Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive95

I believe User:Umph may be ban-evading

I am not sure how to do this, and I kind of feel wrong, but I have suspicions that Onlyslighted is the same person as User:Umph. Onlyslighted as re-uploaded pictures that Umph original posted that were taken down because of copyright infringment. If nothing else, Onlyslighted has uploaded numerous pictures that raise copy right questions on my part. I hope that someone will look into this issue. Thank you! --Moeron 19:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

When I blocked Umph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I did so with the assumption that if he expressed a willingness to abide by our copyright policies, he could return. Since this user seems by and large to be OK for copyright (there are a couple of problematic images, which I've dealt with, but very few), I have no problem with his editing here whether he's Umph or not. Chick Bowen 16:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Passive Aggressive Behaviour

This is possibly the wrong place to raise this, but is there any Wikipedia policy about avoiding passive aggressive behaviour - some sort of addendum to the "be civil" or "don't be a dick" policies? It strikes me a number of users here - especially the younger ones - are dab hands at this, and nothing, but nothing, is more likely to wind up an "adversary" in a content dispute. Inevitably incensed adversary will react grumpily, and thereby be the "uncivil" one, whereas the passive aggressive behaviour is the cause of everything.

Examples: users being utterly obnoxious and self righteous in a debate, then, when this behaviour is noted, all of a sudden reverting to "please treat other users with respect and don't use personal attacks" - when there hasn't actually been a personal attack (or at any rate the user totally deserved it!). I won't name names or cite example bc my intention isn't to snitch on anyone; rather to see whether the great and the good have thought about whether this argumentation strategy should be seen for what it is: just as obnoxious and odious (and indeed moreso) as not being civil in the first place.

At any rate, when confronted with the behaviour it would be nice to go back and say, smugly, "please don't indulge in passive aggressive behaviour: WP:Don't Be Passive Aggressive" (which is something I do anyway) and being immune from the inevitable response allegations of incivilility or engaging in personal attacks etc. ElectricRay 21:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This idea may have merit. Hrmmm.... KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What you are proposing is exactly what you are accusing others of doing! If you had some way to say "don't be passive aggressive" and then quote "be immune from [...] allegations of incivility", I don't see how that's different to the alleged problem in the first place - not that I've seen anything that falls under your term "passive aggressive behaviour" anyway. Your argument that sometimes the user "deserved" a personal attack does you no credit either. ZoFreX 13:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he should heed his own advice, then. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely. Sometimes, one can only fight fire with fire... And as for exampoles of passive aggressive behaviour, here's a classic: "Your argument that sometimes the user "deserved" a personal attack does you no credit either.". Don't be a dick. ElectricRay 15:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

MeatballWiki has wise words on social issues. One would predict that it comments on this form of trolling, too. Dr Zak 17:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Classic 'passive aggressive' beheaviour already falls under 'don't be a dick'. Remember, it's possible to be perfectly civil while still being a dick. Lawyers (wiki- and otherwise) are particularly adept at this. For the record, trying to goad other editors into a policy violation (WP:NPA, WP:3RR, etc.) is frowned upon, and will often result in censure.

Remember that our behaviour-related policies represent guidelines to deal with particularly common problems; they're not meant to be exhaustive. These policies just special cases of 'don't be a dick', and they all flow therefrom. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Fits perfectly into "don't be a dick" for me. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, and here I thought "Don't be a Dick" wasn't policy but guideline. The problems with "dick" and "NPA" and "no passive aggression" is that every single one of them has an excessive element of interpretation in it. I can go on, rather pedantically, about why all discussions break down when the interpretive medium hasn't been outlined with metrics to assess behavior, but no one needs to hear that again. Geogre 22:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Administrator abuse: User:El C

This user has been saying things like "JFAS, you're violating the terms set out for you RE:DCV, thereby setting yourself for a block. There will be no further warnings. El_C 20:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)". These "terms" are a rule he has created himself; that he'll block me for any comment about deeceevoice (such as reporting him/her for violations of his/her arbcom ruling).

In addition he blocked me days ago for asking him for civility.

Justforasecond 22:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

These terms and the subsequent block have been outlined at /Incidents#User:Deeceevoice above, and there appear to have been no objections to them. As always, I invite further input from those who are willing to study the form of interaction between JFAS and DCV. El_C 22:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm scratching my head trying to figure that out... obviously don't like each other, but...

I do see your "...or will be censured" as missing some context and backstory as to why blocking is needed at this time; JFAS hadn't actually posted very much in the ANI thread above when you stated that, and the gripe in response didn't clearly violate any normal WP policies. What am I missing in backstory? Georgewilliamherbert 23:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

oh dear... someone post the condensed version of this, please? Its beyond me right now. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant I invite further input from those who are willing to study the form of interaction between JFAS and DCV more or less in its entirety — definitely not just /Incidents#User:Deeceevoice and the latest /User:deeceevoice_again. This is a reoccuring pattern going back months, whereby JFAS would target DCV in various venues. El_C 23:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I support El C's handling of this. The provocation on both sides of the Deeceevoice situation has gone on long enough; it's time to rein it in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to study the form of interaction in its entirety; the first few things I hit had few elements of backstory, but I'm finding more as I wander further afield through histories and such. I commented after ten minutes of looking, and kept looking, and what I found after that point is much more illuminating.

It might make sense to RFC JFAS on this point, just to get it on the record and summarized somewhere. Among other things that provides the opportunity to collect and summarize things, which then can be insta-referenced for future incidents (if any). Also would make it clear to newcomers to the dispute that it's not just El C but a general community feeling that JFAS has been pushing the envelope into abusive territory on this. Georgewilliamherbert 23:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, I just dread the work involved and prefer to act unilaterally (did I just say that outloud?). But I think enough of the arbitrators are sufficiently familliar with the case, and JFAS portion of it specifically, that this could be appealed to them in the framework of RFAR/DCV as opposed to documenting much of what has already been noted there. I'm here to save them [and also, very much inadvertantly, myself] time & energy. Like a superclerk, without summaries! El_C 00:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

JSAF is over-the-top sometimes, see the links El_C provided. However, I can't agree with a blanket statement of "You're not allowed to comment on the activities of this other editor" and I certainly can't agree with enforcing such a decree with blocks. I think El_C is sometimes overzealous in his defense of DCV. She was sanctioned by the arbcom for good reason, and good faith efforts to enforce the arbcom decision should be encouraged, not discouraged. However, whether JSAF is acting in good faith on this matter is probably open to personal interpretation. I've advised him to back off myself, which I think is appropriate. Forcing him to back off with threats and blocks is far less appropriate, from where I sit. I think JSAF and El_C should both drop the issue. Friday (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll gladly drop it — until the next time JFAS targets DCV as in the two cases above, which, if experience is any indication, will be soon enough. If consensus among admins (less so from ones such as Friday who I think is sometimes overzealous in her defence of JFAS) is that I have to go through bureaucratic hoops and otherwise proceduralism to keep the peace, so be it. El_C 23:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's talking about bureaucratic hoops- I'd much rather rely on simple common sense. I agree that JSAF is in the wrong here, but a questionable block on him will only lend his cries of admin abuse more creedence. If you want to block him for disruption, so be it- I'm a firm believer in disruption blocks, despite their controversial nature. But be sure to make a good case for the block- blocking him specifically for commenting on DCV's actions would be a terrible idea, IMO. Friday (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as a bureaucratic hoop or proceduralism to ask that there be some formal documentation for an abuse case in which it's escalated to respected admins doing insta-block for incidents which, on the face of it from the immediate provocation, aren't a WP policy violation.

That's not you're wrong for doing those blocks; with what I've found by now, I won't object to those. That's I didn't get why those blocks were done or what the big deal was until I dug into it for a long time; if a reasonable editor or admin making a reasonable initial inquiry into a situation they aren't familiar with can think that the action wasn't justified, then it's probably not documented well enough (yet). Part of the reason for all the hoops and procedure is that it gives previously uninvolved/unaware parties the short form intro to what's wrong with the situation.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 23:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the abovementioned /Incidents#User:Deeceevoice and Incidents#User:deeceevoice_again speak volume as to this overall pattern, and am currently operating under the presumption that a third /Incidents#User:Deeceevoice yet again notice this week is to be viewd as disruptive. If DCV is staying away from JFAS, which she has been, I think it's only fair if JFAS would do the same. El_C 00:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This problem is already being dealt with. People are disagreeing with his claims- he's really stretching things. A block would escalate the hard feelings with little benefit I can see. Friday (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the problem is being dealt with substantially, and am inclined to deter it from being repeated idefinitely. El_C 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I hear you. I think the RFC is a good idea. I'll even help. All I'm saying is, disruption blocks need to have a good case made for them. If the case is just "he posted on AN/I complaining about another editor", that's not really a blockworthy offense. I agree that there is a pattern of problem behavior here, so surely there are better reasons for a block. Friday (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good. But I think our words as two admins at the somewhat opposite ends of the dispute really count for something and that the misconduct is rather obvious for the purposes of forecfuly keeping the interaction between the two to a minimum (that JFAS is almost always the instigator in these notwithstanding). I'm sure there are more useful things you could be doing here than contributing to such an RfC, I certainly know of several pressing issues that editors wish me to attend to and I'm not even sure I can find the time to deal with those. El_C 00:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Me, I think that ArbCom should act upon my suggestion at the top of the relevant "workshop" talk page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised that few administrators are opposed to this "one man arbcom" action. It is by no means disruption to report incivil actions by a user on probation here, and I think we'd all agree that responding to editors with "opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one" is hardly civil. If posting here is not disruption then there is no reason for these blocks, and El C is abusing his priviliges. Justforasecond 15:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a new trend lately: that editors, even respected long-term contributors and admins[1], are threatened with blocking and bans in order to protect a trouble user, who is not only contentious, discourteous and incivil since the very first contribution she ever made [2], but who also manages to violate all Wiki guidelines and policies frequently and continuously and is notorious for her disparaging remarks about "white folks" and other "non-blacks".

