Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive67

I would be grateful for some help dealing with persistent personal attack

As a result of an answer at the Reference Desk [1] to which he took exception, a new user (user:bethefawn) has decided I must be publicly chastized as a "homophobe" on his Talk page (User talk:Bethefawn). I have twice removed it [2], [3] and explained with civility our no personal attack policy. He has twice replaced it [4] [5] and made it more inflammatory. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me but I have not had to deal with this sort of thing before. I would be grateful if someone else would take the next steps and get it through his head that this is unacceptable behavior. Thank you. alteripse 13:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a wimpy wienie policy clarification[6] on the newbie's page, hoping that they'll be amenable to that. If not, I'll shift to sonorous admin mode. Bishonen | talk 18:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The creature snatched off the "newbie" mask with a demented cackle and burst in the sun, [7], [8]. Move along, nothing to see, don't feed. Bishonen | talk 18:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC).

In the future, we really should remove all questions concerning "can homosexuals be cured?", because those questions tend to be just plain trolling. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Bethefawn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely for trolling, encyclopedic uselessness, and threats, please see her/his userpage histories and also anon edits by him from 128.223.208.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Feel free to watch my pages for vandalism. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC). P.S. Please see lower down on page. Bishonen | talk 18:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

Wheel wars

I've seen quite enough of wheel warring lately, and the template mentioned above only seems to encourage it. Wikipedia works on consensus, not unilateralism, and while being bold or ignoring rules may be acceptable at times, warring over it should never be. Since the 3RR is enforced against revert warring, isn't it about time we enforce some rule against wheel warring? Please visit WP:WHEEL and join the discussion. Radiant_>|< 23:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC) comments about this subject here will be copied to WP:WHEEL's talk page.

I don't think wheel warring will ever stop until the community can finally agree on a workable de-adminship process. Many people seem to think this would be a terrible idea, that it would encourage trolls and so forth, but I see no reason why we can't come up with a sensible process for this. We trust the community to bestow adminship; why not to withdraw it? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you trust the community to bestow it. Phil Sandifer 03:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If you don't trust the community on either end, then what process would you propose, Phil? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The current one - it involves less annoying discussion about changing things. Phil Sandifer 03:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying you don't trust the community Phil/Snowspinner? I am in full agreement with the rattlesnake. Too many admins who have it in their head that they are above any realm of restraint. Hamster Sandwich 03:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

One trivial implementation of this would be for adminship to be for a limited period of time -- off the top of my head, say a year. This would allow the community to deal with those who go power-mad by the appearance of a few new buttons by simply not re-appointing them, rather than creating a whole new process (which would by its nature be "trial-like") to deal with it. Not that I expect this to happen, since it is the nature of bureacracies to perpetuate themselves. But it's a thought. Nandesuka 05:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I see with 'term limits' on adminship is that it would increase the number of RFA votes going on... adding re-appointments to the new requests. However, this would completely change the nature of adminship... to remain admins people would have to be supported by the current community rather than just 'being good' for three months (about the bare minimum currently) to get the appointment and thereafter having much wider lattitude to bend/break the rules than regular users. Setting the 'term clock' for all existing admins to start when the policy was implemented would give plenty of time for notification and adjusting to the new situation... but such a change would require overwhelming community support. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 14:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This idea would have my support. android79 14:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Remember, 90% of admins, at least, are pretty uncontentious (at least, their use of admin abilities is uncontentious - everyone gets some crank angry with them!). Is it worth essentially swamping the existing RFA system (which gets relatively little community participation, even from admins, as it is) in order to catch a small number of people? But this is the endless discussion for talk on WP:RFA Shimgray | talk | 17:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Then we split it by date, as was done on AfD. :-p Seriously, at some point in the future, we can expect this problem to arise. Wikipedia is growing. Not too long ago a week's worth of VfDs could fit in one day's worth of AfDs today. Johnleemk | Talk 17:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that 90% of admins are probably uncontentious. Anyone here think I'm contentious? (-: However, I'm sure that I've made a rather sizable share of potential enemies that might be vindicative enough to want to vote me out, and I'm sure that every other admin has as well. Because of that, I tend to think that this sort of thing isn't really a good idea unless someone can figure out a way of discounting vindicative votes. JYolkowski // talk 23:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that these trolls would be numerous enough to overturn the RFA. And if the opposers aren't trolls, then you've probably done something wrong. :-p Johnleemk | Talk 11:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I for one strongly support this. Adminship should have never been and should never be a big deal. Johnleemk | Talk 17:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Antaeus Feldspar

I know that I can't have a voice now, but I would like for this user to stop harassing and stalking people. When someone says to him that they don't want to talk to him, he should stop. He has a habit of following people around (myself included), writing to me, writing to other people I am talking to, leaving personal attacks galore, and general abuse. In my personal opinion, he should be permabanned over it, as it is beyond a joke, and its not just me that he has attacked. Go and have a look through my talk page history, and my user page history, and indeed through his contributions. I am sure that you will see that there is comprehensive evidence of his abuse. I had asked for him to leave me alone, but to date not a single person has even so much as had a word to him about it. It is not merely a matter of him lying about me. He is a significant harasser, and is destroying the community. I ask please for admins to deal with him before he destroys this project even more. Thank you. User:Zordrac 203.122.230.206 07:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like he's doing great - David Gerard 08:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I do, indeed, invite any and all interested parties to very closely examine the edit history of User talk:Zordrac, User talk:203.122.230.206 and other similar pages; you will see that what Zordrac is really asking for is the right to make malicious and knowingly false accusations against other users but to have it deemed "stalking" for those other users to defend themselves against his smear campaigns. I am collecting the evidence against him at User:Antaeus Feldspar/Zordrac, but I'll call attention to a particularly egregious example, namely the false claims he made against me at User:Zordrac/Poetlister: "08:16, 23 December 2005 User:Antaeus Feldspar, wrote to Zordrac supporting Lulu and implying that they both would stalk Zordrac until either he stopped trying to get Poetlister's ban reversed, or else was banned from Wikipedia. [9]" Of course, one only need to check the diff that Zordrac provided to see that it bears no resemblance whatever to the quite serious accusations he has levelled. Zordrac whines for sympathy, telling everyone "I had asked for him to leave me alone" but what he isn't mentioning is that he refuses to leave me alone, that he is continuing his malicious slander against me even now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out on his talk page when you brought this issue up, I believe (although I could certainly be mistaken) that permanent diff links are affected when page revisions are deleted. A check of the deletion log indicates that page revisions WERE deleted from User talk:Zordrac, so it is theoretically possible that the diff he linked to is not the one that he intended to. Then again, he did actively lie about his identity up until such point as compelling evidence was slammed under his nose, so I can't say whether or not he's doing that now. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 23:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I didn't catch what you meant when you mentioned it there. Theoretically, then, yes, there could potentially have been two edits by me to User talk:Zordrac and a diff which pointed to one of those before the deletion-and-partial-restoration could, theoretically, have become a diff to the other afterwards. However, since the diff comes straight from User:Zordrac/Poetlister, and names a specific revision as its starting point, this means that there would have had to be two consecutive edits. Of those two edits, Zordrac would have had to have requested from Merovingian that Merovingian delete the very edit that Zordrac himself was providing diffs of as evidence of my wrongdoing. And -- this is possibly the least plausible part of all -- the edit would have had to reveal personal information about Zordrac, or presumably Merovingian would not have removed it -- but Zordrac, while going into great detail about all the nefarious things that I purportedly said in that edit, made no mention of such a serious offense. I hope everyone can see the implausibility of that story. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: I've checked with Merovingian. None of the edits that were removed were by me; ironically enough, they were actually about me -- mine was the personal information that someone was trying to reveal. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

WoW and IP linked

The evidence is compelling that the latest WoW suspect Chili on circuit court of appeals (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (who I blocked indefinitely) also contributed as 169.157.198.116 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Is this information of any use to anyone? --RobertG ♬ talk 14:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

And what about the permanently blocked Willy on Rims (talk · contribs)? Has he been added to the list of Willies? Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 15:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Willy usually comes in on a proxy; test if you can set up to edit under it, and if so, we'll block it as an open proxy. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 18:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

When can we get our subpoena to check the logs of these proxies? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Most open proxies don't keep logs. --Carnildo 08:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Contributions needing attention

Piedras grandes (talk · contribs) has been adding "cleanup", "unverifiable", "hoax" and "speedy" tags to a whole slew of articles. While many of the articles need a lot of improvement, a lot of them are par for the course in Wikipedia - short, need references and expansion, but wikified and not really "cleanup" candidates. The "speedy" and "hoax" tags are more worrying - see, for example, the edit to Plant sexuality; when I asked him/her about it, s/he replied "So you're telling me plants run around behaving like people?--User:Piedras grandes 19:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)", which suggests to me that s/he did not even glance at the article. I'm not quite sure how to proceed. Guettarda 19:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course they do. Feed me, Seymour. On a more serious note, I'd just revert the worst of them and explain why on this person's talk page. They probably just discovered the tags and think they're helping; I doubt this person is going to park himself on these articles and insist that Plant sexuality retain a {{hoax}} tag. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the user was blocked for a week the say they started editing (Dec. 16), came back yesterday and seems to be making up for lost time. Not everything is bad, but they seem to need some oversight. Guettarda 20:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll watch after his contribs also, particularly since he's involving himself with Plant sexuality -- titillating! ;) Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Has created {{Good}} and {{Bad}} and is using them to rank articles (albeit, on talk pages). On one hand, good to see someone getting the article ranking thing off the ground, on the other hand, this seems a bit overly WP:BOLD to me. Guettarda 20:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This editor is also adding multiple (sometimes inappropriate) templates to articles, and frequently non-existant templates. We need to put the brakes on this before the entire WP is plastered with this stuff. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

(reduce) There seem to be 3 sets of Good and Bad: Template:Bad Article, Template:Bad, and User:Piedras_grandes/Bad; Good also on all three. Not sure how much of that was development. Would like to add, the Good kindof discourages improvement, and the Bad is horribly ugly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The Good/Bad templates should probably go to TFD as duplicates of the efforts at WP:GA. Slambo (Speak) 20:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, except the additions are apparently random. Check edit history on Talk:Institut National des Appellations d'Origine. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've TfD'ed {{Good}} and {{Bad}}. I was going to do the same for {{Good Article}} and {{Bad Article}}, but they turned out to be nothing but transclusions of Good and Bad, so I speedied them. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. The random additions of these seems to have paused, so a little cleanup and a message on the user page and I think this might actually be more or less over for now. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Editor also cast both a support and an oppose vote, only one minute apart on this Rfa...and still has yet to explain, even though a request to do so was left on his/her talk page.--MONGO 21:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  Update....editor explained, but has yet to correct vote one way or the other.--MONGO 21:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If Piedras grandes (talk · contribs) isn't also OnwardsCS (talk · contribs), I'll eat my hat. User:OnwardsCS started editing yesterday and, very curiously, edited the exact same anti-abortion articles previously edited by User:Piedras grandes, up to and including recreating the previously-deleted-by-consensus {{Pro-life-stub}}. User:OnwardsCS was blocked yesterday for a 3RR violation on Stem Cell Research (one of the articles created last month by User:Piedras grandes). Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 21:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Piedras grandes (talk · contribs) Update, back at it today. Anyone care to try to make some kind of meaningful contact, or help clean up the templatespam and odd edits? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't get a response to a message I added to his talk page, and he continued with the same actions. Lots of 'welcome' messages placed, including many on article talk pages and AfD discussions. I got one too at the bottom of my talk page. It's going to take some time to go round and remove any inappropriate such messages. BillC 22:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I' blocking for 3 hours for cleanup. Please let me know if I'm acting inappropriately but sheesh, several hundred yesterday and today, and about 6 valid edits in the lot? I've warned against nonsense, etc, and several editors have attempted communication. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

During cleanup, also finding geo-stub changed to bio-stub, and Canada-poli-stub changed to sports-stub (both incorrectly.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

User Lantern Cro has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:Lantern Cro has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 21:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Proper block, Willy is active again. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 22:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's not Willy "himself", it's the North Carolina Vandal. Anything "cro" related ,"elitism", "beer", "Jake Remington", ad nauseum. He imitates Willy whenever he can get an account to age sufficiently. Antandrus (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Ravenflight block evasion

User:Ravenflight was blocked under the 3RR. The same person has created User:Unrulywitch and User:Lupinespirit to evade the block. —Ashley Y 00:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Now also User:Rivethead28. —Ashley Y 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The party is happening at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robin_Artisson, which is getting a lot of input from brand new users, such as the above. Jkelly 00:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Also User:Jontelpo William M. Connolley 18:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

Defacing User:Bonaparte page

Some users keep defacing the User:Bonaparte by putting the template indefblockeduser on top of it and/or blanking the content. I think the template belongs to the talk page and not up to us to modify the content of his User page. I suggest to remove the template and protect his User page while he is blocked. abakharev 00:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The way at least I think is the proper way to do it is to put it on both pages (I have added it to his talk page) but not to create a new userpage if one doesn't already exist. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• He is a permablocked user. So that template is useful. Radiant_>|< 00:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

User Edbon3000

The other day, a few of us mentioned User:Edbon3000 as a Filipino user adding a lot of articles (and unnecessary categories) that need a lot of cleanup and may not be verifiable or noteworthy (and he's not responding to anything on his talk page). Update: he added a comment in Category talk:List of Filipina Actress saying he may be adding thousands of new articles. Someone may want to try to contact him in Spanish to get him on the right page before he blindly floods that area of Wikipedia with stuff that will all need to be deleted. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

AOL trolls

A troll in the AOL 152. range is being a jerk creating vandal talkpages (e.g. Talk:/PENIS!!!!!!!! TEH LOLZ!!!!!/PENIS!!!!!!!! TEH LOLZ!!!!!/PENIS!!!!!!!! TEH LOLZ!!!!!/PENIS!!!!!!!! TEH LOLZ!!!!!/PENIS!!!!!!!! TEH LOLZ!!!!!/PENIS!!!!!!!! TEH LOLZ!!!!!/PENIS!!!!!!!! TEH LOLZ!!!!!). Any possibility for a short term range block or contact of AOL to stop it? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, I've range blocked the entire 152. series for 15 minutes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

IanDavies

Repeated incivility, personal attacks, accusations of "bullying" see User talk:IanDavies, sections LSHTM and Personal attacks. "Personal attacks" is only available through History now, as he's removed it with the summary "revert bullying by small dog" - I guess we have Benapgar to thank for the new trend in referring anything an Admin does that you don't like as "bullying", although I fail to see how 4 diffs of his posts is bullying. There's a good bit more, but basically I would like a non-involved admin to take a look and see if anything can be done. He's not happy about the sources for an article, started an edit war, I was pulled in and stated they look fine to me and to stop the edit war. He has given no specifics on content he feels may be inaccurate, although he has been asked repeatedly to do so. I suggested if he still had an issue, to try WP:DR or put it on Article Rfc. He seems to have confused Article Rfc with User Rfc, and taken that as a "threat". He also directly implied the other editor of the page is a "spotty little network zit". If someone would explain to him the difference between article Rfc and user Rfc, and between personal attacks and rants about Admins, I would be grateful. It may be helpful to also view his contribs to my page, the article talk page, and the page of User:Lshtm as well. A mention of WP:CIVIL might help. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to look at the context but how is "cease" a personal attack? Secretlondon 15:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't, that's the point. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Bethefawn

Could someone else please take a look at Bethefawn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and help figure what to do with him? I don't see any indication he's other than pure trouble. From what he's posted on his talk page, a total block might be the best idea. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• This person just emailed me this:

You will blank my user page (or replace the information contained within it) immediately, or face the very serious consequences. You have illegally barred me from removing personal information from the internet. I am very concerned that vicious people will commit hate crimes against me for my sexual preferences, and I certainly don't want to give them a helping hand in finding where I live. REMOVE THE INFORMATION.

