from his former socks. Thanks for pointing him out. pschemp | talk 20:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Five spam bots

Hi, I found five spam bots, User:86.57.52.105, User:66.235.180.174, User:81.94.18.188, User:200.25.187.222, and User:211.216.169.71, found by the history of Talk:Comparison of Internet forum software/w/w/index.php, deleted twice due to bot spam. If possible, I think this article shoud be protected to prevent bots spamming it. Thanks. — SheeEttin {T/C} 21:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added everything on that page to the spam blacklist. Naconkantari 21:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Faggotstein imposter of Fagstein

This guy is either an impostor or a sockpuppet. Fagstein seems to be in good faith and would have to be monumentally stupid to pick this as a username for a sockpuppet, so I'm gonna go with impostor. Karwynn (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything in their edits that makes you think it is meant to be an impostor and not a n innocenet user name? It might in any case be blockable for being confusing. JoshuaZ 21:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, currently its indefblocked by me...either its an impostor, or an inappropriate username. Syrthiss 21:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Faggotstein" is not an acceptable username. --Cyde Weys 22:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've always been uncomfortable with "Fagstein", as well, though he seems to be a good user. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User:BhaiSaab

I blocked this user for violating the 3RR on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. He has complained about my block on the grounds that he has not tecnically broken the rule. However, I feel that his edits were deliberatly intending to prolong an edit war, and calculated to disrupt the article whilst falling just short of the rules technical paramters. Have I done the correct thing? If so/not, could someone please assist at User talk:BhaiSaab Robdurbar 22:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Will314159

User:Will314159 keeps inserting non reputable pov material into the Neo-fascism article [86]. I have warned him about the 3RR rule [87], which he does not yet seem to have breached, mainly because he is just editing out of the 24hour time period. His edits have been reverted by me [88], User:DNewhall [89], User:Isarig [90] and User:Sxeptomaniac [91], at multiple times [92]. This reverting has become quite tiresome. Any help would be appreciated. Intangible 23:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Users Isarig and Intangible brook no critcism of Israel. They delete and revert in kneejerk fashion. My edit has been revised to meed all objections of all previous editors. See Talk Pages. They operate at the level of thugs and vandals. Best Wishes. Will314159 23:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Webville

Sorry, I'm not certain if this is the correct procedure for this kind of thing, but here goes. User:Webville appears to be here solely to add links to isurvived.org, and add material to articles reflecting the site's viewpoint. This site, from what I can tell, represents a minority viewpoint, a claim made by User:130.39.232.221, who provided this link. Some of his contributions seem to confirm this, such as this edit to Hiram Bingham III, which claims he is a "bigot and racist of the first order" based on one letter he wrote, and goes on to call his son Hiram Bingham IV - a hero of the Holocaust, who, according to his Wikipedia article, helped 2500 Jews escape the Nazis - "a hater of Jews and a Holocaust denier." He has persistently made POV edits to Hiram Bingham IV (such as this), which made both the POV statement that he was "no hero," which is not the prevailing viewpoint, and the statement that he "was not a rescuer of Jews by and stretch," which contradicted material already in the article, without reference. On that article's talk page, he paid little attention to my explanation of the problem with his edits and made some borderline personal attacks. He also removed Bingham from List of people who assisted Jews during the Holocaust without explanation. He has also been warned by User:Dahn for making vanadalous deletions at History of the Jews in Romania, and appears to be a single-purpose account with the sole purpose of advancing the viewpoint of isurvived.org. I am not sure what the procedure is in such incidents, and I admit I am not personally familiar with this site - it could be mainstream and legitimate, but many indications point otherwise - but I think at the very least his contributions need to be closely watched and scrutinized. -Elmer Clark 23:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That many links is blatant linkspam (search I see 36 links right now). User should be warned with spam1,...,spam4 templates, and blocked if spamming persists, if not for the POV crap. Links should be reverted. I'll see if I can do it tomorrow if they're still there, I have to go offline soon and am not up for it for now. Phr (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Close AfD please

Can one of the Admins please close this: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America

It has been 5 days.Travb (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As usual, there is currently a backlog on AfD, with some articles from August 5th waiting to be closed. Someone may close that AfD anyway, but normally it would be one of those that a lot of admins would quietly pass by on the other side of the street rather than close. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User continues to stalk and harrass me

Displaced Brit (talk · contribs · logs) apparently feels the need to make personal attacks and attempt to stalk me. It's getting to the point where I can no longer feel safe editing Wikipedia without this user harrassing and monitoring me.

• [93]
• [94]
• [95]
• [96]

--CFIF (talk to me) 00:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Firsfron and I have both left him warnings. Ashibaka tock 03:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Repeat Copyright Offender?