Personally, I get tired to see people dancing around the golden calf ad nauseam, and I'm sure that admins like EL_C will appreciate it if their actions are not questioned and if their self-made rules will be accepted without "bureaucratic hoops" and "otherwise proceduralism" such as providing summaries. That's why I suggest to add Wikipedia:Deeceevoice_Immunity to Wikipedia's key policies. Wikipedia:Deeceevoice_Immunity should include guidelines such as: (1) Do not caution DCV to refrain from edit wars, personal attacks and racist remarks -- otherwise you will be banned for incivility. (2) Do not oppose DCV's logical fallacies, unsourced POV edits and other falsifications -- otherwise you will be banned for harassment. (3) If you think that DCV violated Wiki guidelines, suck it up and move on and don't bring it to the admin noticeboard -- otherwise you will be banned for stalking. (4) Wikipedia:Deeceevoice_Immunity can be expanded, but only in favor of DCV, by any admin at any time without notice . (5) If you disagree with guideline (1)-(4) then you are a racist and a life long ban will be enacted. Wikipedia:Deeceevoice_Immunity will save all of us a lot of time and energy. CoYep 09:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Your personal opinion and sarcasm has been noted, but my warning nonetheless stands. Feel free to take whatever action you see fit. El_C 20:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging debate with Image:Red carnation.jpg and Image:Red carnation.png

Earlier today I removed these images from templates and userpages because they are tagged {{symbol}}, which is a fair use tag. The use of such images in template and userspace is prohibited by Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. Since then, User:Dragon695 has claimed that Socialist International does not claim any copyrights on the image [3]. Dragon695 subsequently changed the tag on Image:Red carnation.jpg to {{PD-release}}, asserting that socialists do not believe in copyright. I reverted this change noting in my response on my talk page and in the edit summary of my revert that there has been no verification of the organization releasing their rights to the image [4]. User:Dragon695 reverted may change citing Property as proof that socialists held no copyrights to the image. I reverted his change, and am now reporting this here. I will not revert again should he undo my reversion. I would like input from other administrators on whether the {{symbol}} tag is appropriate given that the organization which created the symbol has not specifically released their rights to the image, despite the claim that socialists do not believe in copyrights. From Socialist International's website, from which the image was taken, I have found no copyright statement. However, I have found no specific copyright release, such as this release from another organization with respect to its images. It is my understanding that failing a specific release of rights, the organization retains those rights and we do not have authority to use their images outside of a fair use claim until we have verification that they have release their rights. Assistance/feedback please? --Durin 03:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Lots of socialists believe in copyright. If there's no specific release, then the images fall under copyright, and one user's interpretation of socialism does nothing to change that. Chick Bowen 05:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether they believe in it or not, laws apply to everyone, including copyright laws. --bainer (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• I would appreciate it if someone would take the time to explain to the people putting these images back into {{User Social Democrat (OSV)}} and {{User Social Democrat}} why it may not be included in the template and why these images still must be tagged as {{symbol}}. The situation has degraded into a dispute, and my further attempts at doing the right thing will simply fan the flames. Thank you. --Durin 15:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh...a question. The image says it's used on one of my subpages in userspace, but I can't track it down. Strange. Johnleemk | Talk 15:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• I found it and removed it [5]. <insert pithy comment about another user being able/forced to find a fair use image in your 218 userboxes when you could not do the same> :) --Durin 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I removed the fair use images from all userpages they were transcluded on. Ral315 (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Privacy violations by Hamsacharya dan

I changed my username due to previous harrassment by Hamsacharya dan (talk · contribs), specifically a bogus accusation and a legal threat made on the talk page of my old username (User_talk:Adityanath, now deleted). He is now stalking me on Wikipedia, revealing my previous username [6] by which I am well-known elsewhere on the net and had intentionally abandoned under m:Right to vanish. He also keeps changing my old userpage to point to my new username [7] [8]. Please let him know that such privacy violations are grounds for banning. Thanks. —Hanuman Das 21:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the revisions in question, and protected both the user and talk pages to point to the destinations chosen by the user. If he keeps up with disclosing information, bring it back and we'll try something else. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!! :-) —Hanuman Das 03:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

He's identified me by my previous username again: [9] and he's put in a request to unprotect my old userpage [10]. Also, I've opened an RfC for issues related to User:Hamsacharya dan. Attempted intimidation by privacy violation is included. The addition of your comments on this aspect of the situation would be appreciated. —Hanuman Das 12:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Valuable link deleted as spam. Not spam.

Article: Crystal radio receiver. I added link at bottom in "external links" to one of my "Radio of the Month" pages featuring a crystal radio. Someone keeps deleting it as spam. I'm no spammer. I do have a commercial interest as I am the author of a book on crystal radios, which I sell elsewhere on my web site. Still, should this incidental commerciality ban my valuable and interesting link from the crystal radio receivers page? It would seem that such a policy would ban some of the most knowledgeable people on any subject. Here's the link that keeps getting deleted:

• 1959 Tiny Tim Crystal Radio featured as Radio of the Month on this web site.

I detest spam. But let's not throw out the babies with the bathwater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewrobbel (talk • contribs)

This spammer has been trying to insert a link to a site that sells books on crystal radios and to one publication in particular this book. I have reverted him several times under the terms of WP:SPAM. His last effort was a trojan horse to the same site: EricWrobbel.com who I suspect the Anon is. We've been down this road before. --DV8 2XL 20:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This response is from the very person I am having the problem with. I don't know what Anon is?? Or what this means?? Or what trojan horse refers to? I'm not what this overzealous guardian of all Wikipedia apparantly think I am. A spammer? I'm just a little guy trying to improve an article with a link to related info and my book on the subject. That's all. DV8 2XL is way over my head with all this anger and aggression. I tried several ways to link, hoping to satisfy him. I regret that nothing I do seem to meet with his approval. I have read his User Page and it is clear he has a lot of anger about people changing what he writes. I'm sorry for him, but he should not take his frustrations out on others.

I suggest you read WP:SPAM. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 20:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Deskana. I have done that. My understanding is that the link is within guidelines and is proper. The guidelines are not so strictly non-commercial as many seem to think. There is much of value out there that would be lost to us if DV8 2XL's overly-zealous reading of commerciality were the correct interpretation of the guideline. It isn't. My link is to my "Radio of the Month," which is a continuing series in which I share with the public photos and info about notable radios from my collection. The commercial aspects of it are minor and in no way color the information or photos presented. To deny it to Wikipedia readers is a disservice to them. Please understand my position

This looks like a content dispute. Not really AN/I material. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 21:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I hate to disagree with you Ryan but he's linking to his own commercial web page. This is pure and simple spamming. --DV8 2XL 21:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not fully convinced that the author (Eric Wrobbel) is doing this only for the purposes of spam. Clearly, he knows something about crystal radios, and I'd encourage him to contribute in areas where he has interests (as long as it's not original research). Besides, we shouldn't bite the newcomers. On the other hand, there's a certain gray area about inserting links to your own web site -- I've been tempted to add links to my inline skate club web site under Midtown Greenway and Cedar Lake Trail, but I recognize there's a conflict of interest in that. One other thing: If these books are available from online booksellers other than the author's web site, they can be listed under the ISBN (International Standard Book Number); see Wikipedia:ISBN for details. (Disclaimer: I'm not an admin, and this isn't an official admin-type opinion, but I have this page on my watchlist for some reason.) --Elkman - ^(talk) 22:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing: Only three reverts in a 24-hour period are permitted. There's more than that in the history of Crystal radio receiver. --Elkman - ^(talk) 22:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding that 3RR doesn't apply to de-spamming. If anyone can tell me with a straight face that he was not posting these links in an attempt to drive traffic to his site, and that the site in question is not a commercial one, I have been laboring under the wrong definition of spam. --DV8 2XL 23:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for hearing my point of view. I HAVE contributed to Wikipedia articles--several times to several articles, though I never had a user name before today. This article seems great as is, so I haven't added or changed any content. But felt it could use a link to the great radio I feature on my "Radio of the Month" page. DV8 2XL, I feel WAY too much anger out of you. Bad for your health. Take a cue from this discussion and calm down. You don't have to save the world from me. So, how about it? Will you put my link back up? Are you interested in crystal radios? Because I can assure you that people who are--like me, for example--are very much interested in seeing pictures and info of the sort that my link provides. --Ewrobbel 04:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've got nothing to do with this particular discussion or with crystal radios, but simply as a longtime Wikipedia editor, I need to point out that giving people sarcastic, patronizing "health advice" takes down the civility levle of any discussion. It's not necessary to speak to people that way, and it's certainly not in keeping with the civil tone and acting-in-good-faith presumption that Wikipedia policy encourages. I'm just sayin'. -- Tenebrae 04:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Eric Wrobbel, you are adding mendacity to spamming if you claim it was only a desire to improve the article that motivated you to post the first two times to a page where a book you wrote is for sale, on a site run by you selling more of your publications. I watch a number of the electronic/radio-television pages, I'm going to make a special effort now to watch the ones that you might also feel need to be "improved" by a link to your catalogue. --DV8 2XL 05:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no prior involvement with this dispute, but if you're adding a link to your own site, you might want to think twice about WP:VANITY too. If one side or the other has a burning need to push this issue, file an RfC, and in any case take this content dispute off WP:ANI. Isopropyl 19:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. Even a third opinion might help bring a little resolution to this (since, IMHO, this is a little too murky to be an admin problem). --InShaneee 19:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I am sorry for the sarcasm. Please understand that I'm REACTING here. DV8 2XL keeps calling me a spammer, name-calling to which I take great offense. And now he is stalking me all over Wikipedia. I have tried treating this person in good faith but he was abusive from the beginning. Why no exhortation to him to act in good faith? I get no benefit of the doubt, no civility, nothing but a high-handed judge-and-jury attitude from DV8 2XL. What am I supposed to do? Just go away? Wikipedia's policy on newcomers is being grossly violated here if that's what you want.--Ewrobbel 22:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the first several links you inserted are clearly links whose sole purpose is to promote a commercial product with no additional information on the topic. You've had a chance to read the applicable policy; would you agree with that statement? The last link seemed more useful and expanded on the topic somewhat; but it was just a picture with a few paragraphs of text and a link at the end to your catalog/price list. This is still a problem with our external link policy. It is clear that you're into the hobby; it would be wonderful if you added content to the article - we could really use your help and insight. Kuru ^talk 22:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Another question; when you say "now he is stalking me all over Wikipedia", can you give some examples of other places he has stalked you? I only see edits here and at the mediation cabal, which are intended as discussion points for your dispute at Crystal radio receiver. Kuru ^talk 23:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Kuru, your statement is correct. You are right about my first link attempts. I was wrong. About adding to the article, I don't see anything to add to the crystal radio article. I added a great deal to the article on "Transistor Radios," repairing many major errors a few months back. You can see those in the history (January 3--I didn't have a user name at that point). About other places DV8 2XL has deleted my links: he has deleted them from that "transistor radios" article (further links and reading--I just put back the reading one but without a link. Probably DV8 2XL will delete that too). And he has deleted my link from the Wikipedia article "Walkman" to my "Radio of the Month" page dealing exclusively with the Walkman. I can't think of any other place I've put any links. I was going to put one on the Television article to my television "Radio of the Month" but I don't think I did. I remember thinking my link was too specialized for a general article on television. --Ewrobbel 23:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The links that were placed in the other articles were more spam to your site and in clear violation of Policy. --DV8 2XL 23:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether my links are spam or not is the question. DV8 2XL's use of the prejudicial term "spam" begs the question. DV8 2XL is advised that his views are abundantly clear and is asked to refrain from prejudicial language and from intimidation and to allow others here to express their views. I very much want to hear them.--Ewrobbel 15:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Uninvolved 3rd party opinion: Could not be a more clear-cut case of link spam. Violates WP:EL #s 3, 4, 5, 8 & 9. If I saw it, I would nuke it immediately with justification. RadioKirk talk to me 16:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