This is a very peculiar case. This editor came to my attention when, for some reason or another, he cast a vote for me in the ArbCom election; I noticed he didn't have suffrage and called it to his attention. I was the only vote he cast. Weird. And making threats (see the talk page history) while also giving his real name on his user page: also weird. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I came here to say that I've blocked Bethefawn indefinitely for trolling, encyclopedic uselessness, and threats, please see both her/his userpage histories and also anon edits from 128.223.208.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Feel free to watch my pages for vandalism. Bishonen | talk 18:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

I've deleted the personal info.[10] Bishonen | talk 18:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

Good. He continued with another lovely missive: Fix the problem. Or I devote 15 minutes a day to making you unhappy, for the rest of your life. I didn't want to make anyone have to work so hard trying to get themselves arrested. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

UK Internet for Learning

I finally got a response to my email asking that they do something about the continual vandalism from their IP. Although I had included links in my initial email, the response was, "Please could you forward all details regarding each of the vandalism attempts. On receipt of this, the matter will be given our fullest attention." I have responded with several links to contribution pages and to discussions on this page concerning the vandalism from ifl. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Demi ^T/_C 20:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Roitr and puppets blocked indefinitely

I've blocked User:Roitr and User:Tt1 indefinitely for consistent edit warring and 3RR violations, as these accounts as well as anonymous accounts on Comparative military ranks of World War II and Ranks and insignia of the Schutzstaffel. User:Tt1 violated 3RR as an anonymous user (IPs were blocked by User:Voice of All) and I initially blocked that account for 24 hours for being the puppetmaster. He then returned as User:Roitr to evade the block and I immediately applied the smackdown and blocked both indefinitely. Not sure if any other puppets are in the wings. Comparative military ranks of World War II was sprotected and I'm considering upgrading to full protection as well as protecting Ranks and insignia of the Schutzstaffel. howcheng {chat} 19:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Maoririder, yet again

Maoririder (talk · contribs), who ostensibly "lost his password" some time ago, has apparently created a new account: LEAVEMETHEHELLALONEDAVID (talk · contribs). I've no idea of Maori's status, whether he's blocked, on probation, under mentorship, doing community service, or whathaveyou, but this is an inappropriate username, at the very least. android79 20:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Note also FragileFrigateBird (talk · contribs). Shimgray | talk | 21:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Threatened with blocking and repeated deletion of talk page comments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamofascism_(term)?diff=35723869&oldid=35723493

User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle#Civility on Talk:Islamofascism --70.86.34.194 21:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ideas on User:Gibraltarian?

Every day, we keep blocking more and more socks of Gibraltarian. This is the list of socks he has used. He's now hitting the 2 Gibraltar articles and RfP and SP policy. The 2 Gibraltar articles (History of Gibraltar and Disputed status of Gibraltar are basically in perma protect until G gives up, which isn't going to happen. He emails me and other blocking admins with lines like "UNBLOCK ME NOW!" and "I WILL NOT BE SILENCED!". I tried a range block as everyone knows but that didn't work out. So instead we're doing whack a mole. It's not a long term solution. Anyone have *any* ideas? Anything would be appreciated. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I do have one idea. I know we have a template for AOL users that we put on talk pages to explain that they use dynamic IPs and such and that warnings might not be seen by the right user, etc. Could we put a notice up for the IPs that G uses? It could prevent what happened with 212.120.225.219 today where he was warned multiple times before blocking, so Gibraltarian had free reign for half an hour. The notice wouldn't say that we block immediately, but G doesn't exactly hide himself. We'll know when it's him. Thoughts? 212.120.224.0 - 212.120.231.255 is the only IP he's ever used as far as I know. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a better idea.........leave me alone! I will not allow racists to take over the Gibraltar articles. NO WAY!

Yes.....I'm a banned user.....but WHY??? Only because YOU woohookitty took it upon yourself to ban me with no justification! To TML, MY comments are not hate filled...it is Ecemaml who has the anti-Gibraltar agenda, and is proving himself to be the obsessed bigoted racist I always said he was. He has created this dispute purposely, with the sole intention of getting me banned.....now if that doesn't come under the definition of troll I don't know what will. He posted his "evidence". To be frank I felt he should be ignored.....treated with the contempt that he deserves. However I replied. I have a right not to have my reply tampered with. There is no possible justification for banning me.....and anyone actually looking into the whole history of this case will see that. Ecemaml has created this entire dispute purposely with the sole intention of getting me banned. How can it be that when I revert him it's "vandalism", but him reverting me isn't. How can it be that him openely calling me a liar (which I'm not) is not considered a personal attack, but me calling him an obsessed troll (which he is) is. How can it be that he can post anything he likes, whether true or not, whether NPOV or not........but whenever I factual and NPOV posts, he follows me around WP, reverting almost everything I do....yet does so with impunity. It is simply NOT acceptable to SP an evidence page, as I have a RIGHT to post matters in my defence (not that I have done anything requiring defending). Woohookitty, you have already proved yourself to be a beacon of unfairness, so perhaps you should leave matters of fairness to others. Ecemaml must learn to deal with his massive chip on his shoulder over Gibraltar, and also that WP is NOT the place for him to spread his fascist inspired propaganda, nor revisionist history. His sole intent on editing the Gibraltar articles has been this.........it is clear for all to see. I am sure this is not what WP is meant for. Gibraltarian

Untrue statements:

• It is simply NOT acceptable to SP an evidence page. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence is not semiprotected.

  I factual and NPOV posts. Example of factual and NPOV post here. Mind the removal of sourced statements.

The rest is in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence. Sorry to bother you --Ecemaml 13:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I think that the only way to stop the disturbance of this kind of people is implementing an IP address block that only block anonymous wikipedists, without preventing registered one to be blocked. --Ecemaml 13:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

See Bug 500. Ral315 (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was referring to. It's quite frustrating to see the history of pages like this, Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, Talk:History of Gibraltar, Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence... --Ecemaml 20:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care what you think Ecemaml. The edits you refer to were written by yourself, and are far from POV, in many cases invented, in other cases argumentative and POV. Whenever I write anything for an article I ensure that it is factually correct and NPOV......you do neither. BTW, note him calling me a liar above......is this not a personal attack? No action taken?? Gibraltarian.

User:Gib1: one of your sockpuppets. --Ecemaml 20:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Ecemaml if you find it frustrating perhaps you should stop vandalising them! It is YOU who embarks on personal obsessive attacks on people who do not agree with the "Gospel according to Ecemaml" even though most of your posts are either inaccurate, plain false, irrelevant or POV. Your purpose here has been to create discord and dispute. If you do not like to be called a troll you should stop behaving like one. Gibraltarian

Yes, it's me. I confess ;-) Just see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence --Ecemaml 20:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Page too large!

I just had an edit conflict and it turned out this page is 492 kb in size. Whoa. And that is with Cryptic's botwork to archive it when needed. Maybe we should think of a way to reduce this page size? Radiant_>|< 00:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/Deletion wars, WP:AN/Deletion wars/Wheel wars/Sjkakalle blocked Tony again, WP:AN/Snowspinner sucks, WP:AN/No he doesn't, WP:AN/Zordrac, what else do we need? - David Gerard 12:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well we have a separate page for 3RR. Is there any other common incident that can be split off into it's own subpage of WP:AN? -- Francs2000 00:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a "Requests for admin assistance" for the straightforward requests by non-admins here (AFD, socks, threats), and not admins seeking discussion/advice from others? Dmcdevit·t 01:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I vote we redirect the whole thing to /dev/null. Mackensen (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well clearly we need to have fewer incidents. I vote that everyone just get along for the next 72 hours and it should all clear up on it own.  :-) Dragons flight 00:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive65 but I can't seem to find the right template so that it shows up at the top. Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Mackensen (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a seperate page for socks? (I almost started typing qwerty words while switched to a Dvorak layout. dr, 'gacby!!! — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Additional note: we're still at 203 kb :( — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that 300kb tasted pretty bad (hence the burp)! Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

(2 ecs) I've always wondered about this - in other Wikipedias, such as nl (Dutch), they have an admin only mailing list where they can discuss matters. (Of course, they have less than 100 administrators.) Would it be possible for the developers to code a page that only administrators could view (sort of like viewing deleted pages), so that we could have two noticeboards, one for longer discussions, and another for administrator-only discussions where we could discuss things that non-admins shouldn't be seeing, or simple straightforward requests by non-admins who could post there? (One example I can think of is when several people asked Curps for his bot's algorithm, but he couldn't because the vandals could simple read it off this page.) Thoughts on this? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is a way to hide pages to certain groups of users, but it involves changing the site preferences here. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have some reservations about this idea--while there are legitimate uses, admin aristocracy is to be avoided. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

NO MAILING LISTS. Discussions about the wiki or the users should always be kept on wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that wikien-l has reasonably heavy traffic, and its existence isn't contentious. The idea of a closed list is not good, though. Shimgray | talk | 19:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I would support an administrator use only page, but i see no reason for it to be hidden. Simply making it editable only be admins should be perfectly sufficient, and thats easily accomplished by using hte current protect flags. That way legit non-admins can still watch whats going on. We dont want a "back room" around here, right? -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 07:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Sockpuppets sounds like it could be a good way to split off some potential kilobytes. Any others? -- Francs2000 01:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Created. Mackensen (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Content disputes that should be posted elsewhere anyway? --GraemeL ^(talk) 01:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/The same old song and dance once again? -- Mackensen (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Er... I don't know about you two but I was being serious... -- Francs2000 01:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

So was I, to an extant. A lot of space gets taken up fighting the same issues over and over. That's really not what the page is for. And I agree that a separate sockpuppet section is a good idea, but isn't that also something the 3RR page needs? Mackensen (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• We have a Sockpuppet board, Kelly created it last week. I think it's Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser (not to be confused with the formerly-existent board to request checkuser rights). It may be useful to split between notices about admins (e.g. "omg rouge!!!!one") and notices for admins. Or something. It would also help if we were a bit more stern in removing posts that don't belong here. Or simply have a page per day, we're pretty close to that now, anyway. Radiant_>|< 01:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  Bother, and here I'd just finished fiddling with the templates. Mackensen (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  I don't know...I like the idea of a seperate page for socks (which I ignore anyways ;)) — Ilyanep (Talk) 05:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  And yet will be on my watchlist — Ilyanep (Talk) 05:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• The "about admins" vs "for admins" seems to make sense to me... -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 07:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• I see that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Sockpuppets was created but now redirects to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. But not all sock puppet issues are handled by requesting Chekuser or reporting its results, whoch is pretty much the sole purpose of the latter page. I suggest that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Sockpuppets be un-redirected, and be the palce to reprot suspected sock activity, and to debate wheter known socks are or are not abusive, and what actions to take (blocks, and if so for how long, etc) while the requests for checkuser page stays strictly as a request for soemone with checkuser rights to act, and a palce for such people to report the results, or to give reasons for declining to act. DES ^(talk) 16:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Allow me to also sugest the creation of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Unblock requests where requests for removal of inappropriate blocks could be posted -- idealy we could figure out a way for the msg that a blocked user gets to offer a chance to post a request on this page, as in case the blockign admin is off-line or otherwise not availabel by email. This could also be the place for people who dispute the length or propriity of a block to discuss the matter and get soem sort of geoup approval before removing or reducing a block, as has been discussed here before. DES ^(talk) 16:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• I am willing to creat the above two pages, but I don't want to do that unless soem other people agree that they would be worthwhile. DES ^(talk) 16:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I second DES's remarks about WP:AN/SOCK. Rather than "unblock requests", it should be "complaints about admins" (or something like that) to also deal with quibbles about improper deletions or protections. However, it may in fact be more useful to merge AN and ANI together (since the distinction is far from clear) and replace that with a page per day (Wikipedia:Admin noticeboard/2006 february 19 etc), with WP:AN redirecting to the current one. This would also make archiving easy. Radiant_>|< 16:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Please take a quick look at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Shape and size of AN/ANI. Radiant_>|< 23:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• I vote for zen master and Gibraltarian having their own pages myself. ;-) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Personally, I don't like the idea of a page that non-admins cannot edit, for several reasons. First, the issues are often about a non-admin and certainly that person should be able to address the issues. Second, there are long-term editors who are just as policy-savvy as some admins and making a page smaller is no valid reason for preventing an editor from commenting on an issue. Finally, I think that it would be a drastic solution with minimal effect since I don't see that many comments from non-admins. I agree that the page needs to be smaller (one of my comments was deleted yesterday after an apparent edit conflict caused another editor to cut and paste an entire section), but not at the cost of preventing non-admins from commenting. Remember, being an admin is supposed to be "no big deal". -- DS1953 ^talk 14:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Tony Sidaway

I have blocked Tony Sidaway for 24 hours for twice disruptivly undeleting SuperOffice. If a newbie had made this type of recreation he would almost certainly be blocked after a single warning, and I think that an admin should know better. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

For the lazy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperOffice, log, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tally (accounting), log, WP:DRV#SuperOffice - brenneman^(t)(c) 08:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You, sir, have balls. I admire that, and congratulate you for finally taking action against one of Wikipedia's worst wheelwarriors. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 08:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, Doc glasgow has unblocked Tony. As long as Tony does not continue the path of unilateral undeletion I will not reblock. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked, not because I agree with Tony (or disagreed with the block), but because Tony promised not to undelete the articles again. As blocks are preventative not punative, the block was simply unneccessary at that point. --Doc ^ask? 10:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently "will not undelete the articles" doesn't preclude "re-writing the articles from scratch". They're both back. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 11:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

While I disapprove of the undeletion (disclaimer: I "voted" to delete both articles), I don't fault Tony for recreating the articles. I view it as a good faith effort to make the articles worthy for inclusion. Johnleemk | Talk 11:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Both articles when deleted by R Fiend and by Sjakkalle were worthy of inclusion or had been made worthy of inclusion by me. Indeed I notice that the deleted version of SuperOffice was considerably better than the stub I created. Accordingly I'll restore the history and revert to the better version. I hope nobody is going to have hysterics over this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, second thoughts, that could be interpreted as undeletion of the articles. Perhaps not. what a pantomime! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"could" be interpreted as an undeletion of the articles? How could it be interpreted any other way? Johntex\^talk 19:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It will be noted that sjakkalle's accusation is false. There was no wheel warring, I was in communication with the redeleter and resolved the matter amicably. sjakkalle came along some hours later when we'd both forgotten about the thing, decided unilaterally that I was wheel warring and blocked me, and worse, deleted the two articles.