Here is a copy of a recent discussion

• I found this and was concerned about a possible copyright infringement due to it's usage on Paris's page. Lauren

I agree, I think that is a copyright infringement - you can nominate it for deletion here (Images for Deletion). It doesn't seem that it links to any articles that are using it legitimately (such as fair use articles), so I don't think there could be too much of a problem there. —Keakealani •Poke Me•contribs• 18:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help with my question, I am still trying to resolve the issue. When I went to tag the image (Playboy_March_2005.jpg) uploader's talk page, I discovered that this was not the first problem with a violation. What is the policy on repeat violation offenders? Lauren

Hm, I actually don't know how to deal with repeat offenders, but I imagine a warning of some kind might be appropriate. Perhaps you could try leaving a note on the administrators' noticeboard so an admin can take a look and leave the appropriate warning? I'm not sure if there's much else regular users can do, but I'm not really familiar enough with that sort of thing to be able to help too much, unfortunately. —Keakealani •Poke Me•contribs• 23:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the proper action in this case? Lauren 00:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• You're pretty much taking the proper action now. If someone is serially uploading unfree images, then a short block with progressive durations is generally in line (by that I mean 24 hr, 48 hr, 72 hr, and then ArbCom in an RFaR action). It depends upon whether the user is misunderstanding copyright or simply too obsessed with Playboy bunnies to care. If the former, we educate. If the latter, the person is a liability. Geogre 02:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Concur. Attempt to educate, then escalating blocks. Thatcher131 (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is this image copyright infringement? The picture is a magazine cover, and the article using the cover specifically discusses the contents of that issue, as well as the cover in question. Doesn't that fit the fair use guideline? Not being snide, just honestly confused. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm one of the biggest fair-use complainers around and this image seems perfectly reasonable to me (though missing detailed fair-use rationale). It's a magazine cover used in an article that specifically discusses this cover. The license is correct. It really needs a blatant source (though this is implied) and must have a detailed fair-use rationale for its use. But it's not a copyright violation. --Yamla 03:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Shi'a View of Ali AfD

AtShi'a view of Ali's AfD, Uncle G has repeatedly accused me of attempting a botched merger and to do it properly. Despite my attempts to correct this false assumption(and I explained why I want to delete rather than merge twice on the page), he has now closed the AfD, saying there was "no consensus" However, the only other vote before he closed it was to delete!

I'd like an admin to take a look at this please, and, if I have a point, to reopen the AfD. I don't want to be one of those crazy editors who sees anyone who disagrees with them as vindictive Nazis out to destroy them, but equally I really feel Uncle G has got the wrong end of the stick here, and won't let go. Thanks. Dev920 02:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the point Uncle G was trying to make was that you cannot delete an article if you have merged any content from it. It must remain as a redirect to the article the content was merged to in order to preserve attribution, even if it was a POV fork (I have no idea). Pointing you to the policy was his way of saying this, in my opinion. -- Kjkolb 07:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to be pedantic, it is possible to take information from a deleted article and put it into another one. GFDL doesn't protect facts or sources. So if someone takes (for instance) a single paragraph, goes and looks up the source, and types it into a new article in their own words we can delete the source article. - brenneman ^{L} 07:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Dovetail.tv

A User:Dovetail recently registered and made some edits to Tyler MacNiven and Kintaro Walks Japan, amongst other articles, adding external links to dovetail.tv, a new HD video site. I removed them and put a {{spam}} tag at his talk page, and much to my suprise he was willing to talk about it. Now, under normal circumstances I'd be more than happy to explain the policy, especially after noticing that dovetail.tv gets only 272 Google hits. But gosh darn it, I happened to notice here that Dovetail.tv is based in San Francisco, where Tyler MacNiven is from, and that User:Dovetail signed his comment "Jason", which is the first name of the contact at that page. I would not be the least bit surprised if Tyler and Jason were the best of friends, and Tyler, who I have reason to believe is aware of his article here, maybe even asked Jason to post the links here. It seems like this sort of thing always happens to me, and yet again I end up coming here asking for someone with more experience and comfort with this sort of thing to help me make sure everything is done correctly. --Maxamegalon2000 03:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is not a link directory. He should submit them to dmoz.org. Ashibaka tock 03:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Just talk about it politely with him, ask him to read WP:EL for extlink policy, and yes, dmoz.org is a good suggestion. Phr (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Shangwen Fang

Fanoffang (talk · contribs), whom I suspect to be Shangwen Fang himself (based on edit pattern and content -- compare with Shangwen Fang's own edits on Chinese Wikipedia), has been editing to introduce pro-Fang POV -- at least, in my view -- and I suspect Mlix (talk · contribs) to be a sockpuppet intended to only attack Bobbybuilder (talk · contribs) on Talk:Shangwen Fang, and so i reverted Fanoffang's most recent edits to the article as well as removed Mlix's and Fangoffang's most recent comments on the talk page. However, I would like some extra pairs of eyes to examine the situation to see if I am already too embroiled into the situation to be neutral, and if so, to consider what is neutral and how the article might be able to be rendered neutral. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)