RadioKirk, thank you for your input. I hear you and have read the material you cite. Perhaps mentioning my two books on crystal radios under a "Reading" heading would be acceptable, if a direct link to my "Radio of the Month" page is not. I've added that Reading section and would appreciate your thoughts on whether this is OK. My books are self-published so there is no ISBN number and no way to get them except through my site. But I have not used a link because, if I understand your position correctly, linking to the place where my books can be purchased is against policy, even if the ISBN thing is not available as in the case of a self-published work. Do I understand you correctly? --Ewrobbel 19:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In this case, I'll defer to someone more knowledgeable; my first thought would be, simply listing the book would not be a problem if you can demonstrate that you're a recognized expert in the field (that's usually a requirement for a listing with an ISBN number, as well), since that would then require the reader to do his/her own research into finding the book. Unfortunately, real-world, you're still better served finding a publisher anyway. Best to you! RadioKirk talk to me 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

GFDL question

Seabhcan has copied and pasted Collapse of the World Trade Center into his userspace as User:Seabhcan/Collapse of the World Trade Center. It seems to me that, by separating the edit history from the content, the new page violates the GFDL. Is that the case, or am I just being difficult? Is it okay as long as it stays in user space? It seems like the GFDL could be satisfied by adding a link back to the main article. There's some discussion as well at User talk:Seabhcan/Collapse of the World Trade Center. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of policy on Userpages is that "work in progress" pages are permitted. Seabhcán 22:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Your understanding doesn't apply if he plans on copying and pasting any changes he makes back into the article, expecially (sic) if there have been further changes made since he copied it into his user space. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. My concern is that the page in Seabhcán's userspace, as it is now, does not credit its authors as the license requires. Is there another issue instead/as well? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course I won't do that. Seabhcán 00:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Did I misunderstand your remarks [11] where you say, "Thats a good idea too. Why don't we do it here?" Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The GFDL issue is a big deal if the intention is to rework the article in userspace and then copy and paste it into the main article, especially if there are quantifiable changes made in the main article. My complaint certers on the fact that consensus wasn't reached in the main article, so the article was copied and userfied to try and superscede concensus. Absolutely egregious behavior...an admin should know better.--MONGO 06:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how copying and pasting the changes back into the article matters, as when he pastes them back in his changes will be logged. I'm also quite confused about your comment that it's especially so if major changes are made in the article. I don't see how this is any more a GFDL violation than copying the article into an offline text editor and copying pieces of that back in. If your concern is that the authors aren't cited, then that's hardly insurmountable: provide a link to the article's history or copy the history into the talk page (which is what we do when we update our help pages from Meta). Snoutwood (tóg) 06:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This editor attempted to insert items in said article and was rebuffed by the concensus of editors there. He then moved it to his userspace. The article is a constant source of attempts to insert unscientific "evidence" and unproven allegations with the cry of NPOV, when in fact, citing such innuendos is an egregious violation of NPOV.--MONGO 06:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Got it. So it's not a GFDL question, it's a NPOV question. Snoutwood (tóg) 06:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I contest it as a POV fork issue...Tom Harrison was, mainly asking the question, about whether it violates the GFDL. Either way, since the concensus there seemed to be against inclusion of some of the items he questioned, and the article discussion page is constantly being bombarded with commentary that has no supporting documetation, much like a blog, it is a contentious article, and things really should be hammered out on the discusion page. Had it been an article that wasn't always being reverted etc., it would be a lot easier to contrue the movement to userspace as a good faith effort to truly build a NPOV article.--MONGO 06:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My intention is to work with the article and then link it to the original talk page and ask for comments. I have done this several times in the past, notably with "Metrication", which is now FA. Seabhcán 10:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Editor...Administrator Seabhcán has now commenced engaging in personal attacks: [12]--MONGO 12:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

For those who don't know, Mongo and I have been engaged in an edit war over the use of references, fact and opinion on articles related to the 9/11 attacks. Mongo has now seen fit to broaden the conflict to this page. For anyone thats interested, I can counter his diff above with this and this. But this is really getting childish, isn't Mongo? Lets keep out fights to the approapiate talk pages. Seabhcán 20:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Metrication I think it's worth noting that when you did that there was an objection and you were reverted because of the attribution credit that the GFDL requires, the editor then overwrote the old version. [13] I don't see how that is an option here considering that there is disagreement about what (if any) changes should be made. It looks to me like a plain old POV fork. Rx StrangeLove 05:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That was not a question of content, but question of whether a page move or a copy-and-paste was appropriate. That user decided that copy-and-paste was better. Tom Harrison thinks that it is not. In any case, for the sake of peace and a quiet life, I have blanked the page and I will edit from scratch.Seabhcán 17:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Seabhcán has blanked the page; I appreciate his willingness to compromise on something he feels strongly about. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

User:BatBoyBats1000, User:Tomorrow Is For Losers, User:I Love Adam Sandler

I realize this is a bit unusual but Im asking you to block these names (all my sockpuppets) because I did irreperable damage to the Snakes of River Bend, Mississippi page through edits containing my childish vandalism. They say confession is good for the soul, so I hope this worksHey!! 01:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Um... none of those user accounts seem to exist, nor the article you claim to have vandalized, nor the town of River Bend, Mississippi. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've indef blocked this user as another instance of the odd AN:I troll. --InShaneee 18:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Rural_Hall

I have permablocked Rural Hall (talk · contribs), who has been spending today adding the NCV tag to loads of User pages. These are this user's only edits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Also note that the user's first edit was changing NCV's LTA page from severity "moderate" to "high." --Rory096 01:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure User:Tobaccoville, who joined just after you blocked Rural Hall, is him also. --Rory096 02:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • But he's adding the tag to user pages of people who indeed have been permablocked for vandalism, mainly the Communism vandal. I thought it a bit puzzling when I noticed it, but I didn't think he was doing any harm. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
      • He's a brand new user, and he has no verification that these people are really the sockpuppets that he says they are. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
        • That's the North Carolina vandal himself: he loves to brag about his vandalism sprees and tag his own sockpuppets. Block at will. I'm thinking we should remove his trophy cabinet, i.e. the list of sockpuppets on Wikipedia:Long term abuse/North Carolina vandal. Antandrus (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I would have no problem with that, nor with removing the NCV template. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
            • You guys should look at WP:DENY. --Rory096 08:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
              • Thanks! I knew I'd seen that page, but could not remember what it was called. That's exactly the point. Antandrus (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... all of these (Rural Hall, Tobaccoville, etc.) are towns nearby Winston-Salem, North Carolina, where I live. If I ever see this guy on Wikipedia in a local library, I'm gonna kick him. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 09:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Jack Hyles and copyrights

Please visit the talk and through in your two cents. User is claiming copyright violation to get criticism removed. He does not assert to be the copyright owner nor does he have proof that it is a copyright violation. Arbusto 03:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like mostly trolling IMHO, especially since the user claims that there's no proof that the mp3's aren't 'faithful reproductions of the original broadcast'. --InShaneee 17:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

How could you call an MP3 copy of a TV network news broadcast that is hosted on a personal Website a reliable source? I already know the answer is, "You can't," and I know that many Wikipedia editors don't know that. However, you could contact someone with high credentials in document reliability--at least a high school English teacher--and find out the answer. Please, go ask the Dean of your local college's English Department how reliable a source those MP3s are. I would love to hear about the University that would accept such material for its own courses. Pooua 04:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Requesting immediate action