I have produced rewrites of the articles (which were both about major companies in their field). Do not lose these ones. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I will of course continue reserve and uphold the right and duty, which all administrators have, to summarily undelete good articles that are deleted through a broken process, and to exercise this at all times in the interests of the encyclopedia and against the needless and damaging pursuit of broken processes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has the right to summarily undelete or delete anything we want to. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well not stuff we want to, but obviously bad deletions should of course be rectified. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

if by broken processes you mean AFD then Expect to find youself in front of arbcom in extreamly short order if you follow this course.Geni 11:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, it's the weekly wheel war again. Note that what Tony considers "being in communication with the redeleter" apparently consists of simply telling him to not do that again ([11]). I would point out the Admin accountability poll, where so far 35 users (including Tony) have stated that admins should be held more accountable, and 38 users have suggested that wheel warring is unacceptable, with Tony and a sockpuppet as the sole dissenters. Radiant_>|< 12:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Also unacceptable are admins protecting a page when they are in an edit-war (see above). Pots and kettles you know... --Doc ^ask? 12:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• It made me laught to see Tony disagreed with "Wheel warring is an inappropriate use of admin powers" in that poll. Seriously though, when all is said and done, Tony is right, that article should not have been deleted. Martin 12:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I would like to know what you consider broken - the AfD process in general, how it was conducted in these two instances, and/or its outcome (i.e. deletion of the two articles)... Thx. AvB ÷ talk 12:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems to work quite well most of the time. Struck out here. Happens. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That argument would carry more weight had these actually been taken to DRV prior and the closure been endorsed. I notice that there was ongoing discussion involving these bulk nominations, and opportunity for a measured outcome. But choosing to act in this manner, you've created disruption, and the appearance is that you've done so for that very purpose. - brenneman^(t)(c) 14:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point in wasting time over it. Both articles were obviously keepers. My actions made both articles available to the editing processs, to the encyclopedia (in case, you know, someone actually decided they wanted to read it), and to the deletion process, if anyone wanted to try it again. r-fiend and I settled the matter of his redeletion amicably and the articles, considerably expanded in the case of the Tally one, were a credit to the encyclopedia. To describe that as disruption is wrong. Sjakkalle's good faith action, some four hours later, in blocking me for what he perceived as ongoing disruption, was wrong. At most, it could be said that my actions disrupted an ongoing wrongful action of witholding two perfectly good articles from the encyclopedia. This of course is an admirable object to strive for. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Tony. FWIW, I think these deletions did not improve Wikipedia, so I guess I have to agree with you here. AvB ÷ talk 18:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The "point" in "wasting time over it" is to maintain harmony with other editors. I happen to think you're in the right here, but so what? You have to deal with reality, and reality is, you're wasting far more time and effort fighting this fight than you would have spent researching and writing good articles on these subjects in your own userspace and offering them to WP:DRV as new, inclusion-worthy versions of the articles in question. Do you want to win a pissing contest, or write an encyclopedia? — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 18:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't we have a name for editors who always choose the path of most resistance, and then chortle over the ensuing chaos? - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this applies. For one thing, Tony did not choose the path of least resistance, given the amount of resistance to this action. Secondly, if Tony did choose the path of least resistance, i.e. rewriting the article in his own userspace and offering it to DRV, chaos wouldn't ensue. Harmony would. Chaos is only ensuing because Tony's disregarding it, not because he's avoiding it. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 02:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, he said path of most resistance, not least... Hermione1980 02:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have here is that Tony should know better. The vote was for delete, Tony. If you had a problem with that, you could've taken it up at DR instead of acting unilaterally after deciding that the articles were "good for the encyclopedia". Sorry man, but that's not your call. It's why we have AfD and DR. It's the latest in a long line of incidents where Tony seems to ignore consensus and does his own thing without discussion. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

When the vfd was consensus delete, undeleting and recreating unilaterally is clear abuse of process and administrator tools. <Y>Action of this type wheel wars causes. Grave danger.</Y> No decisions like this are so urgent that it can't wait until there is consensus to have the article undeleted. Send it for review, don't wheel war. - Taxman ^Talk 18:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If I may add, this sort of unilateral, disruptive behaviour causes true harm in the loss of confidence experienced by editors who spend time trying to work within and conform to a system they already know is far from perfect, but stick with anyway because of the wider benefits of creating this encyclopedia (and so on). Wyss 18:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

New Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia-like vote stacking

There's an upcoming merge/delete vote on Islamofascism (term) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) proposed by BrandonYusufToropov. He among with most of the people he is contacting are members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild - this is very alike to the "WikiProject Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia" that was being deleted for this kind of thing going on - it is segregation of those of a particular religion (Muslims) into a WikiProject from the main one that is open to anyone (Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam), seemingly for organizing POV edits.

I've no idea what to be done as it looks like the damage has been done now. BYT has said that "if this vote fails I'll not bring the issue up anymore" (the article's been previously voted for deletion twice and failed both) so he's calling a number of pro-Islam (most Muslims) editors to assist him in swaying the vote to assist his POV:

• BrandonYusufToropov (userpage • talk • page moves • block user • block log):

1. Calling Irishpunktom (talk) for vote stacking...
2. Calling Farhansher (talk) for vote stacking...
3. Calling Striver (talk) for vote stacking...
4. Calling Zora (talk) for vote stacking...
5. Calling Yuber (talk) for vote stacking...
6. Calling SlimVirgin (talk) for vote stacking...
7. Calling Mustaqbal (talk) for vote stacking...
8. Calling Street_Scholar (talk) for vote stacking...
9. Calling Lajjadda (talk) for vote stacking...

Examples of similar behaviour, attempts at vote stacking on Talk:Islamist terrorism#Merge

• BrandonYusufToropov:
  • Vote stacking for Talk:The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism (book)
    • Calling Irishpunktom (talk) for vote stacking...
    • Calling JuanMuslim (talk) for vote stacking...
    • Calling Anonymous_editor (talk) for vote stacking...

• Farhansher (who will doubtless be arriving soon):

1. Calling Irishpunktom (talk) for vote stacking...
2. Calling BrandonYusufToropov (talk) for vote stacking...
3. Calling FayssalF (talk) for vote stacking...
4. Calling Yuber (talk) for vote stacking...
5. Calling Zora (talk) for vote stacking...
6. Calling JuanMuslim (talk) for vote stacking...
7. Calling SlimVirgin (talk) for vote stacking...
8. Calling Anonymous_editor (talk) for vote stacking...
9. Calling Grenavitar (talk) for vote stacking...
10. Calling -Ril- (talk) for vote stacking...
11. Calling Pepsidrinka (talk) for vote stacking... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

While this notification is quite bizarre coming from someone who vigorously defended other people's right to do this, I would support a 24-hour block for disruption for this. Ambi 15:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is offtopic, but I didn't do that: I supported userboxes for personal views, but I never said I supported using them for the wrong reasons.

In fact here, unlike with the now-closed-down WikiProject Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia where userboxes were used to find those with the same religion for votestacking, userboxes were not even required in this case as the editors know which ones are of the "right" religion to contact as they're listed on the main page, and most of them know each other already.

I supported userboxes, but not abuse of userboxes: I understand that POV userboxes may produce a risk of people finding people for votestacking, but WikiProjects like this (Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild as opposed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam) and groups of personal friends doing talk page vote-canvassing achieves exactly the same thing.

People do this all the censored time. Any contentious AfD, merge request, move request, RfA, whatever—anywhere there's a poll with strong opinions on either side—you'll find at least one user rallying users they think will be sympathetic to their side. Is this a good thing? No, obviously not, but singling out one person who's just the latest example of a long-running problem isn't fair either. —Charles P.  (Mirv) 15:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there any concern about inconsistency of treatment between The Muslim Guild and the Catholic Alliance? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

None of these were brought up within the guild, nor where they part of Guild work. A Wikipedian made people aware of a vote in a subject to which they believed we would like to vote in and be aware of. Maybe this was Vote Stacking, but it has nothing to do with the Guild, and I can show you at least one member of the Arbitration Committee partaking in the very same behaviour.--Irishpunktom\^talk 16:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

So the closing admin on this takes stock of the arguments instead of the votes, gets bitched out on DRV, has their call reversed, it goes through a second AfD, is speedy kept/deleted, a wheel war breaks out, and the issue settles itself. We have a perfectly workable process for this. Phil Sandifer 16:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just have a random number generator to handle AfD? It'll probably be just as consistent... [[Sam Korn]] 16:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I endorse this suggestion. Guettarda 16:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with informing people of things they might be inetersted in. The way to deal any unfairness is to inform more people. I do wonder why it's okay to have a Muslim Guild but not a Catholic Alliance. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That's misleading - this isn't about informing people to get additional input. It's about informing people to get specific input that helps the case you want to make. The intention is not to positively contribute to the discussion - it's to win at some imagined game of nomic. Phil Sandifer 16:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is easily the strangest thing I've seen this week. If I'm within a hundred yards of being blocked for disruption, could somebody please

• a) point me toward the policy that says I can't discuss articles of interest with Wikipedians of my choosing (I'll certainly obey it if it exists), and
• b) bring the same proceedings, under the same rule, against User:IronDuke, who has been engaging in precisely the same activity, regarding precisely the same article? [12], etc. BYT 19:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm..while I don't exactly think Brandon should be dong this (a note at the project talk page would be sufficent, happens rather often at WP:WHO [and others, I'm sure]), a block is not necessary, in my opionin. So, Brandon, since people obviously don't think this is a good idea, can you promise not to do it in the future (and leave a note at the project talk page, should you see fit)? Does that sound good?--Sean|Black 20:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. This kind of message is a very common practice among many many many other users, by the way (and in the present case I do have in mind the messages of User:IronDuke [[13]). I honestly did not realize this was a breach of wiki-etiquette. I will not do it in the future. Scout's honor. BYT 21:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I took a day and half long wikibreak to deal with some increasing RL issues. i dropped theball here and I'm sorry. Suffice to say BYT did this in good faith, but poor judgement, and MSK seems to have ignored my request for excessive civility and shutting the hell up with accusing everyone. I was handling this, dropped the ball, but I'm back on it.--Tznkai 21:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record ...

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

BYT 00:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Segregation? There are plenty of non-Muslim members in the Muslim guild. This again concerns interest area, not "point of view", as I believe the Guild (of which I declare myself a member of) dedicates itself to being civil and as NPOV as possible. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to respond to the above. Let me first say that I find BYT's virtual wiki-stalking of me either very flattering or very creepy, I'm not altogether certain which. Let me also say that if urging people to vote (without a even a specific recommendation) is a violation of etiquette, then I have done so and apologize. However, after having looked at the Catholic Alliance thingie, I am not and have never been a part of any organization or cabal on WP (or anywhere else), formally or informally (unlike, I gather BYT, who is/was a member of such a cabal). The people that I contacted had all voted on the issue previously, and the vast majority of them I do not know and don't wish to know and have had no previous contact with (and not all of whom voted with me). If, even with the above caveats in mind, this is still a violation of something or other, please let me know. Ironically, the idea to do this came from BYT. I've only myself to blame. IronDuke 02:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use violation?

The Neoconservatism page has recently been undergoing an edit dispute in which I believe there is a fair use violation. User:Jacrosse repeatedly inserts a very substantial block of text from an article by a Mr. Raimondo under the heading "Left-wing roots of Neoconservative organizations?". Reading the fair use page, it seems quite clear that such a large unparaphrased excerpt goes well beyond the limits of fair use. Unfortunately, I have been unsuccessful in my attempts to get the user participating on the talk page, and to get the user to understand why violation of fair use opens Wikipedia up to legal liability. Protecting the page does no good, as once the protection was removed, the fair use violation content was immediately re-inserted by Jacrosse. I would very much appreciate the help of other administrators in resolving this fair use incident. —thames 14:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• I would agree that three paragraphs goes well beyond any concievable bounds of fair use. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 17:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It would be a conflict of interest for me to protect the page or block him from editing. Can you, or another editor, discuss the problem with Jacrosse? —thames 18:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't specifically say if it violates fair use laws since, I've seen many scholarly articles quote things that seemed about that long... but, I can say that it's a bad idea for any encyclopedia to be making quotes that long. gren グレン ^? 21:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Any help would be appreciated.—thames 22:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and once again removed the copyright violation material with a notice to see Wikipedia:Copyright#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others, and yet another request to paraphrase/rewrite the material before being re-inserted into the article. If User:Jacrosse re-inserts the copyvio material once again, I think a temporary banning might be in order, as per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Copyright_infringement_and_plagiarism. Does that sound reasonable, given the number of times the user has been warned? —thames 14:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Jacrosse re-inserted the copyvio material, without an edit summary or note on the talk page. It wasn't rewritten or paraphrased, and there's no indication that he obtained the author's permission. I've left a note on his talk page. If I don't receive a satisfactory response, I'd like to proceed with the temporary block.—thames 18:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked User:Jacrosse for 24 hours after he re-inserted the copyvio material, and reverted another user's compromise edit to restore the copyvio material a second time after being warned. See User_talk:Jacrosse#Blocked. —thames 21:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Condemned(band)

This user appears to be a sock of User:Led-zep and seems to have been created in an attempt to get around the deletion of the Condemned(band) articel. No contrivuutions ahve as yet been made, and if it really were for the band per se it would fall undewr the rule against shared accounts. Background can be found under User talk:Led-zep and my talk page, and the deleion histroy of Condemned(band). As this user does not seem to be reactign well to my comments, perahsp someone else can expalin matters to him. Should this user page be deleted, and/or this user blocked? I have done neither. DES ^(talk) 00:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Condemned(band) should be deleted, in my opinion, because we're not a web hosting service. -- SCZenz 00:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Condemned(band) is not a sock puppet. I made the account because my account Led-zep kept logging of on my home computer, and when i made it i had no clue you couldn't have 2 or more accounts, falling under the protection of the heading newbie.i am fine without it, i dont care. i can make a web page, i dont need to use your site as free web hosting. Last I address DESiegels comments that I didn't react well to his comments. I got what you were saying and was intersted in finding out your use of the word "most", I just wanted to know why some pages that dont fit the critera are left up, you told me and i stopped asking questions. I can answer for all actions that I have done. If you want to know more about what I have done and why, post it on User talk: Led-zep. I wish to settle all matters with you to end the misundersandings. I also would like to adress the policy of banning innocent poeple. My school IP adress is banned by you from editing, The state school system seems to run off only two IP addresses, that mean you banned 1/2 the TN school population. I more over was not the one that changed the Kurt Cobain Site, Nor the Eminem site. A friend of mine, whom I am not going to metion, did both, and only after reciving the notic that vandilzim is an offence stopped. I appoligize for all offence commited by me, and wish for better relations in the futer. Thank you all: Led-zep

Vandalism of Talk:Japan

Someone just dumped 9,360,681 bytes of data into the Japan talk page. Since I can't think of a rant about Japan that would fill 9MB of text, I think it is same to assume it was vandalism. The problem is that I cannot revert the change, when I attempt to access the talk page I receive the following error:

Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 52428800 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 10597086 bytes) in

/usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Parser.php on line '301

Please forward this along to a developer or someone who can resolve this problem if WP:ANI is not the appropriate place to report this. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• The page has been corrected by Malo and the offending IP address has been blocked. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  There are over 127 million people in Japan. If you devoted three words to complaining about each of them individually, you would have 1.78 gigabytes of text ranting about Japan. (It must be stated that such an accomplishment would probably be greater than Wikipedia, since compiling even cursory complaints about each individual in Japan would undoubtedly be very difficult.) — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 04:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  LOL. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• I caught a vandal doing the same thing to France about a week ago (overflowing the server with excessively long text). Isn't there something that can be done on the server side to truncate these overflows? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Several hundred KB is the largest a page should ever get IMO. Is there a reason why a limit to page size cannot be set? — TheKMan^talk 08:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Because size limitations are a global variable... to limit posts to 300k for example would limit image upload size to 300k as well.  ALKIVAR™ 18:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, so there isn't a way to differentiate between media and text namespaces. Is Crotalus horridus' idea the only possibility to prevent such errors? — TheKMan^talk 19:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Request some page move help

User:ManiacK just went on a page move spree, wasnt vandalism (just wrong), I've got to sign off now, could someone start moving it all back. Martin 10:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed now. Martin 12:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

user:66.225.168.39

66.225.168.39 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Please consider blocking this IP. Is vandalizing WP pages. Has been warned without success. --Adrian Buehlmann 11:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Only has 4 contributions, last edit 06.24 UTC. Your request comes 5 hours later. Also has only received second level warning. Secretlondon 11:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Libellous edit on Bertie Ahern

Can someone delete this blatantly libellous edit from the article history? I've already reverted it and warned the user in question. Thanks. Demiurge 14:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

done  ALKIVAR™ 19:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block of 142.150.160.0/24 - Dicky Robert vandal

I've indefinitely blocked 142.150.160.0/24 (a range at the University of Toronto) to block the Dicky Robert vandal. UofT Computer Security Administration has advised me that this is an "area of the University where user authentication is not required". They are continuing to investigate, but a CheckUser of this range (thanks for that feature, Brion) shows basically nothing but DickyRobert vandalism; we lose little by blocking it. And it's better than blocking 142.150.0.0/16 like we did earlier. :) Kelly Martin (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've now unblocked based on communications with UofT Computer Security Administration. Please report any inappropriate activity to me directly. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking LivesinSupercunt'sAttic

LivesinSupercunt'sAttic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) says right there on the user page that the account was created for vandalsim, I've just speedied Supercunt king which certainly fits the bill. Quite likely a sock of LivesinMom'sBasement (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (created Supercunt but given the offensiuve username it is probably not worth the effort of finding out. Indef blocked (my first!) please let me know if that was right or wrong. Oh, somsoen else did the same at about the same time! Looks like it was OK then. Comments welcome anyway. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, good blocks. [[Sam Korn]] 15:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of User:Zephram Stark

Zephram Stark (talk · contribs) is back again, this time as Peace Inside (talk · contribs). See the previous sockpuppets here. Peace Inside registered less than a day after the previous incarnation (Pandora Rodriguez (talk · contribs)) was blocked and has all of Zephram's calling cards (accusation of admin abuse, despotism, long diatribes). Also, made a joke [21] about recognizing User:MONGO, who Zephram interacted with as another of his sockpuppets, Peter McConaughey (talk · contribs). He's been stalking my edits and generally making a nuisance of himself. I requested a CheckUser about two days ago, but there's a sizable backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. FWIW, I've never had a false positive in identifying Zephram's sockpuppets. Any objections to blocking this sockpuppet?

Pssst... what about Rudolf_Nixon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I was considering waiting until Zephram jumped to the Rudolf Nixon account after Peace Inside is blocked, but sure, I have no problem with blocking both sockpuppets at the same time. Although there's only a few edits from Rudolf Nixon, I've no doubt that he was created as a "backup" sockpuppet. Carbonite | Talk 17:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how this isn't Zephram. Block away, Carbonite. [[Sam Korn]] 17:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This edit of his really made me laugh. There is little doubt in my mind. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, both have been blocked. I imagine it will be a few days before the next one is identified. Some people... ;) Carbonite | Talk 17:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

User:195.93.21.10 blocked but still editing

The above user is blocked (apparently - by User:Cyberjunkie for 48 hours from 01:53 19.01.2006) but continues to make the same edits for which he was blocked on Australian English. Natgoo 20:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

See [22]. [[Sam Korn]] 20:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an AOL proxy (cache-los-aa10.proxy.aol.com). I added {{AOL}} to the talk page. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

-Ril- (talk · contribs)

Apparently this user is upset by bible articles on Wikipedia. He has created three simultaneous "centralized discussions" on the subject (See {{cent}}) which kind of defies the point of being "centralized", and has spammed nearly a hundred talk pages on the subject. Also, he has a userpage intended for vote stacking to delete bible articles, and links to it from his signature. Could someone enlighten me as to the differences between this behavior and disruptive trolling? Radiant_>|< 21:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This behavior doesn't have userboxes associated with it? Phil Sandifer 21:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we could create some and then liberally sprinkle them throughout the encyclopedia. Or perhaps ceremonial userboxes (I survived the Great Bible War of '06)? --Mackensen (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

That would help a lot, I suspect. :) Phil Sandifer 21:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In seriousness, yes, this is a pretty clear problem, especially since the AfD results are pretty clear here, and it's pretty self-evident that at least some bible verses can reasonably have articles. Phil Sandifer 21:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course some of them can. John 3:16 clearly deserves its own article, but does Ezekiel 23:20? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Write one and we'll see what there is to say about it. Phil Sandifer 17:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that he is sending invitations to join the centralized discussions only to those who voted delete or merge on the latest round of AfDs for Bible verses Dsmdgold 21:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is nothing new. It has been about 6 months since the last round of discussions on this issue were raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:verses, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Bible verses, and Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses. It is unusual however that only persons who have displayed a desire to delete bible verse articles ever seem to be notified when the next discussion is started. --Allen3 ^talk 22:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I received one of Ril's messages, presumably since I have in the past voted to merge on individual Bible verses. I think it's reasonable to wonder whether we want (potentially) well over 30,000 articles on individual verses, especially since the verse construction is artificial to begin with. (And that's without getting into whether this would set a precedent for the Qur'an, Atlas Shrugged, etc.) Wouldn't it make more sense to group by topic or maybe chapter, and have the individual verses as redirects? Ril makes some sensible points here. Regardless of your view on this - and I know there are reasonable arguments on both sides - I don't see how any of this amounts to "disruptive trolling". It looks to me like a good faith discussion on a policy issue. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the AFD's are fairly clear - e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:5 had the results Delete 19, Merge or Delete 5, Merge 6, Keep 14. Total Deletes, including Merge/Delete is 24 compared to 14 to keep. So that's a delete outcome, not a keep.

The question is whether every single one of the first 200 verses of Matthew notable in its own right? Or in other words do we really need all of the following articles?

Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:2, Matthew 1:3, Matthew 1:4, Matthew 1:5, Matthew 1:6, Matthew 1:7, Matthew 1:8, Matthew 1:9, Matthew 1:10, Matthew 1:11, Matthew 1:12, Matthew 1:13, Matthew 1:14, Matthew 1:15, Matthew 1:16, Matthew 1:17, Matthew 1:18, Matthew 1:19, Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 1:22, Matthew 1:23, Matthew 1:24, Matthew 1:25, Matthew 2:1, Matthew 2:2, Matthew 2:3, Matthew 2:4, Matthew 2:5, Matthew 2:6, Matthew 2:7, Matthew 2:8, Matthew 2:9, Matthew 2:10, Matthew 2:11, Matthew 2:12, Matthew 2:13, Matthew 2:14, Matthew 2:15, Matthew 2:16, Matthew 2:17, Matthew 2:18, Matthew 2:19, Matthew 2:20, Matthew 2:21, Matthew 2:22, Matthew 2:23, Matthew 3:1, Matthew 3:2, Matthew 3:3, Matthew 3:4, Matthew 3:5, Matthew 3:6, Matthew 3:7, Matthew 3:8, Matthew 3:9, Matthew 3:10, Matthew 3:11, Matthew 3:12, Matthew 3:13, Matthew 3:14, Matthew 3:15, Matthew 3:16, Matthew 3:17, Matthew 4:1, Matthew 4:2, Matthew 4:3, Matthew 4:4, Matthew 4:5, Matthew 4:6, Matthew 4:7, Matthew 4:8, Matthew 4:9, Matthew 4:10, Matthew 4:11, Matthew 4:12, Matthew 4:13, Matthew 4:14, Matthew 4:15, Matthew 4:16, Matthew 4:17, Matthew 4:18, Matthew 4:19, Matthew 4:20, Matthew 4:21, Matthew 4:22, Matthew 4:23, Matthew 4:24, Matthew 4:25, Matthew 5:1, Matthew 5:2, Matthew 5:3, Matthew 5:4, Matthew 5:5 Matthew 5:6, Matthew 5:7, Matthew 5:8, Matthew 5:9, Matthew 5:10, Matthew 5:11, Matthew 5:12, Matthew 5:13, Matthew 5:14, Matthew 5:15, Matthew 5:16, Matthew 5:17, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 5:19, Matthew 5:20, Matthew 5:21, Matthew 5:22, Matthew 5:23-4, Matthew 5:25, Matthew 5:26, Matthew 5:27, Matthew 5:28, Matthew 5:29, Matthew 5:30, Matthew 5:31, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 5:33, Matthew 5:34, Matthew 5:35, Matthew 5:36, Matthew 5:37, Matthew 5:38, Matthew 5:39, Matthew 5:40, Matthew 5:42, Matthew 5:43, Matthew 5:44, Matthew 5:45, Matthew 5:46, Matthew 5:47, Matthew 5:48, Matthew 6:1, Matthew 6:2, Matthew 6:3, Matthew 6:4, Matthew 6:5, Matthew 6:6, Matthew 6:7, Matthew 6:8, Matthew 6:9, Matthew 6:10, Matthew 6:11, Matthew 6:12, Matthew 6:13, Matthew 6:14-5, Matthew 6:16, Matthew 6:17, Matthew 6:18, Matthew 6:19-20, Matthew 6:21, Matthew 6:22, Matthew 6:23, Matthew 6:24, Matthew 6:25, Matthew 6:26, Matthew 6:27, Matthew 6:28, Matthew 6:29, Matthew 6:30, Matthew 6:31, Matthew 6:32, Matthew 6:33, Matthew 6:34

Or should we merge/delete some of them? --Victim of signature fascism 23:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I looked at five of the above at random and they were all very well written... Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Matthew 2:21 and Matthew 2:20. Not only are the verses near identical, the article even says it is. The only content of the article is a summary of the previous 20 verses, two translations of the verse, and a comment that it's identical to the previous one. Please don't be tricked by fluff. There is no encyclopedic content in many of the articles whatsoever that merits an individual article. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 23:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ingenuous cobblers: if you actually check the article for that second verse, it is pointed out that it describes an action taken in respone to an instruction given in the first verse; it is couched in almost identical phrasing—with the tense changed—to indicate immediate compliance. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. If both articles are about the same thing, create a merged article with the content from both, and redirect both to it. --cesarb 00:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh I think you haven't read the thread you started earlier. A simple 51% majority in AfD does not mean an article must be deleted with impunity... not even close. Many informative comments were made and links provided that you might want to take a look at. --W.marsh 23:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

24 to 14 is slightly more than a 51% majority. So could you please address the actual question at hand - do we need articles for every single one of those 200 articles or somewhat less than that? --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 23:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge votes simply do not count as delete votes... and even still, 24 of 38 is 63%, 66% is the bare minimum needed to delete in most circumstances. As for your other argument, this is not WP:AFD or WP:DRV, which is where that argument belongs. --W.marsh 23:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If a closing admin notes keep on an AfD, that doesn't preclude anyone from merging the article, particularly if there's consensus to do that. Closing admins won't necessarily merge articles for you. --Interiot 23:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh not again! Despite -Ril-'s long campaign, AfD has demonstrated over many months that there is no consensus to delete good Bible verse articles. When his AfDs failed last time he tried to 'manage' his own poll at Wikipedia:Bible verses - which evidently didn't give him the result he wanted. Now, since returning from his arbcom suspension for trolling, he's back at it. Whatever your view of Bible verses, this is just troublemaking. He is, of course, free to keep nominating them - and he will keep getting 'no consensus' = default keep. This is a boring as schools debates. --Doc ^ask? 23:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is such a contentious issue. I personally do not see the study of Bible verses as much different from the study of varieties of insects or Songhai monarchs. All are obscure subjects of interest to only a small group. Perhaps this is because I personally am quite areligious and do not see them of more them of much more than academic interest. It also might be because I am not American, and failed to understand that for some that any interest in religion is an ultra political demarcation of one's position in a "culture war." - SimonP 00:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Meh, let him carry on. If they're deemed not worthy of keeping then they can be deleted. If they aren't then all he has done is draw attention to the fact that we have them and encourage other people to possibly improve them. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 00:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section header

• Rather than deletion, I think the two issues should be 1.merging some of the stubbier bible-related articles, and 2.discuss whether bible articles should cite their entire source text. Both can be taken care of through regular editing and possibly RFC. There's no need to involve deletion. Radiant_>|< 00:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - as some of the comments above suggest, going through AfD sets up a false delete/don't delete dichotomy, with a strong (two-thirds) presumption in favour of keep. But take the articles on Matthew 1:1-5 - this is for me, unarguably Biblecruft. Wikipedia is not a biblical commentary. There should be articles on topics, and on the odd really notable verse. Rd232 ^talk 00:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never been against merging - but as -Ril-'s own Wikipedia:Bible verses has shown, as with schools, there is no consensus to create any macro-policy here. Further, why the hell are we discusising content on ANI - take it elsewhere. The only valid question for ANI is whether Ril is entitle to behave as he is. And due to my past inteactions with -Ril-, I recuse myself on that question. --Doc ^ask? 00:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that there is a WikiProject dedicated to topics relating to the bible. It's been exceptionally inactive, but if there is a desire, somebody could revive discussion on the issue. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 04:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Merkey

I reverted a massive deletion of text from Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (my only edit to that page ever) and moments later this unsigned warning appeared on my talk page, written by 67.137.28.189 (talk · contribs).

• Cyberstalking the Merkey Page -- Only Warning
• Alter, edit, or vandalize the Merkey page, and you will be added to www.merkeylaw.com as a cyberstalker.

Does this qualify as a legal threat? -Will Beback 22:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No threat of legal action, only being added to a list. In the words of Billy Bragg, "If you've got a black list, I want to be on it." What it does amount to is harassment and vandalism. The policy violated is WP:OWN. Geogre 22:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

IMO, it does. Please see: WP:LIVING

Any Wikipedia editor who makes a legal threat on the website is likely to be blocked from editing, and that includes the subjects of biographies who object to their article's contents. See Wikipedia:No legal threats.

If you are the subject of a biography and you have a legal concern, the designated agent for Wikipedia is:

Jimmy Wales, Designated Agent

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

146 2nd St N, # 310

St. Petersburg FL 33701

Facsimile number: +1(727)258-0207

Email: board "at" wikimedia.org (replace the "at" with @)

E-mails may also be sent to: info-en "at" wikipedia.org (replace the "at" with @)

Contact data

I would suggest to place acopy of this notice on annon's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked for 1 week for threats, he also has "served notice" that we have to remove certain information from the article on him (sic). Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Having in the past been at the receiving end of a stalker and received various threats when reverting vandalism, I think the comment above is not merely a threat but a serious one. And yes, a threat to smear and defame another user if the person making the threat does not get their way qualifies as a legal threat. Similar threats have led to immediate indefinite blocks. Before JT imposed the week threat I had imposed an indefinite one, with a template to that effect on their user page. Their behaviour in making that threat to smear another user on an off-WP site, and engage in defamation was appalling and needs a tough response. We cannot allow such behaviour to happen. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

A review of the page where the user writes smears against other users gives a clear indication of just who were are dealing with. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I still don't think it's a threat of legal action per se, but I never disagreed that it was block-able. It was a violation of policies in two areas. I just think that "I'll add you to my black list" isn't the same thing as "I will sue you or call the cops." It's blockable, but not, I personally feel, under that rationale. Geogre 02:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

For any who haven't seen it, the blacklist is more than a simple listing; it includes personal information about editors, with vague threats about future actions. Since the subject recently filed a lawsuit against Wikimedia and 200 unnamed Internet posters, the vague threats may be include legal action. The disclosure of personal info should, and maybe does, have the same status as WP:NLT. -Will Beback 03:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked from entering the Kingdom of Heaven - Promoting Porn, sodomy, libel, defamation, and violations of basic human rights

---

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing or being listed in the book of life which stands before the throne of God in Heaven. God does not tolerate cruelty and promotion of beastiality, homosexuality, sodomy, or persecution of his saints. Users who violate the laws of God are blocked from entering the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (fags).

In view of your comments made to User:Will Beback and others , namely "Alter, edit, or vandalize the Merkey page, and you will be added to www.merkeylaw.com as a cyberstalker" you have been blocked from editing this site.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• FearÉIREANN, what is this box for, how does it relate to the surrounding discussion, and why does it have your signature on it? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It's astounding to me the double standards and bullshit that comes from you people. Your so called policies on wikipedia change like most people change their clothes. You make up whatever you please to justify your actions, twisting off site listings into "legal threats" to justify violation of basic human rights and your commission and support of libel. I never created a page about me on your sewer porn site -- a group of internet stalkers did, and your so called "Designated Representative" is a dog in the eyes of God. By the way, he has been sent dozens of letters and emails about this article. What has he done? Nothing, he doesn't even respond. Why? Because he is a COWARD and HUMAN SLIME, IMHO.

BTW, JTDIRL, I know about you and what you are and you have been listed in Merkeylaw as well. ANYONE WHO GOES NEAR THE ARTICLE WILL BE LISTED. I have a suggestion, delete the article, and the site and I will go away, and you'll never be bothered with me again. Don't bother violating my free speech rights by blocking me -- I created networking when most of you were whacking off to McCalls magazine in your adolesence. I am also one of the authors of Linux. You really think that an expert in networking like me can be stopped by a group of morons like you people? Dream on. Keep libeling me, and I'll keep listing you on my site. Be Warned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.137.28.188 (talk • contribs)

My dear fellow, please see Wikipedia:Free Speech. You may find it edifying. [[Sam Korn]] 21:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Would I be right to block User:67.177.35.211, currently engaging in revert warring on the Merkey article, as a sockpuppet of Merkey?--Alhutch 05:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Merkey appears to have new sockpuppets: 67.177.52.141 and 67.186.225.62. OneNamelessCat 07:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Tiksustoo, Autumnleaf, Robsmommy, Grroin, Aloodum, and Aboutoxfordstudent are all sockpuppets. And took part in the first Aladin AFD. User: Jayjg reported on it on User: Peter_S.' talk page. I thought I'd let you know. I feel a bit used and conneed but I still feel that current article has factual info backed up by reference. Whether that info warrants an article remains to be seen. Whatever happens, please block the sockpuppets. Cheers. Englishrose 23:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, weren't you the one calling people delusional paranoids for pointing that out in the first place? Looks like you owe several editors apologies... DreamGuy 03:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm...you were claiming that around 20 people were sockpuppets. There's a massive difference between 6 and 20. I think your the one who owes people apologies, all those you acussed of being sockpuppets (including me) that clearly weren't. Englishrose 12:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Harassment by User:PatCheng and his anonymous IPs

It would be a good idea as a preface to this posting to mention that there was a previous incident which involved both myself and this user, who has made a habit of vandalizing and egregiously insulting other users. My first contact with him was when he vandalized my user page. He followed me around various articles I would edit, as you can see if you glance through my edit histories (mostly during September) as well as the following:

• 211.30.205.254 - Look at early September.
• 202.147.110.6
• 203.222.154.162
• 211.30.215.91

He has edited a wide variety of articles (video games, sci-fi, and so forth) but the contentious lies in political-related topics, including the pages of Vietnam War, Fidel Castro, National Endowment for Democracy, Anti-Chinese sentiment, Americofascism, Anti-communism, Cult of personality, The Epoch Times, and so on. I was in some cases involved in prior or ongoing disputes with other editors, who actually attempted to resolve a specific issue rather than simply follow around my contributions and undo them. He would add on reverts to the pile of others in an attempt to compound my problems. It came to the point where I was having to revert a set of a dozen articles once a day or more, simply because of this one user.

Regrettably, Rama decided that I was being "disruptive" in not having properly discussed my issues with this user pertaining to one particular article ("Anti-Chinese sentiment") and blocked me for 24 hours (though the block remained for longer). I posted a defense of my actions (mentioned at the top) on ANI to (largely) deafening silence. While I had accumulated a couple thousand edits by this point, the fetishization of ritual Wikipedian processes made it so that editing with what little time I had was fruitless as any small point of contention (literally including a change of one word) could lead to weeks' worth of involvement which I could not spare. And in the midst of this there are administrators who choose to moderate the worthiness of editors' individual content disputes, further frustrating meaningful involvement by any but the most time-possessive and fiercely determined editors.

I decided to dabble a little bit in Wikipedia again on New Year's Day, moving an article in which the name itself featured in a previous dispute. I made a small number of minor edits in the coming days, including at Peekskill Riots, which was changed in a few hours. On the 10th of January I reverted this change and edited four separate articles: Raúl Rivero, National Endowment for Democracy, Opposition to Fidel Castro, and Alpha 66. Within a period of four minutes, this user made the following (consecutive) edits:

• 02:58, January 12, 2006 (hist) (diff) Peekskill Riots
• 02:58, January 12, 2006 (hist) (diff) Raúl Rivero (NPOV)
• 02:55, January 12, 2006 (hist) (diff) National Endowment for Democracy
• 02:54, January 12, 2006 (hist) (diff) Alpha 66 [23]

Another seven minutes later came this move of "No Gun Ri incident" to "No Gun Ri massacre" from "PatCheng". PatCheng's first two edits were complaints to Evilphoenix and Rama about me on November 1. Other than three reverts the account lay dormant until January, where on the first he trolled a talk page pertaining to a talk show. Next was this 3:05 revert move on No Gun Ri.

• 03:05, January 12, 2006 (hist) (diff) m No Gun Ri incident (moved No Gun Ri incident to No Gun Ri massacre)
• 23:10, January 1, 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:The Apprentice 4
• 23:56, November 2, 2005 (hist) (diff) m Human rights in Cuba
• 23:55, November 2, 2005 (hist) (diff) Fidel Castro (NPOV)
• 22:33, November 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) Fidel Castro (TDC, please don't remove sections and blackwash the contents)
• 02:02, November 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rama
• 01:58, November 1, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Evilphoenix

I now have to defend my edits on such articles as Lucheng, Islam Karimov, and Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front. In two of these cases I changed only one word. [24] [25]

The "No Gun Ri incident/massacre" title dispute was resolved with other editors and with no input from this user. Although he saw fit to edit this page with his anon IPs once it was merged back into No Gun Ri, when I moved a related article, "Robert Bateman (American)", to "Robert Bateman (historian)" and changed "Robert Bateman" to reflect this, "PatCheng" was the one who decided to edit Robert Bateman-related pages. [26].

These occurrences often give to other editors the impression that a bizarre edit war is being waged over a trivial issue. This was the case with National Endowment for Democracy. User:Macho had this to say in his edit:

this edit war is silly

I responded thusly on his talk page:

Every edit war that this particular anon decided to engage in (practically anything I edit) is silly. I don't make it a habit of attempting to justify myself in detail, routinely, and repeatedly, to a "wikistalker".

The anon chimed in with the following:

You can STFU TJive. I simply chose to clean up your messy pro-American propaganda, and will continue to do so.

This user apparently has appointed himself parole officer and cleanser of my foul edits. I must answer to him in any and every case. This has culminated in constant and systematic reverts you could almost set your watch to, which continue to this day:

• 02:21, January 19, 2006 (hist) (diff) Peekskill Riots
• 02:20, January 19, 2006 (hist) (diff) Islam Karimov (top)
• 02:19, January 19, 2006 (hist) (diff) Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front (top)
• 02:18, January 19, 2006 (hist) (diff) Lucheng (top)
• 01:49, January 19, 2006 (hist) (diff) No Gun Ri (rv vandalism)
• 01:48, January 19, 2006 (hist) (diff) Peekskill Riots
• 01:46, January 19, 2006 (hist) (diff) Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front
• 01:41, January 19, 2006 (hist) (diff) Islam Karimov
• 01:38, January 19, 2006 (hist) (diff) Lucheng [27] --TJive 07:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In a possibly-related matter, I had previously added User:PatCheng to Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser #CantStandYa (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). I think the chance of it being one of that editor's sock is slim, but there was some activity which made me wonder. -Will Beback 08:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

He skulked around until he could avoid the boundaries of 3RR and reverted them once again. [28] [29] [30] Now apparently he plans to game the system every night, since every time I initiate reverts I will be one down. --TJive 10:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Now he has deleted comments of mine on a talk page. --TJive 05:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Editing of 202.180.83.6

I'm unsure if I am reporting this in the right place...forgive me. This anonymous user has apparently created his/her own web site attacking another Wikipedia user (User:Jason Gastrich). The anonymous user repeatedly placed the link to his attack site on several articles (Biblical inerrancy, Inconsistencies in the Bible, The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, Internal consistency and the Bible, possibly others), where I repeatedly removed these links as inappropriate (also pointing to WP:NPA).

The user then changed his personal site to another address and attempted again to link these articles; I removed the link and referred the user to WP:SPAM.

The user has ignored my pleas. The user was also blocked at one point for other violations (I am unsure of the nature of these violations). I would request that an administrator or two or three take a look at these concerns. Thanks...KHM03 01:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm seeing double. Inconsistencies in the Bible, Internal consistency and the Bible. Which of these is a POV fork of which? Anyone care to merge to clean up the redundancy? Radiant_>|< 02:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Fighterforfreedom2

I would to call Fighterforfreedom2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to your attention. This is an obvious sockpuppet of Fighterforfreedom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), blocked by Zoe. It is being used solely to harrass Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters in an extremely offensive manner. Thanks. Chick Bowen 02:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Fighterforfreedom2 as a sockpuppet of Fighterforfreedom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

User:JosephBarillari

Looking over the Procreation article I got quite a shock because according to Joseph, "The Catholic Church, for instance, proscribes intercourse without procreative intent in which artificial birth control is employed (see Humanae Vitae)"....hmmm that seems in direct contradiction to my Catechism. I believe this user ought to be blocked for a fortnight. Chooserr 03:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you been editing your catechism? Jkelly 04:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Jkelly,

He is in otherwords saying, The Catholic Church believes that intercourse (sex) without the intent to concieve children is right. That's the only way I see it, and if that's not the correct interpretation I must be helluva thick. Maybe it needs a re-write. Chooserr 04:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Chooserr, you don't get to block someone for an edit they made a year ago. Nice try.--SarekOfVulcan 04:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sarek,

Why not? I'd think misleading people like this for a whole year would be much graver than for a day, week, or even Month. Don't you think so? Is my logic faulty? Chooserr 04:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

And besides, intercourse with procreative intent that uses birth control is... umm....--SarekOfVulcan 04:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

...proscribed by the Catholic church. Chooserr, the catechism isn't a wiki. Jkelly 04:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably, but also counterproductive. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 04:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No it is not, but deliberately misleading Catholics isn't the wikipedia I know. Chooserr 04:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Just in case anyone else is unclear on their vocabulary here: From wiktionary

Proscribe: Transitive verb

1. to forbid or prohibit something

2. to denounce something

3. to banish or exclude someone

I imagine you are thinking "prescribe"? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was wrong. I admit it. I believed prosribe meant to support. I am sorry. But I do think that maybe a rewrite might be helpful, so no further mistakes are made. Chooserr 04:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of prescribe... Sorry again. Chooserr 04:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

An honest mistake. Move along, nothing to see here. (I've reworded to "forbids" in the article, since it probably would be confusing to others as well.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The vocabulary was an honest mistake. Calling for banning a user for an edit a year ago, when the user wasn't even the last editor on the article, may fall under a different category.--SarekOfVulcan 04:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that to Chooserr it seemed as nefarious an edit (even if all that time ago) as the long-unnoticed Seigenthaler libel. His call for a ban was in good-faith, if misplaced for several reasons. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Problems with an anonymous user, "Mono development platform" page.

This is a plea for help, copied from the Talk:Mono_development_platform:

Title: Edits from DotGnu advocates.

Over the past few days an intensive campaign from an anonymous user logging in from a variety of 83.237.* IP addresses has engaged in the following activities:

• The user has engaged on a mission to label Mono as "proprietary open source". He created a page for this oxymoron, and then linked the Mono article and the reference to Mono on the .NET article to it.
• Mono is dual licensed software available under commercial and open source terms which bothers him.
• He refuses to discuss on the talk page, despite the fact that the article text actually has a number of notices placed by another editor requesting that he engages in a discussion in the talk pages.
• Instead of discussing on the talk pages, he resorted to removing my comments from the talk pages where I address this issue.
• He re-introuces the expression or deletes my comments on the talk page using the "Restore objective information".
• We know he reads the discussion page, because he edited the page and removed things he did not like, but refuses to discuss his edits.

The user is associated with a competing project to Mono and has decided to promote the agenda of the competing project on the Wikipedia.

Maybe it is time to call for arbitration. --User:Miguel.de.Icaza

I concur. scot 03:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This is some extra information that is not contained in the original Talk page:

• It is not possible to discuss with the user, as he removes any comments that document his behavior from the Talk:Mono development platform page.
• The list of IPs he has posted from includes: 83.237.11.151, 83.237.11.92, 83.237.60.5, 83.237.11.226, 83.237.11.152, 83.237.242.2, 83.237.108.102, 85.140.83.108, 83.237.108.242, 83.237.242.94. All of these IPs seem to be from a pool for an ISP: mtu.ru, mtu-net.ru.
• The "revert war" has been going on since November, I only noticed it today.
• I suspected the user was a dotgnu developer, who goes by the "krokas" irc name from googling the IP addresses. In the User_talk:Kesla he identified himself as that person.