Due to new threats left on my talk page and other locations[14] and "outing" of my real life identity[15][16], I request that immediate action be taken agains Israelbeach (talk · contribs). I caution Israelbeach that if he should make any attempt to contact me in the real world outside of Wikipedia, I will take the necessary legal action to protect myself. I am taking the matter up to arbitration, and as of now relinquish my duties as sysop and will no longer be making any non-related contributions to Wikipedia until the matter of Israelbeach is resolved. --Woggly 06:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I second the call for immediate action. I did chastise Israelbeach for posting the information, and he kinda-halfway removed it while announcing to the world where it could be found; I was lenient only because I've been involved (I've confirmed Woggly's RFC against him and gave some advice on its content), otherwise I'd have blocked him immediately for disruption and harassment. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, pending an apology and Woggly's acceptance of that apology. I'm in the process of deleting the revisions now. --bainer (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I support this action. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm imposing another block over the top of this one, for violation of WP:NLT: [17]. The block is indefinite while legal threats are outstanding. --bainer (talk) 09:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR at Memon and Lohana =

The 80.92.54.101 has been reverting Memon and Lohana pages. Siddiqui 15:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:AN3 Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 00:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations and article stuffing by User:Dhwani1989

Please help. This user appears to be a sock or political operative. A review of Dhwani1989's edits makes clear a pattern of CopyVio issues. See User:Dhwani1989 talk page history - deleting warnings left and right. What can be done? Merecat 21:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't done anything since he was warned that he may be blocked. If he does neutralise him.Geni 23:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him. If anyone wants to play the good cop see his talk page.Geni 01:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

block pulled. He's said he isn't going to upload any more images.Geni 02:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of article

Hi,

After numerous people have been urging me to post my biographical details on Wikipedia, I did so in a factual way. It got a notice for deletion, because of a vanity issue. However, I am internationally known, have innumerable accomplishments, and it is easy to verify by doing a google search under my name. I just put down details in a factual way. It was not so much as a vanity piece, as much as since I am well known (more so than a number of people listed) that if a posting were to be made, that I could at least insure that it was factually correct, and both interesting and insightful.

Yours sincerely,

Al Seckel

You can look up my page that I posted, and you can check it out by doing a google search under my name which will bring up literally pages and pages of references to me.

Thanks again.

you can reach me at: (email excluded)

I removed the tag for you, that is the way to contest a prod deletion. Note that the page might be put through AfD still. Prodego ^talk 01:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Block request

Could someone have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whaleto and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Whaleto?

This RFC is winding down toward a request for blocking User:Whaleto on grounds including long-running incivility, breach of WP:AGF, and personal attacks (including attacks hosted off-wiki at his own website).

Pertinent policy: WP:BP 1.6 Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption and WP:BP 1.10: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Users who exhaust the community's patience. Tearlach 01:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin: Please note this is a hot RfC that this is now attempting to pre-empt a stepwise process jumpting to a messy end. The policy cited is very new. I am an independent 3rd party in the RfC trying to stop a running fight from becoming a war where there are several larger Wiki issues at stake, with an outside hope of winding to a constructive answer rather than just amputation at the neck. I request that you spend a good several hours researching, looking at this mess before acting prematurely. The requestor above is a long active disputant (see Tearlach and Midgely).--66.58.130.26 01:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Don't know anything about the issue itself, but I'm not sure where your statement the Policy cited is very new comes from. It isn't, hopefully it doesn't take much common sense to realise why using blocks to prevent people disrupting wikipedia is quite normal. However RFCs are requests for comments they aren't able to directly impose bans etc. --pgk^(talk) 08:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A partisan "bums rush" to block started with discovery of very recent additions to Wiki policies, still poorly evolved/defined/tested, about commentary, "attacks" if you will, in external websites, when some of us are still trying to salvage collaboration with the individual, who is currently not very active beyond several user/talk/RfC edits a day. There is a more fundamental set of issues underneath about minority contributors and the situation is very fragile and missteps will be detrimental to a number of editors. I think the RfC should conclude in several days and try to resolve a number of issues including other parties affected without the "nuclear option" just inflaming the situation. Alienation could only make the situation worse and the relevant policy needs maturation and definition. Actually I think the new policy on external commentary really needs its own RfC just to improve the definition of rights, as well as responsiblity. Thanks for your patient attention.--66.58.130.26 10:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Try WP:RFAR instead. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've misunderstood how the system works, then. The intro to WP:BP implies that anyone can apply for a block if policies are being violated: All users may post block requests at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or the other venues listed below. This can result in quick action where credible evidence of policy violations is provided. However, admins are never obligated to place a block.

66.58.130.26's argument comes down to special pleading: asking that a serial violator of multiple policies be tolerated, on grounds that he behaves this way because everyone is krool to him because of his minority viewpoint. This is not the case: we're talking about someone who appears incapable of posting without insults, personal attacks and claims of bad faith. Tearlach 11:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Partly depends on how egregious one thinks more numerous counterparties cumulative behavior is. (I have not been involved with these parties before this RfC 11 days ago but have been generally aware of the problems several months). I simply think that the RfC process needs to complete without external disruption and if given the chance to work it out, that there is a real possibility of substantial improvement. Other editors, with polar points of view and some pretty aggressive actions, subject of discussion in other RfCs, are apparently eager for a conveniently long/permanent block/ban on the individual, taking kill shots if you will (too bad, you're dead - no retrial needed), also helps maintain superior numbers. I know because I'm having to soak up the damage right now even though I am greatly overmatched on experience and numbers.--66.58.130.26 11:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

User:ShuhornOplenty8

I have blocked ShuhornOplenty8 (talk · contribs) for one week. He/she has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted images without any copyright information, has repeatedly ignored pleas on his talk page, and when I gave him a last warning, instead of complying, he blanked his Talk page and continued uploading. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Maryland page

I have a newbie who does not understand sourcing or NPOV policies on wikipedia. She is User:Joan53. She has been consistently reverting good faith edits on the Maryland wikipedia page....note her contributions and subsequent arguing on other entries. She needs to understand the rules and also calm down. Her agenda is obvious and agendas/bias of any kind has no place here. She does not deal in verifiable info or facts in general. WillC 02:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Telling her that you "yawn in (her) general direction" is not exactly the sort of thing that helps a new editor feel like part of the community, which is what is going to need to happen if you want her to invest time into learning the policies of the project. It's true: for all of us, our first 100 edits were probably some of our worst. But be patient, and don't bite the newbies. And, incidentally, you've more than violated WP:3RR on Maryland: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. While telling others to stay in line with Wiki policies, please make sure you do so yourself. JDoorjam Talk 03:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Chattyman890

Chattyman890 (talk • contribs)- vandalism only account. Recently vandalised Adolf Hitler with this. User has been warned several times. I'm just wondering whether people would support an indefinite block on this user... I'm new to blocking, and don't want to go indefinite blocking a user only to find that I shouldn't have done it. Advice, anyone? --Darth Deskana (talk page) 15:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I'm not new at it, so I did it. I have no idea what official policy is in this regard, but registered accounts that do nothing but vandalize get indefinite blocks from me. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 15:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Reporting such cases to WP:AIV instead is strongly recommended. Cheers! - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Thewolfstar

I blocked Thewolfstar for 24 hours for this, one in a long line of insults (mostly to Bishonen, although others have been attacked as well.) Block was requested to be lifted, I denied, and now Thewolfstar has posted some less-than-friendly comments ("you nasty socialist-nazi admins and editors are making a real mistake. This is not a threat. This a statement of fact.") on her user talk page. I invite other admins and editors to take a quick look at her edit history and talk page. It has been suggested that she needs mentoring, not blocking. My inclination is to extend the block for further personal attacks, but as one of the "nasty socialist-nazi admins" I might be considered biased. I am not recusing myself from further action, but I do invite examination, comment, and if applicable, constructive criticism and/or input. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Would support extending block. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:41 UTC (2006-04-26)

Definitely not a nasty socialist-nazi, I would also agree with a bit longer block. Although, blocks are not meant to be punitive, but rather to prevent damage. So the real question is, what would be the reason for the block? Is Thewolfstar likely to continue his attacks? I'd say let this 24 hours go, and if he continues, slam him hard. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Had an encounter just yesterday with the wolfstar and thought it ended well enough...but why pick a fight with Bishonen? I support the block.--MONGO 02:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur, blocks are not meant to be punative, however often they are used as a "cooling off" or "time-out" period, and she shows no signs of cooling off. Does anyone feel mentoring would be effective? KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the user is tremendously not nice. At the very best, this is a person who has been nothing but "thecabalisagainstme" sort. The only thing is that we probably need to be doing RfAR, as NPA is not blocking policy. (N.b. the user vandalized my page with a paranoid screed, as well, and this when I had never interacted with her/him before.) Geogre 10:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:BP#Disruption: "excessive personal attacks" are specifically mentioned. I feel this user's level of personal attacks falls well within the "excessive" criteria. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