I would like to add that the user has so far made no attempt at actually improving the content of the Mono development platform page, but I will let the admins judge for themselves User:Miguel.de.Icaza Sorry, forgot to sign, am new: Miguel.de.Icaza

• Err, are you the Miguel de Icaza? Or have you just co-opted his name for your username? android79 04:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

yes, am that Miguel (miguel@novell.com, miguel@gnome.org), feel free to email.

• BTW, you can automagically insert your signature with four tildes: ~~~~. android79 04:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Additional Instantnood and Huaiwei Ban(s???)

List of airlines is now added to their ban list per my notice to both:

I've banned you both from this article, it is quite obvious it is in order, you both continue to revert each other with comments being made in edit summaries instead of where they belong -- on the talk page. You haven't posted anything here in over two weeks yet continue to revert each other, hence, I'm banning you both from editing this one. --Wgfinley 05:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

BBC Radio 1 vandalism of Wikipedia

Can an admin investigate this?? --Sunfazer (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why it shouldn't be deleted.--Alhutch 18:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it as an attack page. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Repeated linkspamming from a range of IPs

I'm rather new around here, so apologies if this is not the most appropriate place to bring this up, but I have noticed lately that there have been repeated occurrences of links to the same marketing sites added to many articles. As you might expect, they all come from annonymous editors who contribute nothing but these links. All the IP addresses are similar: User:61.246.78.68, User:61.246.13.189, User:61.246.45.42,User:61.246.46.42, User:61.246.42.126, User:61.246.148.178, User:61.246.76.235... and probably others. If a range of IPs can be blocked and if it's appropriate to do so in this case, I ask that someone go ahead and do it. Thanks. Edgar181 18:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a page to request that certain domains be added to the spam block? User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

These appear to be Indian dial-up addresses, a range block would hardly seem appropriate. Physchim62 (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I said spam block. Requests to add spamming websites to the spam block page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It's m:Spam blacklist, I think. JYolkowski // talk 23:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Repeated image copyvios by Samhita

Samhita (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). This user seems to believe that Wikipedia is a web page where you can put any images that you find on the web. A quick look at this user's talk page shows repeated warnings and IfDs regarding image copyvios, and a look at the contribs shows even more problems with image copyvios. Take a look at Talk:Bill Weasley#Fan Image for some discussion regarding this user. Is it appropriate to block this user for repeated image copvios (after a block warning, of course)? This user is creating a lot of headaches for people trying to clean up the copyvio images (edits, IfDs, warnings, etc.). --Deathphoenix 18:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If he doesn't respond, or continues the behavior, then a block is appropriate. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

USAA incident

I just blocked two repeat trolls (the same person actually, according to a sock check) who were trolling on USAA. The user in question is the subject of a permanent injunction, apparently, barring him from writing about USAA. But more important than that, he was wasting the time of good people.

The article could probably use a very thorough going-over to make sure it's of high quality. And it'd be good to keep an eye on it because one can only suppose that this fellow will be back.--Jimbo Wales 20:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• USAA added to watchlist. Johntex\^talk 20:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Same here. Probably a good idea since they carry my home and car insurance. :-) android79 21:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm being impersonated

Now I'm being impersonated by User:Wyss_of_Switzerland. This seems to be related to user:Jmk56 (see previous item), who has been blocked indefinitely. Wyss 22:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm being impersonated again

This time by User:Wyss-, likely related to user:Jmk56's indef block for legal threats and the other impersonation of me, see above. Wyss 23:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked and removed the clone of your user page. DES ^(talk) 23:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Mistress Selina Kyle

I've blocked her for disruptions and personal attacks. Will give evidence in a moment, but I'd like this in public before I get accused of impropriety--Tznkai 21:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 21:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Home honey, I'm hi! El_C 00:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

• Aggreement to avoid personal attacks, commentary, etc, and to their removal [31]
• First occurance of an accusation This was removed assuming unwise but good faith edits. [32]
• Continuation but distinctly more personal incidence ofthe first [33]
• First [34] restoration of comments
• My warning[35]
• Second restoration [36], this may have occured before she could see the warning but
• Third edit and accusation[37], this occured after she had opportunity to see her warning.

--Tznkai 21:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Related

• Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#New_Catholic_Alliance_of_Wikipedia-like_vote_stacking
• Talk:Islamofascism

Discussion

I'm not surprised.--Sean|Black 21:40, 18 January

I entered into the conflict on Islamofascism after seeing an incident on WP:AN/I where MSK complained about a supposed consnesnus. I came in, set up ground rules, and demanded they were followed. They were also agreed to. I unfortuantly, had a bit of RL life come up and hit me upside the head, and I looked away for abit. For that I appologize. This may or may not have effected my judgemnt, so I submit this for full disclosure.--Tznkai 21:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC) 2006 (UTC)

I think I may extend my block as MSK's response [38] is less than hopefull--Tznkai 21:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. This is the sort of response that leaves me going "*facepalm*". MSK doesn't seem to be a troll as such, but she is presently way too hotheaded - David Gerard 22:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you went a bit over the top. I wish MSK wouldn't SHOUT so much, but I can't see much evidence of policy breach on her part. Could all users brave enough to be involved in this dispute please remember WP:POINT. Physchim62 (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

agree with Physchim62. I'm not sure about the block.--Alhutch 22:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

My concern here is, ignoring for a moment using policy rubrics, she's poisoined the well, and disrupted the project. She could easly have stated that "I do not think this voting procedure is legitimate" or "I disagree.". The point of policy is to protect the project from disruption. This was clearly irellivant and she was unwilling to stop using the discussion page to discuss editors. That to me is a violation of WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a discussion board, WP:CIV states that any kind of rudeness (and poisoning the well is very rude) isn't acceptable. WP:NPA not only says repeated accusations (religious bias and vote stacking) is bad, it noticibly doesn't give a damn about the truth value of the accsations. In fact it states that you should "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Not only this but she had already agreeed to the removal of such comments.--Tznkai 22:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

All the same, I can't see that your action here has lowered the temperature at all; more the opposite as far as MSK is concerned! I came accross this on WP:AN, and I find it somewhat ironic that malber (talk · contribs) should complain about MSK shortly after removing a warning about NPA from his/her own talk page... sorry, that is attacking the editor, not the content... Physchim62 (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

We're here to discuss editor action, this isn't an article's talk page. I don't know about malber's complaints, and I don't relaly care all that much to be honest. Blocking MSK certainly improved the tone of the discussion on Talk:Islamofascism and She's got a whole 24 hours to calm down. In the meantime, the discussion can procede without her parciular brand of disrpution, and a pleasant side effect of any other conflicts she was involved in have a more time for calm thought.--Tznkai 22:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As an outsider, it seems MSK is perpetually breaking the fundamental policy of Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Users who help the encyclopaedia more than they disrupt it - we want (and with the minimum of disruption, of course:) ); users who cause more disruption than good they do, we do not want. Full stop. Whatever the reason for this is irrelevant - and I'm afraid that from what I've seen it's clear that MSK is in the latter category of users, jguk 23:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I wish the notice would include mention of which diff is alleged to violate which policy. It seems that the second diff presented in the evidence is what started the process of blankings and warnings that led to a block. In the second diff, MSK posted, "Void, this section started by BYT to attempt to bypass consensus (especially regarding the vote stacking made by him for getting a false consensus): As you were already told by the admin here previously, get it listed on Articles for Deletion or Articles for Merging.. You already know about this yet you seem to be trying to ignore it.." (italics mine) I fail to see how this merited removal from the Talk page in the first place. Please enlighten me? Johntex\^talk 02:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

One, It was incorrect. Two, it was a direct personal comment to BYT. Three, said comment was poisoning the well, something she was explicitly told and agreed not to do. Four, I did not remove that specificly, I removed both the second and third pullet points at once. I was not super concerned with the first, but them together I was dissapointed with. I assumed at first the first comment was irksome but made in good faith. Successive edits proved that this was a going to be a problem.--Tznkai 03:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"pullet points" Are those like McNuggets? FeloniousMonk 04:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tznkai, thanks for your explanation. I must say however, that I still don't understand what made it OK to remove this post. You say it was incorrect - but factual disputes are not a justification for removal. Neither is making a "personal comment", unless you are alleging it constituted a "personal attack". I see no record MSK agreed not to make personal comments, the diff you provided above about here agreement seems to me to be in regard to conduct on a RfC, if one was to be opened on the limited question of whether to merge the article. And finally, it seems to me from this diff that you did remove this bullet by itself, before the second and third bullet points even existed. Since the second and third bullet points had not even been made yet, it seems that they are irrelevant in justifying the removal of the first bullet point. Unless I am still missing something, it seems to me that their is nothing in this first bullet point by MSK that violated any agreement that she made, that constitutes a personal attack, or that in any other way merits removal from the Talk page. While I certainly disagree with a lot of MSK's behaviour, I don't think we help things by what I will characterize as an over-reation to her first bullet point. Johntex\^talk 17:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Its a fuzzy logic situation. No one thing is enough to put me at the point of blocking here, its my feeling that the collection of all of these actions showed her unwillingness to remain cooperative, civil, and productive. Remember, article RfCs take place on the article's talk page. It does seem you are correct that I removed it seperatly, and that is a fault of my memory. I do maintain however that the message was innappropriate, if not a blockable offense on its own. Article talk pages are no place for accusations against single editors. There was a clear violation of good faith. " You already know about this yet you seem to be trying to ignore it" and " Void, this section started by BYT to attempt to bypass consensus (especially regarding the vote stacking made by him for getting a false consensus):" combined with the bad faith of the previous sentance suggested a personal attack. " WP:NPA lists that accusitory comments, especially those made in bad faith (also see WP:CIV, WP:AGF are innapropriate. They certainly no place on a user page. I made it very clear I had no patience for such comments, and I used my discretion. The edits were never deleted, they were moved to history. They never should have been made in the first place. MSK had several opportunities, and was invited and then demanded to replace them with civil productive discourse. She chose not to, and instead stand up and down screaming about her right to be nasty. Fuzzy logic kicks in and says that she needs a break from wikipedia, and wikipedia needs a break from her.--Tznkai 17:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I may have used the term fuzzy logic here incorrectly. I meant that there is no one thing that merits blocking, but the collection of them all does.--Tznkai 18:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to be placing blocks without any specific policy basis you don't want to first be removing the user's vote, editing their talk page comments, threatening them, et cetera. Once you find yourself taking debatable actions (and removing someone's vote should always be 'debatable') you're going to want someone else to do any blocking which might be required. As to 'accusatory comments'... I didn't see similarly aggressive actions being taken towards the 'sock-puppetry' accusations being levelled at MSK by BYT there. At that, once you stretch the policies that far... haven't you made more than a few 'accusatory comments' yourself here? --CBD _☎ ^✉ 00:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what CBD said. I don't find her comments about the motives of another user particularly wonderful, but I also don't find your response to it particularly well thought out either. You shouldn't remove her comment, that's a contentious and controversial action. If you disagree with the factual accuracy of her comment, then refute it with the truth, but don't remove it. To her that's just going to look like you're trying to censor her, which is ver upsetting. I don't think her comment about BYT was a personal attack, but it also wasn't neccessarily conducive to the discussion. On her part, I find it's best to provide a diff or something with the relevant quote if you're going to assert that another user feels a certain way. Either way, I don't think blocking was the way to go here. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As for removing comments, I know I'm in a minority here, but I do that under the auspices of adminstrative and editorial discrestion, as suggested by WP:RPA. Furthermore, those comments should not exist because wikipedia is not a message board, it is not a battle ground, it is not a sniping area, it is an enyclopedia. The fact that we have all agreed to is that MSK's comments were determinental to the discussion, and to the construction and development of the encylopedia (see WP:NOT, WP:CIV and for kicks, WP:IAR).

Furthemore, MSK had several avenues open to her. My talk page, AN/I, AN, RfC, getting her favorite adminstrator to intervene, etc. Comments directed at a user's conduct belong on AN, AN/I, AN/3RR, RfC, RfAr, and user talk pages. That is, as far as I recall, the conclusive and exhaustive list. There is no policy that even suggests that MSK has the right to poison the well, disrupt civil discussion, or accuse BYT of sockpuppetry and vote stacking on the article talk page. She was invited explicitly to restate her objection in any number of ways. She chose not to.

Finally, and perhaps most tellingly, when warned of a block, she decided to flout it. Instead of going here on AN/I, responding on my talk page, or other dispute resolution processes, she decided continue adding off topic comments on the article talk page. These were never censored as they remain in the talk page history, and I even left a link to my removal of them. She had many options, and she chose uncivil disruption.--Tznkai 04:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

1. - The "sockpuppet accusations" thing: For a start, that was in a completely different conversation that took place several days before (the 16th) you started vandalizing the talk page by deleting other peoples' comments and so had nothing to do with this at all. Secondly, See 24.34.154.167 (talk · contribs) - I placed the notice on the pages after finding this out, at the time both the IP's user and talk pages were redlinks and it wasn't clear at all that it was BYT editing anonymously. What happened was after BYT talked about moving the page he used the anonymous IP to make the changes and as the message about it being him on Talk:Islamofascism (term) didn't appear until a few minutes after his anonymous changes and it looked like he was trying to hide the fact that it was him. Digging deeper and looking at the contributions (it seems he's used the IP quite a few times in the past, while not letting anyone know it's him), it was clear it was him, but it was very suspicious behaviour.
2. - Comments were "detrimental to the development of an encyclopedia"? This is POV-pushing. Drawing attention to vote-stacking is not "detrimental", and actually helps avoid the complete bias of consenus that BYT was aiming to achieve by mass-spamming talk pages of Muslim editors to 'come help us on this vote'. In fact, admin Demi did very much the same in a TfD discussion: [39] and similar to you, I deleted it as I thought it was irrelevant to the discussion at the time: I was then reverted and blocked for "deleting other peoples' comments". It's sickening, the double-standards here.
3. "Warned of a block" - The fact is that you had no authority to block me as I did not do anything blockworthy/against policy. I did not make personal attacks, I was perfectly civil, all I did was bring attention to the fact that very dubious behaviour was going on with regards to the vote.
4. "These were never censored as they remain in the talk page history, and I even left a link to my removal of them." - The fact remains that you deleted them and so they disappeared from the page. That's censoring comments. The fact that they were in the history is irrelevant: When people read comments they look at the current version, not every change in the edit history. Also, it seems you're trying to fudge the facts here: You only left a link to my deleted comments a few minutes AFTER the third deletion of my vote and comment[40], so you can hardly claim that I was making "disruption": The fact is before you had blocked me you repeatedly deleted my comments and did not make any link to them, censoring any message you didn't agree with from the talk page.
5. There was no way linking to the administrators' noticeboard about a real thing going on - the diffs made it a fact not an "accusation" - is a "personal attack" and so would qualify under WP:RPA, but even then you still kept deleting anything I said, even after I made it clear to you that I didn't want you to keep deleting my comments.[41] --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I first arrived on the dispute after seeing your notice on WP:AN (or was it AN/I?), and subsequent complaints. I told you then to cool down and take it easy. You had been throwing around bad faith accusations and vitrol from the moment I was aware of the dispute forward. Immediatly after I came there, I protected the article, asked what was going on, and set up ground rules. Ground rules you eventually agreed to. Furthermore, my actions are well supported by the simple fact that policy dictates that this is an enyclopedia. There is no free speech, there is no right to poison the well, there is no right to link to AN/I on article talk pages on something that isn't relivant/ is accusatory. Article talk pages are for discussing the article. Occasionally, it can be used for frequent editors on that page to slap each other on the back. These are things that foster good relations and a better encylopedia. Mean nasty, spite comments, accusations of vote statckin and the like do not.

I removed no comments before I was aware of the article. I set the ground rules from the time I was adjucating the dispute to the time forward. You don't like it, call for mediation, RFC, another admin, etc. These were all great outs. In fact however, you agreed to it.

Starting from the top then: 1. User conduct including sockpuppetry has certain channels. None of them are article talk pages.

2. You are making an assumptions on someone else's character, one that you hold and I've yet to see compelling consensus or evidence for. (see, the nice thing here, is if other people think so, I get overuled. Other people include people who aren't you. Other admins, experianed wikipedians, and people who don't care about islam realted articles are preferable). Also, this is not a votes for deletion. I have no idea what Demi did or didn't do other than Demi has not said a word on the relevant talk page. Very little of what you did here was constructive, as I have pointed out time and time again, and so have other editors on this subject.

3. You accused an editor of compromised integrity. Furthermore you linked it to religious bais. Furthermore you dragged in another admin's words that were only slightly relelvant. Then you used an article's talk page to poison the well and advertise a section on AN/I. To quote the blocking policy "Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia.". I believe strongly that no matter what we argue about the specific wordking of WP:RPA WP:NPA WP:NOT and WP:CIV, this block falls well within my discretion and judgement that you were disrupting wikipedia, and you would continue to do so in increasingly dsiruptive ways without a cooldown period. Again, we must remind ourselves that you had several avenues of response, instead you escalated on the article talk page. You in fact did bring the block upon yourself, as you had lots of avenues to prevent it from happening, including complaining to a sympathetic adminstrator. There are a few around who are more than willing to overrule me, or better yet, talk to me politely.

4. You misunderstand. Syops have the technical ability to completely remove edits from history, or so I've been lead to believe. I removed the comments with a polite note for you to refactor them. I even left the convient little oppose vote. I signed that I was refactoring them. If people give a damn about what you said, they are welcome to look. It wasn't until you couldn't refactor that I linked the removed comments. This is true. I always gave you plenty of opportunity to improve instead of revert.

5. Poisoning the well! The AN/I section was your reporting. It was about user conduct. Just because it happened to be here on AN/I doesn't mean it was legitimate to insert into any conversation, let alone an article talk page. Personal attacks may infact be true. This does not mean they are constructive or helpful on article talk pages in any way. don't do them. If you want to say the vote shouldn't be carred out, say. "I don't think the vote should be carried out because there has been advertising on this vote." You don't even have to say who. People will ask, you can respond, nicely. In the meantime you leave a polite note on the relevant editor's talk page and say. "Please don't do this, its considered bad wikkiquette". As you see above BYT did not know, and has been informed. WP:AGF isn't policy, but its still a good idea as a way to make sure you follow basic CIV and EQ.

Lets review. You made accusations assuming bad faith. You singled out a single editor. You used an article talk page. You had several opportunities to refactor your comments. You agreed to avoid personal commentary (article RfCs take place on talk pages so you don't get any wiggle room here), including a specific warning against poisoning the well. You discarded several better avenues (User talk, AN, AN/I, IRC, E-mail, etc.) to discuss my actions and my block warning. Your opposition vote was based solely on accusations of vote stacking, or atleast thats all you wrote. You had several better ways of saying this (as outlined above). You have disrupted wikipedia based both fair readings of the letter of WP:NPA WP:CIV and WP:NOT, and while those are disputable, (as other admins have above) the spirit of the three supports my reading nicley. WP:BP states that "Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia.". Finally, Wikipedia is an enyclopedia, and a sysop's job is to protect that enyclopedia. There is no doubt in my mind that you were making the discussion increasingly worse, as I outlined above.--Tznkai 17:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Latest block

I blocked Ms. Selina for 24 hours for vandalizing File:Image:Flag of Taiwan.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). See also User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle, where I posted an explanation. I don't fully understand what she's up to, but there is a clear tendency for her to get involved in sensitive issues, to make changes unilaterally and without much regard for policies or precedent, and to fail to consider that those who oppose her may be acting independently and in good faith. If it weren't for the useful edits she has made, I would be posting on WP:PE instead of here. In any case, without having to second guess her motivations, perhaps something can be done: I'd like to know if there's a consensus among involved users as to whether some form of mild sanctions could help. For example, having Ms. Selina placed on personal attack parole, revert parole, and/or page move parole. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

agreed. This user has been inserting nonsense and replacing images in Taiwan-related articles that can easily qualify as vandalism. [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] --Jiang 09:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Posting personal information about a user

Hi, I'm an editor on the Shiloh Shepherd Dog site. This is my first experience with Wiki. This is currently an article in dispute. My signature is a "pen name" - MilesD. Following one of my posts a post was made with the following remark:

[snip] or whoever you are, you should read Ms. Barber's replies on the Shiloh Community Forums. Boy, does she have a big one ready for you! 70.35.67.56 03:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Aslan

No where on Wiki is the name [snip] mentioned, as this is a private name I do not wish to share. Apparently, poster "Aslan" tracked my IP address on Wiki to another outside e-group I belong to (where I use my name) and then posted it on Wiki.

Can an administrator do something to help stop this person from posting my personal information and threatening me? Also, I think this "Aslan" may be a sock puppet for user Tina Barber or possibly TrillHill as this has been done before with another user, when Tina Barber contacted his supervisor to advise he had posted from his work pc to Wiki.

Any help you can provide is most appreciated. Thank you very much. 69.173.135.114 03:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC) MilesD.

Names snipped by -Will Beback 04:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't have this problem if you registered an account since it would hide your IP address. As to what you can do now I have no idea. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

@Jtkiefer: This user has an account, User:MilesD..

@MilesD.: I have searched the talk page and its archives for the comment, but I can't find it. Could you provide a link to the edit, so that it can be deleted and the user warned?

Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Aecis: Yes, the post is on the Shiloh Shepherd Dog page, Archive #5, Content #4 titled "To the editors and moderators". The link is:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog/Archive_5#To_the_editors_and_moderators Thank you very much. MilesD. 01:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

IAAL

I've just blocked IAAL (talk · contribs) because of his edits to Tron (hacker). This guy has also been causing problems over at de. related to the court case they are going through at the moment. His listing of de. admins as "responsible for damages" is a problem, and his additions to the article seem pure trouble-making. I'm told that he is not a lawyer, and has also been sending abusive emails to admins involved in this matter. I've got to run off-line now, but would welcome review. Please also see his talk page for my message to him. -- sannse (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Knew this was coming... doesnt surprise me in the least, he's apparently been a pest over on the de wiki as well.  ALKIVAR™ 19:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Is that a permanent block...? if not, please? He only came here to make legal threats, trick naive admins into following along without due process, and making a bunch of ridiculous complaints on this one topic. He serves no useful purpose here. DreamGuy 03:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It was a month, which I thought would be long enough to let the Tron stuff calm down a bit - but if he returns and repeats, I'd be happy with an indefinite -- sannse (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Just as another note: This guy does not have any clue. Most of the persons on his list of responsible "admins" are not admins but normal users. German wikipedia made something they call "Meinungsbild", which means users are invited to "vote" (but because "voting" on Wikipedia lacks basic democracy principles, it is not called a "vote") in favor or against some topic. His list are the users who "voted" against removal of the name in question from the article. BTW: Beside the english and the german wikipedia, IAAL has also hassled the dutch Wikipedia [47] [48]. "he's apparently been a pest" seems like a gross understatement. -- Pedewikia 00:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection of featured articles

It is generally understood that we do not full-protect articles while they are being featured on Wikipedia. Leithp recently contacted me regarding the Hero of Ukraine page, which I've semi-protected due it being vandalised constantly for the past 16 hours by anonymous editors. Semi-protection is nowhere near as prohibitive as full protection, and I believe that allowing this page to be vandalised such as this is a disservice to both Wikipedia and our readers. I wanted to bring this to the attention of WP:ANI for a broader discussion; it is reasonable to semi-protect featured articles? Hall Monitor 19:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you beat me to it. My thoughts on this are that today's FA is generally a showcase for Wikipedia, and so accessibility should be a priority (I seem to remember Raul654 having a template to this effect), but if I'm in a minority I'm content to leave it. Leithp 19:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this. Semi-protection is no different to full protection here, as almost everyone who uses the main page for coming into Wikipedia is anonymous. For the reasons why protection of the FA at all is not appreciated, I can't say it as well as Raul can. [[Sam Korn]] 19:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

And almost everyone who has edited Hero of Ukraine anonymously in the past 16 hours is a vandal. Actually, I have yet to find a non-vandal edit. Semi-protection is very different than full protection, it allows non-administrators to edit. Hall Monitor 19:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It is no different in this case. The people at whom the protection would have been targetted would have certainly been the newest users, not the non-admin old-timers. [[Sam Korn]] 19:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course most edits are vandalism, it is our most visible article ATM. But what type of example does it show people? Oh, here's an article on the encyclopedia anyone can edit... you can't edit it though. -Greg Asche (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably a better example than when someone wants to learn more about the subject, clicks it, and sees nothing but "YOUR MOM!!! MY MOM!!! HIS MOM!!! HER MOM!!! THEIR MOM!!! IT'S MOM!!! OUR MOM!!! YOUR MOM!!!" [49]. Just my opinion, but that sends the worst kind of message about what Wikipedia is. --W.marsh 20:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because you asked, here's one and I'm sure if I looked I could find a few more. Leithp 19:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No, not just most, but nearly all anonymous edits to this article have been vandalism. To say that anyone can't edit is misleading, we allow registration to any user and do not even require so much as an email address. My concern is that we are turning away readers (who may later become valuable editors) as a result of presenting them with a piece of trash every 2 minutes. Hall Monitor 19:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi protection requires having been registered for four days. [[Sam Korn]] 19:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

And we allow people to register, we don't make them register to edit. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit". Kim Bruning 19:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You didn't see the asterisk? "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone* can edit" - * - Only registered users with edits across 100 articles and created after the last 6% of any other users may edit a featured article, and even then you may be blocked from editing either intentionally or unintentionally. Subject to laws in florida and surrounding territory. NO WARRANTIES EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED!!  :) WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 20:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Because of the time constraints here, the article only has a few hours to go as today's FA, I'd like to come to a decision quickly. Can we agree to unprotect it and have a general policy discussion about whether S-protection is appropriate for today's FA? Leithp 19:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, since the concensus is that this article should be subject to vandalism while it is at featured status, I will unprotect it now while this is being discussed. Best regards, Hall Monitor 19:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

So, anyone fancy a sweepstake on how long until the first anon vandal edit? I'm going for 20:15. Leithp

20:32, not even close. Leithp 20:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[50] Wait, were we playing by Price is Right rules? Hall Monitor 21:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No, we do not protect the main page featured articles - not semi-protection and not full protection - for reasons I explain here. Raul654 20:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be discussed first. Semi-protection is a new and helpful feature to Wikipedia, you do not have authority to unilaterally decide this. Hall Monitor 21:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been the main author of several front-page articles, and two of them (including Butter, just a few days ago) were very heavily vandalized. I was very active in fighting off the vandalism, as were a number of other good people. It was a stressful, busy day. Even if semi-protection would make it a lot less stressful, it would still be the absolute wrong thing to do. The vast majority of readers are anons; featured articles showcase what's best and unique about Wikipedia; that includes editability.

But you know what? Semi-protection wouldn't even make it much less stressful. Clear vandalism is easy to deal with. Roll it back. Tired of doing it? Someone else will usually take care of it too - good vandal hunters do tend to keep an eye on the TFA. The stress comes from the small flood of well-intentioned edits that are awkwardly written, or a little POV, or unreferenced... and semi-protection won't help there. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

As the creator of the article, I noticed only one-three good edits by annons. I seen an annon fix some of my grammar, I seen an annon provide the article's first interwiki link: to KA (Georgian) and some other interwiki links. I do not mind the article being unleashed to the world for 24 hours without any kind of protection: articles like this will rarely get touched except by me or other people who work on UA-related articles (the same with Hero of Belarus, which I also created). Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a big problem with semi-protection. Partially because I don't hold any "wiki" ideology... just what allows a big group like us to write a decent encyclopedia. Maximize exposure and minimize the negative aspects of that exposure. For anonymous IPs on these we usually get grammar edits and interwiki. I think anonymous editing is more important to interwiki links since I'd have an account on about 13 different wikis if I did counted everywhere I've done an interwiki. While it's on the main page I don't have a big problem with semiprotection... it's just damage reduction. Like, the reason why there's a case around the Mona Lisa. ~_~ gren グレン ^? 00:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The last I checked, the Louvre doesn't want you painting on any of their pieces (featured or not)... so I'm not sure I trust the analogy. The anon who makes a grammar edit today (or even a bad test edit) might be tomorrow's great editor; we had better have a really exceptional reason if we're going to turn them away from the main article at the front gate. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that while vandalism is vandalism is vandalism, not all vandalism is malicious. Often people find it hard to believe we allow anyone to edit, and not everyone's first edit contributes positively to Wikipedia. I think it's a bad idea to semi-protect the featured article of the day as per Raul. Featured article should exemplify everything about Wikipedia, including our wiki philosophy of allowing anyone to edit. Johnleemk | Talk 08:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Rx StrangeLove 05:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Laptopbomber (Contribs)

I've blocked Laptopbomber (talk · contribs) 31h for personal attacks after a warning. However, he seems to think that he's being unfairly targetted (look at his contribs first before you say anything). Since I have to go offline now, I request another admin to look the case over and, if they find in their judgment a block to be harsh, to unblock and explain. However, his persistent want of making attacks against fuddlemark cannot be condoned. NSLE _(T+C) 11:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think 31 hours is fair. Secretlondon 11:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

So do I. This user has basically started editing wikipedia today (two minor edits prior to today, both in November), and immediately began a crusade against User:MarkGallagher. He needs to be told that this is not done, and a 31 hour block seems like a fair way to do this. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 13:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently he wants to file a complaint "in person"... heheh. NSLE _(T+C) 01:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know what I've done. Apparently he's unhappy that I speedied something, or closed an AfD, or opined in an AfD, some time over the past three months. If we had access to deleted contribs en masse (as used to be the case with Kate's Tool), I could at least take a look and see if I've deleted anything of his. I've never heard of this fellow. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Fry Mumia