<shrug> I'm far more conservative about it and worry more and more about blocks coming from our discretion. Again, I totally agree that this person is a pest and almost certainly inappropriate for Wikipedia. I even share the suspicions that this is a reincarnation of a blocked user. I just think we should, at the very least, be filing RfAR's at the same time that we do these things. If ArbCom is overworked, we need to address that issue separately. (Yeah, I'm a PitA idealist on these things, I know.) Geogre 13:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Idealism certainly has its place. (So do PitAs.) IMHO, either Thewolfstar will learn to apply civility in interactions with other editors, in which case, ipso facto, there is no problem, or she does not, in which case we can certainly try the usual steps in dispute resolution, if there is any support for that idea at that time. Support may be overwhelmingly for other measures, if she continues. If you have a specific banned user in mind, ipcheck might not be a bad idea. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted a blatant personal attack from Thewolfstar against Bishonen (who he called Bitchownen), also he called smoeone else a nasty Nazi Fuck. [18] ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean [19] I think. Including "If they ban me and I can't get through to Jimbo I'm going to go to the media. I'll write an article about this place. I have some connections all over the place through my website. I'm going to blast this place right open to the world if they don't cut the crap....Go ahead you nasty nazi fucks I dare you. Ban me now." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that among the other worrisome comments, this user has also stated that the authors of an RfC, who wolfstar feels were 'destroying wikipedia', 'ought to be shot' [20]. I urge careful interaction with this user, whatever path the admins decide. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about this NOW. This has every indication of getting worse. Look how he's treating his "mentor". ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The only good thing about this is that if he (or "she") actually owns a website, then it will be much easier to watch out for block evasions and investigate. The pattern of 1) saying that "socialism" is destroying the world, 2) everyone who disagrees with him (or "her") is a socialist, 3) asserting that socialists are out to suppress the truth (for which there is a small group of defenders) is strangely familiar to me. It's somewhat irrelevant, though, whether this is a reincarnation or a friend: the account really seems incapable of constructive work, as the political and paranoid get in the way of everything else. ArbCom is pretty much the only way forward, though. Geogre 12:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents; I've tried to be a friend to Wolfstar since dropping her a line after seeing her name on a notice at the Esperanza Alert page. She's been quite friendly to me, but then, I've never been involved in any of the edit conflicts that she's been in as of late. Call it optimism, but I have hope that she'll eventually work her way into comfortable editing. Nonetheless, while I am fine playing the role of a friend and advocate, I don't really want to take sides either, especially when editors who I trust have been involved and feel that her conduct has been out of line. I'd just like to ask, as a favor, for a little extra patience and mercy on her behalf — not to be confused with tolerating rule violations, which should be dealt with promptly — and thank y'all for that which you've shown already. I appreciate the work you all have done. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 12:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that's a reason I've wanted consideration by ArbCom. I'm afraid of users, even those like Wolfstar, thinking that their politics are why they're getting blocked. Obviously that wouldn't be the case here. It's this person's inability to deal with any disagreement without resorting to rage that's at stake. Users like that, regardless of contributions, aren't cut out for GFDL websites. They need ownership of edits and control over their own words, as the battle of competing claims seems to hit them in a psychological weak spot. I didn't come here to say that, though. I wanted merely to point out that Wolfstar has posted on Jimbo Wales's talk page and tried to explain his or her point of view there. Geogre 12:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've actually reconsidered my thoughts on this: Please don't take this as an insult, or having any negative connotations, but it appears that Thewolfstar is suffering from some sort of mental illness that causes her paranoia (everyone is out to get me), delusions of grandeur (comparison of treatment here to nazi prison camps), and rage against other users.

And therein lies the problem. I don't think it's Thewolfstar's intent nor fault that she's acting like this. From accounts of Merecat and Tijuana Brass, it appears that Thewolfstar, when stable, can be a good normal editor. The problem is, when something she contributes gets edited out for some reason, she's unable to see it rationally as the wikipedia system at work: in her mind it's truly an attack against her, censorship, and the breeding grounds for a socialist dictatorship. I don't know what to do about that. Obviously the personal attacks and such need to stop. But, blocking, and harsh words from the admins will only make matters worse in this case. I'm really beginning to fear that there are only two options: permanently blocking her from wikipedia, or ignoring the entire situation. Neither one of them appeals to me in the slightest, but my simple mind isn't coming up with anything else. I think Thewolfstar needs help, both on and off wikipedia. I very much admire Merecat for volunteering to provide it here, especially in the face of so much flak, that's an outstanding job. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

SWATjester, it's not a question of "fault" or assigning blame. Blaming the user is quite irrelevant, but Wikipedia is not therapy. What is her effect on the encyclopedia? There's no need to go any long way round via other people's "accounts" to see that, as Thewolfstar's own contributions are only a mouseclick away. Have you tried reviewing them, looking for good normal edits, or any edits acceptable in an encyclopedia? Good luck. Or are you saying that even though she's never acted like "a good normal editor" on Wikipedia, Merecat and Tijuana Brass possess information that she might do so? Please clarify. Bishonen | talk 00:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen, I reviewed all of Thewolfstar's contribs a couple days ago. I think I can count on 1-hand the ones that weren't somehow related to personal attacks, incivility etc. What I'm saying, is that I'm looking at WHY thewolfstar is acting this way, and I keep coming to the conclusion that she can't help it. Raging troll users don't go 180 bipolar between calmly talking with someone, and rampaging against the system. What I'm saying is, I think that Thewolfstar started out not knowing about wikipedia policy. She then makes some edits that earn her a warning. Boom. That triggers it. At this point, the irrationality kicks in, and she flips out. My point is that I don't think the flipping out was a conscious decision to do so: I think she fully and completely believes that there is a cabal out to get her, censor her, and other conspiracies. Did you look at that external site? Just judging from that, it looks like she probably thinks the government is out to get her. So she misconstrues the warnings she gets, takes the wrong actions and starts flaming/personal attacks, gets more warnings, and freaks out more. It just starts a vicious cycle. Now, what I meant with my comments above, is that I don't see the solution. You're asolutely right, nobody needs to be assigned blame here, but something does need to be done to prevent any nuclear explosions coming out in the future. So what is that going to be? Continued mentoring? Call me a pessimist, but I don't think it would work. Continued Blocking? I don't think that addresses the problem, and would be overly heavy handed. I know that I have no power to do anything, communities decision, etc. etc. I'm just saying that I've been thinking about it all day, and I just don't see any solution that both stops the personal attacks, and doesn't drive away a potentially good editor. Nobody should have to put up with the crap that Thewolfstar is giving you Bish, I'll be the first one to defend you as a top notch editor and a first rate admin. But flat out banning Thewolfstar, when it appears that she's trying to contribute, and being hampered by internal forces beyond her control (her own paranoia)...that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I could be totally wrong: Thewolfstar could be perfectly fine and just a troll. But if you look at it as objectively as you can, does it seem to you a little bit like she's not in control of her own mental state? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just meant please clarify the bit I commented on, "From accounts of Merecat and Tijuana Brass, it appears that Thewolfstar, when stable, can be a good normal editor." I don't understand why you think so. Bishonen | talk 07:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC).

Swat, while I agree with some of what you're saying, I don't think that Wolfstar has a mental problem. Having spent my undergrad years as a political science major, I got to know a number of people who were pretty zealous about their political ideologies. Wolfstar is one of those folks, I think — very passionate about what she believes. When that was combined with a bad start at Wikipedia, and an unawareness of policies, it turned ugly. That's not to say that there's ever an excuse for personal attacks, etc., but I can see a new user mistaking Wikipedia for something more akin to a blog or message board, where that kind of thing is more commonplace. Bish and Geogre are right in saying that her recent edits have been entirely devoted to user talks, but there's always two parties to a conflict, and perhaps continuing to berate her (combined with some honest mistakes in unblocking her) isn't helping much. But, with so many users monitoring her by now, I don't see much harm that could be done in offering her another shot to focus on articles, rather than her talk page, to see how it goes. If it turns bad again, I agree with Geogre, GFDL may not be her bag. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 05:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 22:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Paranoid. Delusional. Abusive. Threats. Legal Threats. The thing that blows my mind the most about wikipedians is how long they deliberate over the obvious. "Maggie" is a SHE. We should add; possibly sciztophrenic, and, probably not susceptible to "mentoring."

Edit Protect on HoY

• Can House of Yahweh please be semi-protected? A bunch of anon IPs continue to re-add the same PoV diatribe into the article regardless of how many times we revert. Thanks - pm_shef 01:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if it's neccisarily POV, but it does appear to be unverified and there's no real attempt at discussion on the anon's part. Semi-protected for the time being. --InShaneee 16:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, requests for protection should go to WP:RfPP. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Dominick

Linkspam violation on article Rosary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

• Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 03:16, 1 May 2006
• Reversion: Revision as of 12:34, 1 May 2006

Brought to you by the fine people at fisheaters, the one time prolific linkspammer. I found someone had added an Anglican commercial site. A frequent blanker removed the link. I readded it, since it wasn't a problem for one commercial link and they kept calling it MY link. I ignored it, some people look for any reason to troll until I found one of the blankers made this very complaint. My RFC that was filed in response to the one I filed on the fisheaters website owner would give you more insight into this sick sad tale. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, looks like a case of sour grapes. But that link is undoubtedly commercial and I would not include it myself even though I see no obvious alternative source of images of Anglican rosaries. Just zis Guy you know? 21:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes thats why I left it. Thanks Guy! Dominick ^(TALK) 00:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked before, still floods history logs

66.208.251.88 (talk • contribs) Nothing but vandalism, but not enough at once to get the AiVs attention. Posts things like "poop" and reverts them for half an hour. Got me to warn an innocent anon with a similar IP today. Very annoying. Does he/she (who am I kidding, girls have better things to do) qualify for a perma-block? --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 18:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This IP has been blocked 3 times before, since it appears to be a static and non shared IP I'd suggest a one week block to stem the tide in which time hopefully the person behind it will start contributing usefully. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fourth time's a charm... --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 14:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user evading block

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), indefinitely blocked by request of the ArbCom is editing pages under the IP 216.194.4.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (evidence: [21]). Can an administrator impose a block please? Thanks! Demiurge 19:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Laranja has repeatedly created empty articles

They created articles with similar names, adding another exclamation mark to the article name for each new one.

1. 21:20, 1 May 2006 Orange on wheels!!!!!!!!! (65 bytes) . . Laranja (Talk | contribs) (ORANGE ON WHEELS!)

...