Hi, I just tried to create a page entitled Fry Mumia to describe the cultural phenomenen of the Free Mumia movement and the political reaction the phrase has elicted from others. The article was just created yesterday, and has not had a chance to be properly edited, as it came under almost instantaneous attack by Mumia supporters. Could you please add some sort of tag or do something else to allow the article to mature. Much too early to delete. Now I know what it means to be "bitten" as a newcomer on Wikipedia. Thanks. Morton devonshire 16:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Does it exist or is it just a witty tshirt? It looks like a POV article in any case - how could it be expanded?Secretlondon 16:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The point of the article is the cultural movement of Free Mumia and the cultural backlash, not the t-shirt. Morton devonshire 16:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's something to think about - FRY MUMIA is a response to FREE MUMIA, right? Do we have an article on FREE MUMIA? Then why should we have one on FRY MUMIA? Something to think about. --Golbez 17:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sad, I thought I came up with FRY MUMIA all on my own back in 1998. :( Anyway, this chap has a persecution complex [51] [52]. Let's try not to justify his whinging too much. --Golbez 16:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Whinging? Just let the article mature, or is that too much to ask? Morton devonshire 17:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not just add a para to the Mumia article? If it were to be an actual article it would be called something like Conservative responses to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal protests which doesn't seem to be worthy of its own articleSecretlondon 17:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The backlash to Mumia activism could be covered in Mumia Abu-Jamal or a spinoff article. I don't think the current Mumia article covers the opposition to "Free Mumia" enough. However, an article about a little-known T-shirt slogan is not the proper way to cover this movement. The article provides no evidence that this is a notable rallying cry for anti-Mumia activists. Rhobite 17:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Tried to add a reference to the main article, but it was removed by the Mumia-protection-society. No chance to actually edit the article, as it keeps getting vandalized with tags, etc. Why not give the article a chance to mature? Morton devonshire 17:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Repeating that plea won't get you anywhere. And you didn't just add a single reference to it, you linked to an article you just made, without equal due to "Free Mumia." It's a minor slogan to respond to a less minor slogan, and neither deserve articles. Why do we have to give your article a chance to mature, if there's more to add, add to it, but the consensus seems to be that there is nothing more to add. (Also, the pic you put in the article has no source info) --Golbez 17:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The consensus is manufactured sockpuppetry. Morton devonshire 17:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If you think that it's not remotely possible that so many people think that such an article is inappropriate, why should we take you seriously? --Golbez 17:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't take you seriously, because I think you are all the same person. Morton devonshire 17:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I know I'm not.. Seriously - we're writing an encyclopedia which means references etc. I'm not in the US but I can't imagine that there wouldn't be a backlash to Free Mumia campaigns. Our aim is Neutral Point of View which means we document both sides, as an independent observer. Secretlondon 17:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, there goes that last tiny bit of credibility... Carbonite | Talk 17:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

So much for admin neutrality. Oh well, no hope here. I'll just stick to the article from now on. Morton devonshire 18:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I now have a list!  : ) Morton devonshire 17:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"Tried to add a reference to the main article, but it was removed by the Mumia-protection-society" - this is pretty much a textbook example of POV forking. Guettarda 17:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Secret, would you help edit the article. I don't want it to be my article, I just want to have an article discussing the cultural phenomenen of the FM movement and the cultural backlash. Could use many editors. I invite all of the naysayers here to edit the article. Thanks. Morton devonshire 17:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I just did - I removed links about "Free Mumia", since this is an article about "Fry Mumia". All of this should be merged into the Mumia article with a single sentence or two - no more. --Golbez 17:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I invite all to contribute to the article. The purpose of the article is to describe the Free Mumia movement as a cultural phenomenen, rather than to discuss the case for or against the man, and rather than the narrow issue of a Fry Mumia t-shirt (which is just an expression of the phenomenen, not the subject itself -- I probably picked the wrong article title). For some, the movement has taken on much larger issues than the man himself, and that's worth exploring and describing. Have at it! Thanks. Morton devonshire 17:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

IF you can find evidence for there being a cultural phenomenon, then conceivably we could have an article about that, but certainly this T-shirt slogan hasn't had any evidence presented that it is worth an article. - Taxman ^Talk 19:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This is just silly. I put up the article for afd, though I didn't know at the time it was so new. In any case, thinking T-shirt slogans don't need individual encyclopedia articles is hardly a political position. However, instead of merely disagreeing and advocating his views, Morton Devonshire has removed the afd tag and accused the editor who restored it of "abuse" and accused those who voted delete of being sockpuppets and biased editors. Gamaliel 20:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it is silly. Just let the article get edited without all of the Wikipedia mechanical tactics -- they just get in the way of creating an acceptable article. Make it "Free Mumia" if you wish -- the title isn't important. I don't want to fight with any of you over votes for deletion tags, neutrality tags and the like -- just edit the friggin article people. Golbez -- quit stalking me dude! Morton devonshire 23:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I stalk all martyrs, it really makes them sweat. --Golbez 00:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have redirected the page to Free Mumia Movement, in an effort to try to find some balance. My hope is that editors will discuss the political phenomenen which is the Free Mumia Movement, which is larger than the man himself and his case. Please help me to do this by removing the Afd and other tags. Thanks. Morton devonshire 05:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Lewes Priory School administrators vs. students

Per conversation on Talk:Lewes Priory School, I was wondering about some policy precedent. Briefly, a content dispute ensued when an administrator of the school found the Wikipedia page about the school and changed it to conform to the "school's views". Users IDing themselves as students of the school changed it back. Protection was enacted and discussion went to the talk page. The problem is that somehow the school admin has found out which students are the contributors on the Wikipedia. Due to the admin's tone in the past, I am concerned that some sort of harrassment or coercion may occur. Thoughts on precedent or further action? — Scm83x ^talk 17:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment of Wikipedians by other Wikipedians should result in the harrassers being blocked from editing. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Either way one of the users involved - 80.237.132.33 appears from this diff, to be using an open proxy and I have indefinitely blocked it per standing instructions. --Alf ^melmac 20:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion (and from just a cursory glance at the dispute), there's really nothing we can do except try and explain our policies, guidelines, and standards to the involved parties. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Legal action threatened against Wikipedia (and me)

Made by Jmk56, here. Frances Farmer article. Wyss 21:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him for making legal threats. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I just got an email from Jmk56 about this. More to come - David Gerard 17:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've got quite a collection of the things. He's complaining about copyvio's an lible. I haven't managed to get him to say exactly what the copyvio is.Geni 17:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

collateral damage

I've permablocked JKpen (talk · contribs) as a troll. Apparently he was using AOL, and now I'm getting e-mails from AOL users affected by the IP block. What do I do? I don't see the address that got blocked with the account name (this is ridiculous. admins need to see IP addresses. This is like hitting people with a club in the dark). dab (ᛏ) 22:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably, he got caught by the autoblocker. When you block somebody and then they try to edit from an IP address, the IP gets blocked for 24 hours. Since it's AOL, I'm sure other people are now trying to edit Wikipedia and are getting thwarted by the autoblocker. You have to look through the blocklog to see the autoblock notice; just click on unblock and lift it. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 22:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I lifted a bunch of the autoblocks. You can see the blocklist at Special:Ipblocklist; I had to scroll back about 4-5 pages. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 23:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I lifted 5 or 6 also. DES ^(talk) 23:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, like 2 whole AOL Ip adresses was blocked and I got severly infected by it as I use AOL. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

UN fortunately AOL changes IP with each Page viewed, so a block on an AOL user can cause the autoblock to affect lots of shared IP addresses. DES ^(talk) 23:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Note that this was exactly what the vandal wanted, and even bragged about it on his talk page. What a putz. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn't wikipedia great, I get all my mom's Yiddish phrases even when I'm away from home. gren グレン ^? 23:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's kind of frustrating. The block logs can be a pain to look through. gren グレン ^? 23:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a autoblocking whitelist and add all the AOL IPs on it. --Deathphoenix 03:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes that would be good I'd think. Should be fairly easy to do. File a feature request/bug report. In the meantime, I think that if you unblock the first autoblock that comes up, then it turns off autoblocking for that username. - Taxman ^Talk 16:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user still editing, threatening

Blocked user:Jmk56, having given up on impersonating me, is still editing Frances Farmer and leaving harassing/threatening notes on my talk page, using IP user:67.42.212.86. Wyss 01:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked him for 48 hours. Reblock if he continues after the expiry. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism and problem user, block requested

24.2.153.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) trying to test the limits of the system by vandalizing Avon, Connecticut received final warning and kept vandalizing. I also suspect this IP to be the IP of Totalnoob911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who made identical edits. Please block IP and run CheckUser, blocking user if they match. I have tried reasoning with this person. Instead of stopping, they just stopped logging in. -- —WAvegetarian^TALK_CONTRIBS^EMAIL 02:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The vandal hasn't called by since 2241 UTC, so doesn't need a block right now. When/if it returns, report it at WP:AIV right away, noting that it is a returning vandal. -Splash^talk 02:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Came back roughly two hours after this post. Was blocked by reverter. User:Totalnoob911 hasn't been heard from since my last dealing with them. Hopefully this block will be enough. —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 06:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

User name: Rillian

I've had problems with Rillian recently and I see others have had problems with him in the past as well. He unfavorably edits VMI's pages, removes archived comments, etc. Please take a look at his contribution history, as he also favorably edits another site. I would greatly appreciate if he would stop reversing my edits and I have communicated this to him as well. Thanks in advance for your help. Tuf 02:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Has Jmk56 been unblocked already?

Has Jmk56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) been released from his indefinite block after a couple of hours? After impersonating me twice, being blocked twice more, then vandalizing my talk page and being blocked again? (see above) Here he is deleting the block notice from his talk page and here he is again posting from an anon IP and asking me to send him a private email. Wyss 02:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I can only see him having been blocked once, and never unblocked in the block log... NSLE _(T+C) 02:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same question: who unblocked him? I don't see any information on an unblock. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I get it. He can edit his talk page using his blocked username. He asked for my email address using yet another anon IP. Wyss 02:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

He's now editing from IP user: 207.200.116.138. Wyss 02:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Jmk56 blocked but still editing with IP sock

Indefinitely blocked user:Jmk56, after four previous blocks tonight, is still editing from IP user:207.200.116.138 (deleting content, asking me to send him a private email, accusing me of "slanderous lies", claiming he's not the one who's been impersonating/harassing me and would all those "Frances Farmer fans" out there please "stop harassing Wyss." Reminds me of the Sollog wars). Wyss 03:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• I've walked away from it for now. Wyss 04:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Now he's calmed down a bit (after all this) and made some very helpful and restrained edits/corrections to Frances Farmer (using the anon proxy), without removing any content. Wyss 05:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Only to document this, sockpuppet user:207.200.116.138 admitted he was blocked user:Jmk56 in this edit. Wyss 06:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Jmk56 used an IP to post more legal threats on his talk page against Wyss. The threats were removed and the page protected to stop any more legal threats being posted. The AOL IP being used was then given the standard AOL-length block. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 06:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The moment I thought he had calmed down and after I actually thanked him for the edits (even if he did make them as an AOL sock, whilst I warily watched) he threw out another legal threat, in effect claiming my thanks were some form of abuse. Wyss 06:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

lol. He posted this on my talk page:

another Admin is working with me on the Wiki listserve, so I think you all better revisit this decision rather rapidly.

Oooh I'm trembling! lol FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 06:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What he said leading up to that rather beggars the imagination, too. Wyss 06:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ummmmm......

Jmk56 emailed me about this. He appears to be an expert who is not used to the rough and tumble of Wikipedia. I'll update all further on this one - David Gerard 17:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

User page vandalism

User:IAAL's user page is being vandalised by anons who are inserting the full name of the Tron hacker. IAAL is currently blocked and so cannot revert his own user page. Regardless of what anyone's opinion is of IAAL or of naming the Tron hacker, his user page should not be modified in a way which is undoubtedly offensive to him. I've already reverted it three times; can I suggest someone else revert again and consider sprotecting the page.-gadfium 05:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted and semi'ed it. Dragons flight 06:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.-gadfium 07:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

But no-one bothered to delete the edits that show the full name? WTF. Lapinmies 20:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Reason170 blocked

I've blocked Reason170 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for these two edits ([53] [54]) under our Wikipedia:No legal threats policy. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Copperchair

This user has been banned from editing until resolution of the arbitration process, see the temporary injunction Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#Temporary_ban_on_Copperchair_editing and is now editing again (in the same way that led to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair), a couple of days after his last one-month block for the same offense expired. Kusma (討論) 17:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought he had already been banned from editing until the conclusion of the arbcom case. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That's why I am reporting him here, since that ruling says he should be blocked if he edits any page besides his user page. Kusma (討論) 20:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sprotect Frances Farmer?

Since blocked user:Jmk56 seems to keep popping up again (this time as user:80.237.152.53) perhaps the easiest thing is to sprotect Frances Farmer for now? Wyss 18:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Instantnood, probation, Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement

The last two week history on Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement is Instantnood reverting another user over and over and over. He has not made any talk page discussion or any other method of resolving his issues. To make it even more petty it is strictly a matter of presentation, not even content.

As Instantnood is under Wikipedia:Probation for precisely this kind of revert warring, can I ask an admin to page ban him? SchmuckyTheCat 18:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Instantnood, probation, Classified information

Instantnood has similarly engaged in aggresive edit warring with another user over the presentation of HK vis-a-vis China in Classified information since early January, and has only starting making comments in the relevant talk page on 14 January after an uninvolved user took the initiative to begin negotiations. Even as he continue to discuss, however, the edit warring continues, pausing with his last edit on 15 January only because his "opponent" has not returned. Considering the Wikipedia:Probation frowns upon destructive behavior particularly in any issue related to China or the HK question, should this also constitute justification for a page ban?--Huaiwei 19:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Jadger: userpage attacks

We don't allow user pages to be used to maintain personal attacks against other editors, and I think the user page of User:Jadger qualifies as a personal attack against User:Molobo, User:Space Cadet, User:Lysy and User:Halibutt. Specifically, he lists these editors as amongst those he "hates", and referring to their "utterly stupid" "childish attacks". Moreover, his comments are very close to being anti-Polish slurs: "These are the type of people that allow the Polish stereotypes to continue, by fitting perfectly the stereotype", and quoting Bismarck, apparently with approval given the context, talking about "the destruction of the Poles".

I've asked Jadger if he would consider rewording his page, and he has declined (see User_talk:Jadger#User_page). Should he be required to do so, or is this still in the realm of acceptable criticism? — Matt Crypto 20:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reinforced your request. He probably belongs in RfC, except RfC is a cesspit and won't do any good anyway. No obvious solution to this problem exists. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. There is the part of WP:UP that reads, "If the community lets you know that they'd rather you deleted some or other content from your user space, you should probably do so, at least for now - such content is only permitted with the consent of the community...If you do not co-operate, we will eventually simply remove inappropriate content, either by editing the page (if only part of it is inappropriate), or by redirecting it to your main user page (if it is entirely inappropriate)." — Matt Crypto 21:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

JAIS (Just Another Iasson Sockpuppet: Mpikso

I've indefinitely blocked Mpikso (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) as another Iasson sockpuppet, and reverted all of his edits (regardless of quality), with the exception of this helpful edit of updating Iasson's ban time. He's laughing at us. I wish we could do something proactive instead of just banning his sockpuppets. --Deathphoenix 22:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)