1. 21:20, 1 May 2006 Orange on wheels!! (65 bytes) . . Laranja (Talk | contribs) (ORANGE ON WHEELS!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Laranja --BNutzer 20:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Deb has already dealt with it. :) RadioKirk talk to me 20:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

just a note: the name Laranja catches my eye as L'Aranja, or The Orange, in any number of romance languages. You may want to be on the lookout for -orange-related articles, from similar users. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

*smacks forehead* Oh, duh! How'd I miss that?! RadioKirk talk to me 23:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fresh call for Arbitration enforcement

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Instantnood_.28May_1.29 This link details a fresh set of disruptive editing by User:Instantnood in violation of his Arbitration Committee sanctions. An admin should go take a look. Thanks. SchmuckyTheCat 00:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Cairo University repeatedly vandalized

Someone has repeatedly removed information on Saddam Hussein and Mohamed Atta from this site. I have left warnings (see [22] for a log of my actions), but since it hasn't been the same IP address twice, I don't know what to do. Oh, and someone from a similar IP address (I think they're all from Africa) vandalized my user page. [23] Jessesamuel 07:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Just keep reverting them. I've watchlisted the article myself so you won't be alone. If many IPs attack an article in a short space of time (like a day) it can be semi-protected, but the article isn't close to that point. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin abuse: User:Bhadani

User:Hamsacharya dan filed a false 3RR report [24] which does not fit the criteria for a 3RR violation. Next, User:Bhadani, who is involved in a disagreement with User:Hanuman Das on another article Gurunath [25] and should have let another admin deal with the complaint, blocked User:Hanuman Das for a week, even though the complaint is invalid [26] and even if it were valid would be a first offence and not worthy of a week block. Please investigate and unblock. Also, there is a valid 3RR complaint agaist User:Hamsacharya dan here [27]. User:Bhadani's statements on the two complaints show that he is taking sides based on content rather than applying rules fairly. Thanks. —192.35.232.241 15:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Racist comments posted temporarily on article "Nigger"

I saw on the "Nigger" article there was an offensive comment posted by user: 144.75.129.32

See [28]

The user changed the opening line "Niggers, also spelled niger (obs.), nigor (obs. dial. Eng.) ..." to "Ass slamming Niggers have big cocks , also spelled niger (obs.), nigor (obs. dial. Eng.) ..." and then reverted the change 20 minutes later.

Regards, Alex

By most standards "Xs are well endowed and are on the giving end of anal sex" is a compliment, though the choice of article does confuse it somewhat. The user reverted his own edit (apart from forgetting to remove the 's' from the opening 'nigger'), so I've left {{selftest}} on his talk page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked User Circumventing Blocks

Braaad (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked by Guanaco for vandalism, abusive edits and sock puppetry. Currently he is using 68.115.72.93 (talk · contribs) and possibly another sock puppet with Lady Jane Grey (talk · contribs) (I have a week-old CheckUser request to find out...). See his RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Braaad as well as the edits made by his sock puppets:

• T`sitra Yel Darb (talk · contribs) (also blocked by Guanaco)
• Henry the Eighth (talk · contribs) (blocked by Nlu)
• Vinnie von Go (talk · contribs) (blocked by Curps)
• 68.112.201.90 (talk · contribs) (should be blocked)

Thanks. McNeight 16:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

User:68.115.72.93 was unblocked by User:Pgk as "collateral damage" and hasn't made an edit for a week. User:68.112.201.90 has not made an edit since 19 December 2005. "Banned user evading block" aside, may I ask if there's a pressing issue that I didn't see that suggests something problematic with waiting for the WP:RCU? RadioKirk talk to me 16:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Specifically pressing? No. The fact that one user has been allowed to continue to be abusive towards other users and administrators (specifically, in this case, towards Jeffery O. Gustafson, Pgk, as well as additional stress for User:Pilotguy and User:Titoxd while trying to deal with this person) just irks me. Add to that the fact that this person only pops up from under a rock on occasion, and depends on the sloth of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process to do "hit and run" abuse just adds to the frustration. Wait all you want to, but he'll be back with yet another sock and more abuse to be heaped upon some other unsuspecting administrator. McNeight 18:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

By all appearances, User:Lady Jane Grey needs patience and civility, but the sum total of evidence that I can find suggesting the user is a sockpuppet of user:Braaad is the original block itself, reversed later as "collateral damage". Unless you have diffs that can show me what I'm missing, it seems to me that any remedy should come via the unblocking admin, not here. RadioKirk talk to me 19:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC).

Without the benefit of a CheckUser, I am going on my "gut", however:

• The first edit from 68.115.72.93 (talk · contribs) involved the RfC against Braaad.
• The first edit from Lady Jane Grey (talk · contribs) was 2 days after the other sock puppets were banned.
• LJG shares a fascination with userboxes, flags and Vincent van Gogh that the rest of Braaad's sock puppets have shown ([29], [30], [31] [32])
• All users in question have never made a useful contribution to Wikipedia. They'll sit and polish their user page, maybe upload an image or two, but never seem to get around to editing an actual article. You can check the contributions for all involved for proof.
• Braaad (talk · contribs) does still use the IP address in question, otherwise he wouldn't have posted this.

So, I'm attempting to follow WP policies on reporting abuse without going rogue or violating WP:POINT. Do what you will. McNeight 20:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs. I've left a note for User:Pgk; hope this will do. :) RadioKirk talk to me 21:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sima Qian

202.156.6.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been insisting on an edit at Sima Qian (and a similar edit at Laozi) which rejects modern scholarship in favour of ancient sources. Nlu (talk · contribs) has stepped in and protected the article after the anon's last edit, which was this — deleting the whole of the second part of the article together with all readings, references, external links, categories, interwikis, etc. Nlu seems to have abandoned the article, leaving it protected. Would it be unacceptable for me to revert, given the vandalistic edit that's been frozen in place? If it would, could someone else do so, or unprotect the article so that I can do it? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that's vandalism, and have saved you the trouble. :) Henry^Flower 22:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Trollery by User:BIG and IP 84.58.160.210

An odd fellow. Has been extremely disruptive on a article or two, paticularly Colonel (Mega Man) as of late. Has been blocked on occasion for vandalims and personal attacks, and seems to have a severe inability to comprehend consensus and established fact. When provided with sources, he ignores them completely, instead descending to personal attacks and other bits of silliness. Looking at his IP contributions depicts nothing but vandalism of the beforementioned article. After a bit of edit warring and page protection to cease the affair, he assumed the username of BIG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to continue disruptive editting, not only limited to Colonel (Mega Man), but others as well [33]. Also needs a crash course in what vertible sources are acceptable at wikipedia. I've no doubt he is simply hardheaded, but is probably doing what he thinks is correct. Regardless, he's engaging in disruption and vandalism, and we don't permit this at wkipedia. -Zero^Talk 19:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I had him blocked for 72 hours block log (after an original 24 hour block for 3RR), another admin blocked for 24, then unblocked, but forget to reblock ...so now I have him blocked for 31 hours...I'll block for a month with community approval.--MONGO 20:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

He's recently just blanked his talkpage [34] of notices and the like. I presume it's clear by now he has no wish to follow policy and carry himself in a acceptable manner. -Zero^Talk 23:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, I'd say go for the month-block. He hasn't contributed anything worthwhile, and I know I at least am tired of him. --maru (talk) contribs 00:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Damned by his own words [35] [36]. -Zero^Talk 11:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• As of this update, user has been making minor abielt constructive edits [37]. No need to go any furthur on this issue. -Zero^Talk 16:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Israelbeach Vs. Woggly

In the past 24 hours there has been an escalation in the war of the words between user:Israelbeach and user:Woggly. Woggly who never apologized for her personal attacks against Israelbeach was never addressed or blocked for these attacks by the administrators. In fact, she has been attacking Israelbeach, whose identity is for all to see, from an anonymous position. Not very fair or ethical!

Israelbeach, in turn, revealed Woggly's identity, something he was wrong for doing. According to Wiki policy: "This sort of behavior is blockable on its own (for example, moving another user's User Talk page), but should be considered an aggravating factor for the purposes of the block. For example, behavior that would earn a 1 day ban might become a 1 week ban if the Administrator believes the behavior was for the purposes of harassment. The block should only be enforced after warning the user and these pleas go ignored."

Israelbeach was warned by user:jpgordon and according to the logs deleted all material within minutes. Israelbeach should not have been blocked according to Wiki policy as he never ignored any warnings by adm but reacted quickly to them.

Woggly is now rightfully worried about legal action that Israelbeach can take against her for stating, without substance, that he was "dangerous" and other accusations made in front of his local community and the world public. She now appears to be leaving Wikipedia on her own.

Solution: Both Israelbeach and Woggly are professional editors and should be encouraged to stay with the Wiki project. The block on Israelbeach should be removed immediately, as it only serves to increase conflict. Remember, after a first warning, Israelbeach on his own removed all personal data even though he thought he was correct due to that personal information regarding Woggly was posted by Woggly with a direct link to Wikipedia that anyone can find on a simple Google search.

Both Israelbeach and Woggly should be warned with no punitive action taken and instructed not to interact with one another on Wikipedia. These are two professionals with tremendous pride - do not expect either to aplogize at this point. We must encourage both users to stay, to avoid court action (with the documentation that Israelbeach has on these clear personal attacks, no judge would deny Woggly's guilt) and keep Wikipedia operating with less negative news coverage.

I do not blame Woggly or Israelbeach for their now wanting to resign from Wikipedia, I place the blame solely on the desk of the administrators (with the exception of user:jpgordon) who could have taken action on the personal attacks which started this conflict. Woggly and Israelbeach are both assets to Wikipedia, all action should be taken to keep them here. I will be posting this message on my suggestion on how to resolve this matter on other pages. Nancetlv 13:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• You posted this like, 10 places or so? Please don't do that. Once was enough; twice was maybe OK. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've blocked a bunch of accounts that I believe were sock or meat puppets of Israelbeach (talk · contribs), whose most recent edit was to leave this legal threat on his talk page. I've blocked Bonnieisrael (talk · contribs), Davidstone (talk · contribs), Bluegrasstom (talk · contribs), Idf-barak (talk · contribs), Cymruisrael (talk · contribs), and Nancetlv (talk · contribs). I've also protected their talk pages and Israelbeach's to make sure the harassment of Woggly stops. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, good. This was getting totally ridiculous. El_C 05:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Just adding here that I unblocked CymruIsrael last night when he assured me he wasn't part of the other group. I've placed a condition on his remaining unblocked that he not edit the articles that caused the problem and not comment on Israelbeach or Woggly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Peter Dale Scott copyright violation

So I tagged Peter Dale Scott as a copyvio a week ago.. it was pretty much an exact copy of Scott's official web page. User:Brainhell is the user who copied the page into Wikipedia. Despite the fact that diffs show his edit [38] was almost identical to Scott's page [39], Brainhell claims that his edit was "SUBSTANTIALLY different from Scott's page, in non-trivial ways", and therefore he now owns the copyright to his edit. In truth, he just switched around a few words. I've reached my limit with this user; he refuses to entertain the possibility that he may not understand how copyright works. Could someone else go over the discussion on Talk:Peter Dale Scott and talk to him please?

One thing you should know, another Wikipedian e-mailed Scott about his page's copyright. Scott responded by posting a noncommercial-only license on his page, which is still GFDL-incompatible. Brainhell doesn't understand this point either, and he now believes that Scott has relinquished his copyright entirely. Rhobite 04:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the only way we can use any text verbatim is if it is in the public domain. Non-commercial licenses are not enough to satisfy Wikipedia's copyright policy, and unless we can get evidence that the page is released under the GFDL, a compatible free license, or in the public domain, we cannot copy it. It is a copyvio, whether it is plagiarized outright or just paraphrased it without citing the original source.

A further note: Wikipedians agree to release their contributions under the GFDL. There's even a nice link just below the edit window as a reminder. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I already know that, I was wondering if someone else could talk to Brainhell. Rhobite 15:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I won't, I'm afraid, because I've tried talking to this user before. He has demonstrated ... mmm... unusual inflexibility over the User:Lucky 6.9 business. Lucky left the project because of what he and some other people perceived as implacable persecution over a rather minor matter by Brainhell. Lucky's departure appears to please Brainhell, though he still worries about the fact that Lucky isn't deadminned as well. Many users tried to speak to Brainhell over that. My advice would be to not waste your breath, but go straight to the next step, whatever it may be (I haven't reviewed the actual page involved). Bishonen | talk 00:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC).

I expanded Peter Dale Scott/Temp a bit. I met Scott once, and heard him give a poetry reading; he's an extremely interesting guy, and someone one rather feels inclined to take seriously. Chick Bowen 03:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been well over a week since the copyvio was posted. With multiple users, including myself, agreeing on the article's copyvio status, I have moved the temp page content into the article. Here's to being bold! — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 03:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fluffy999

Despite repeated warnings to stop, and a link to WP:CIVIL, a new user, Fluffy999 has proceeded to post personal abuse against User:Damac, a long-standing and credible contributor, including posting lies on personal users' pages about Damac's edits, accusing him of bogus edits, making personal attacks, more attacks, posting a comment with an edit summary of Damac the Blunderer strikes again, etc.

Appeals to Fluffy to stop just produces more agressive abuse. At this stage someone needs to intervene. I can't as I was involved in trying to correct some of Fluffy's dodgy edits. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

fluffy eh? who else thought of this when they read this? Image:Killer_rabbit.JPG--152.163.100.65 22:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The guy has completely out of control at this stage with his attacks. (None of us can for the life of us see what he is complaining about! He produces as "evidence" links that are empty or show the exact opposite of what he claims, then accuses Damac of lies, dishonesty, yada yada yada.) But his abuse of Damac got so severe that after issuing a number of warnings to stop I ended up blocking him. The guy has a serious problem. Whether he is a troll or merely someone with a mental illness that impaired his judgment is up to guesswork — though my gut feeling was the former — but Damac did nothing to deserve all the personal attacks and diatribes. I would have left the blocking to someone else if I could find them but I couldn't find an admin and something needed to be done immediately. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd fully support an indefinite block considering the repeated attacks and abuse from this "fluffy". It's definitely warranted and WP:AGF only goes so far when this user is blatantly trolling another user and abusing other editors despite repeated attempts to work with him/her and work with him/her. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with indefinite block right now, has only been blocked once before and that only for 24 hours. Give him a longer block, but is not yet up to the point for an indefinite block. JoshuaZ 02:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Where are you guys??! - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 13:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please help! - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 14:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

context?--64.12.116.65 15:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The list is already empty. There are people watching it and taking care of it regularly.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen quite a few of these sort of post here recently. Maybe it would be better to just null edit AIV with an edit summary of "BACKLOG" or similar to knock it up admins watchlists. I know sometimes if I'm doing non-vandal fighting work on Wikipedia I'll normally try and ignore AIV if it's just the odd report that is being handled quickly by admins on RC patrol, but I'd happily jump in if there was a large backlog that hadn't received any attention. Petros471 17:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Temporarily blocked user Ndru01 evading block

User:Ndru01 was blocked for 24h: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Ndru01, after breaking 3RR on one article and recreating deleted articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern gnostic mysticism and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Gnosticism.

S/he has now recreated same content at Gnostic Infomysticism apparently using User:Infoandru01. --Cedders^tk 20:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've userfied the article as it clearly falls under CSD G4 (recreation of deleted material). Also subject to anonymous editing from 209.135.116.202 and 64.187.60.61 (both Bell Canada). --Cedders^tk 22:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged the redirect page Gnostic Infomysticism, userfied by Cedders, for speedy deletion (CSD R2), since User:Infoandru01 keeps adding this link into user space to the article Gnosticism in modern times. Lambiam^Talk 11:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Continuing problems

The puppetry and such continue; see recent changes to Gnosticism in modern times. New user A9809234544 has recreated the article Modern Gnostic mysticism, formerly Gnostic Infomysticism, a protected deleted page. Meanwhile 209.135.115.110 has inserted a wikilink into user space in article Gnosticism in modern times. This user 209.135.115.110 signs "Ndru01" here: [40]. He/she/it also states there that "Human race on this planet has no future if the devil prevents the human mind from ascension." If you ask me, that sounds pretty serious; we don't want that to happen, do we? Then there is also new user User:Moonlight serenade. An army of droids, ready for a revert war, if you ask me (OK, you didn't, but I tell you). In any case, several users are acting inappropriately and in concert. Lambiam^Talk 01:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block

I have indefinitely blocked another user, Jeremy77q (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Do you think this is a reasonable action, or was I being too harsh? - Mike Rosoft 23:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe... only four edits? Perhaps a short 24 block would have been better. You could always turn it into an indefinite later... --Darth Deskana (talk page) 23:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed—even three hours might do. With such a short history, it could have been someone at a friend's house with a few too many minutes on his hands. RadioKirk talk to me 23:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, I have decreased the block length. I guess this is an approppriate time to report some of my earlier indefinite blocks: Monkeypuke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for an inappropriate username (possibly related to Horsepoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked by Redvers), and HORNDONLAINGS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for being an abusive sockpuppet (clearly created to disrupt). - Mike Rosoft 00:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

My own thoughts: "Monkeypuke" is bad, but not horrible; consider asking the user to change it (only one edit, BTW, no history to gauge). Same with "Horsepoo" (possible vandal account, but only four edits; I'd say lift block, ask user to change name, and watch. RadioKirk talk to me 00:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

With due respect, I am not going to unblock User:Horsepoo; his history of uploading nonsense images for vandalism is evidence of it being a vandal account. As for User:Monkeypuke, I guess he can be unblocked and requested to change the username instead (that is, unless it can be verified that he has edited from the same IP address as Horsepoo), but I don't think he's coming back. - Mike Rosoft 00:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

My bad on User:Horsepoo, I forgot to look at the logs. As for User:Monkeypuke, I think we can WP:AGF for the moment. :) RadioKirk talk to me 00:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, do what you will. (I hope at least User:HORNDONLAINGS was an obvious case for an indefinite block.) - Mike Rosoft 01:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It was. Well done. :) RadioKirk talk to me 01:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Leyasu and User:Deathrocker

These two users have been blocked for arguing and general incivility to personal attacks at each other, on my talk page. These two are currently parties in a arbitration request, and should be unblocked once the case has been opened. Will (^E_@) T 10:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Good call. I would have done the same myself, but for the fact that I also am loosely involved in the arbitration application. --Tony Sidaway 11:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:DYK

Despite my earlier announcement on Talk:Main Page, Template talk:Did you know is still a nasty backlog. The image Image:Golubkina photo.jpg has been hanging on Main Page for about two days now. Under the best circumstances, the template is updated once a day, not every six hours as it is supposed to be. The noms from April 27 are all stale now. We have a thousand admins and not a single one (excepting Cactus.man) capable of regularly updating a Main Page template. What a disgrace! --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Get some perspective. Some of us have 'this user enjoys vanilla icecream' userboxes to delete, you know. Anyway, I updated it. I'm not in the least bit surprised that no-one particularly wants to do it, I would sooner gouge my eyes out with a rusty spoon than post notices on all the article talk pages and the talk pages of the creators with a non-tabbed browser or a slow laptop. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've suggested on Wikipedia talk:Did you know that the requirement to inform users on their talk pages of updates, which I found the most tedious and pointless part of the process, should be dropped. Comments are welcome. Especially if they agree with me. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Article: Rainer Zitelmann

Not sure what to do about Rainer Zitelmann. I, too, got e-mail spam citing it, so I slapped some {cleanup} tags on the article. Since then, an anonymous editor has taken a different approach, but the article is even more useless now. Reverting to the second revision (13:30, 25 April 2006) might be the thing to do, as I get the impression that the changes by 84.113.224.45 might be correlated with the activities of the spammer. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

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

He's taken to wikistalking me. He goes through my contributions list, and reverts articles (or edits in other ways) I worked on that he otherwise probably wouldn't edit otherwise. Ardenn 17:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

User:ChaplineRVine

This user seems to be engaged in devious vote stacking techniques. The user posted this script into my talk page: {{User talk:ChaplineRVine/hello-alt}} . I thought it may have been an attempt to get me to vote in an AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination) ) since he seemed to have done something sneaky like that a few days ago for a different AfD, according to complaint on his talk page when he put messages on talk pages to say hello but when you clicked on part of his signature it sent you to an AfD vote. [41] . This tag did something similar. --Strothra 20:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Morton devonshire (talk · contribs) appears to be doing the same thing. This AfD is going to get pretty loud, methinks. I'd recommend a lot of attention be paid by neutral admins toward maintaining civility and preventing personal attacks on what looks to be a pretty intense discussion. JDoorjam Talk 20:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing that's strange about User talk:ChaplineRVine/hello-alt is that it contains what looks like a section of a talk page, not a simple note like the Morton's one. So could be deception(?) or if assuming good faith some strange form of testing messed up? This incident was originally posted on my talk, but I directed it here as I wasn't really sure what to do... Petros471 21:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

ALTERNATE ACCOUNTS USED - LEGITIMATELY:
Marleyknowe (talk · contribs)
Sunfazer on Wheels (talk · contribs)
- complying with Allowed in WP:SOCK. --Sunfazer | Talk 20:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user evading block

Macedonia (talk · contribs · block log) is blocked for a 3RR violation on Portal:Macedonia/Intro, so now he's retuned as an IP to continue reverting (on Portal:Macedonia/Did you know as well) (and has already reverted four times after being reverted by many users). Can someone please do something about this (semi-protect the pages perhaps). Telex 22:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with. - FrancisTyers 23:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Obnoxious Owl (talk · contribs)

Can someone else deal with this troll please? They're just goading now and I would rather just step back and let someone else take over. See [42] -- Francs2000 00:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Or we could all just ignore the user. Jkelly 00:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Just proves how useless {{unblock}} is, it is nothing but troll food. --Doc ^ask? 01:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well yeah I do tend to get drawn into these things, especially easy after having had a hard day at work... -- Francs2000 01:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Rationales for Impeachment Deletion Review

It looks as if Cyde is willing to reverse his decision based upon his comments in the deletion review. Can we just relist this now? BlueGoose 01:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• if no one else it going to do it, then i will, brand new article? meet brand new afd--Capitalister 01:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • New AfD, meet new speedy keep (which I happen to disagree with, but I'm not touching that... thing with a 10 foot pole) -- grm_wnr Esc 01:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC) -- grm_wnr Esc 01:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Ladmeencetteunevagine

This user just spammed User:Francs2000 with "WHAT A CUNT", to the point where it was difficult to load and revert. I reverted and warned, but then noticed that the username looks like it might be inapproprate (sound it out), so I thought I should report it here for that, too. --Aquillion 01:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This guy is probably associated with the Obnoxious Owl troll above. Isopropyl 01:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally identifiable information

Someone's spamming personal details of a Wikipedia user on pages linked to from the Main Page. I recommend semi-protecting them all for a while. Got no time to do it myself though. - Mark 02:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• And, like, we're supposed to guess? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The article he's talking about seems to be Armavia Flight 967, the users posting info are The.Dope.Poet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Andrew_Thomason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both already blocked. --bainer (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There were other articles too, like Zacarias Moussaoui, but the situation would appear to have passed. Sorry for being so nonspecific, I was trying not to draw too much attention to the situation. - Mark 04:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Capitalister

Capitalister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been active in the Rationales mess, but I assumed he was Capitalistroadster (talk · contribs) until I took a close look at his sig and contribs. From a quick glance it definitely misled me. Whether this is actionable as a misleading user name I leave in the capable hands of the admins. Thatcher131 03:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Capitalister is currently blocked for a very questionable string of edits. I would encourage other admins to keep an eye on him once he gets back. This guy seems to suffer from terminal nuttery. --Cyde Weys 03:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I noticed him in the rationales for impeaching George W. Bush and he nominated a reformed article which was speedy kept. I haven't had a look through his contributions yet. I don't think it was a conscious effort at imitation though. Capitalistroadster 03:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Look a little bit deeper, he made some edits which were borderline vandalism, and he also made some posts that were outright intended to cause disruptiveness, like listing me at WP:AIV and revert-warring with admins over the article in question. --Cyde Weys 04:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

MONGO (talk · contribs)

I think we have a real problem here, LIBERAL POV WARRIORS AND OTHER LEFTIST SCUM KEEP ATTACKING THIS PERSON FOR NO REASON AND NO ADMINS ARE WILLING TO DEAL WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS CONSTANTLY LEVELED AGAINST HIM! I'ts a disgrace that you allow these liberal scumhats to attack a person, who is nothing if not a perfect example of adminhood and an insperation to us all, the next person who threatens him SHOULD BE INDEF BANNED WITH NO HOPE OF PAROLE--Wopwop 18:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, 1) Mongo is more than capable of taking care of himself and bringing things here if he thinks there is a problem. 2) How are we supposed to tell what you are talking about when you don't provide any specific difs? 3) Talking in all caps is a good way for people to take you less seriously. 4) You don't seem to have any edits other than to this announcement, which makes you likely to be somoene's sockpuppet. 5) chill. JoshuaZ 18:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

6)WP:CIVIL. 7) WP:NPA. KimvdLinde 18:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've blocked this editor for 12 hours for disruption...either a vandal, sock or possible strawman anyway.--MONGO 18:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • MONGO, you're an insperation to us all. Bishonen | talk 21:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC).
    • I am often insperied by MONGO. --Syrthiss 21:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Way to smite that "scumhat" (!?) Isopropyl 22:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Isn't the L-word spelled "libbrul"? Bishonen | talk 22:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC).
  • I always think with the L-word on a sexual orientation for women... KimvdLinde 03:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Not all women are liberals (just the informed and compassionate ones). Geogre 13:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Long live International Working Class Day! El_C 02:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Marry me! Bishonen | talk 02:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC).
  • I do! I mean, I will! I love it when the woman proposes! El_C 02:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Knock it off or I'll block you all for violating WP:NPA (no personal affection). JDoorjam Talk 03:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall we disscussed a simlar policy. I think the general consensus was that such behaviour would be tollerated.Geni 04:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know... there are all kinds of interesting ways to create a WP:CABAL... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 04:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, here it is (and it explicitly forbids marriage proposals). This is not WeLikeEachOtherpedia, people. If everybody gets along, there won't be any edit wars, and then, without 3RRs to block, we admins will be out of a job. Please consider the ramifications of your getting along so well. JDoorjam Talk 17:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

But I have to propose to El C on International Working Class Day! What am I, a block of stone? If it helps, I'll propose to MONGO as well. Bishonen | talk 23:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC).

I accept...Yaba daba do! Oh, you're probably just kidding...and I was just starting to feel insperetionel too.--MONGO 01:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't it a day late anyway? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, only UTC-wise, which dosen't count. El_C 06:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Controversial Afd and POV vote-stacking

This is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments.

I have blocked two users, Nescio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Morton devonshire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for POV vote-stacking and talk page spamming in regards to a certain controversial Afd. See their contribs for evidence. Please review. It was suggested that I bring this here because vote-stacking efforts are very harmful to Wikipedia and we must do our best to stamp out attempts to game our consensus system here on Wikipedia.

Additionally, I have closed that Afd, as it was completely contaminated. I renamed the page to something much more NPOV, and hopefully editors can work out whatever POV issues may exist in the article. --Cyde Weys 22:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A lot more discussion is taking place on my talk page. --Cyde Weys 23:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Informing users of a vote isn't votestacking. Advocacy would be. The comments I saw simply informed others of a vote (which is OK), made an accusation that some people were seeking votes to delete (which isn't, but as it didn't indicate whether they or their opponents were advocating deletion, therefore mitigated any transgression) and invited people to vote (which is OK).

You in the past have accused other users of all sorts of contamination and vote-stacking if they informed anyone else that there is a vote taking place. I think, as before, your behaviour is a gross over-reaction to users informing others that a vote is taking place, given that without being informed by others most people would not be aware that a vote was taking place, must less a vote in which they had an interest.

Looking at the afd and tfd pages, all too often most votes on many issues involve the same cabal of people, many of whom scream votestacking the moment someone else appears, having been told there was a vote taking place on a topic that they might want to participate in. It seems that users are meant to possess some sort of wikipsychic powers to know without being told what is going on every day on every page. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD closure was out-of-process. People were leaving legitimate comments and reasons for their positions. Notifying people about an AfD is not "vote stacking". Even advocating that they take a certain position in the AfD is not against any policy. Some people may not like it, but it is not against policy. Therefore, the block of User:Morton devonshire and User:Nescio are out-of-process blocks and they should be overturned. Johntex\^talk 23:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Spamming of User pages is definitely inappropriate, and Users have been blocked in the past for doing so. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, they have been blocked, but they were blocked unfairly in my view. Please show me any policy that says we can block people for notifying other users about a matter up for discussion or vote. Johntex\^talk 23:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
      • We can start with WP:CIVIL and work down, it being grossly unfair to make AfD a matter of who can recruit the most people to 'vote'. Not all abusive behaviour is covered by a policy, indeed, we make a point of not doing so - see m:Instruction creep. I support Cyde's actions. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"Out of process" is one of those nothing-phrases. Were the blocks appropriate? Possibly. Certainly Morton Devonshire cannot legitimately deny that he has spammed talk pages with the admitted intention of influencing the outcome of AfDs. I find it a bit scary when Zoe and I agree on something, but I guess it must be even more scary for the person we both agree about. --Tony Sidaway 23:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the phrase "out of process" I will give you another one. The early closure was unfair and illegitimate. It was unfair because people were going there with an expection of having their voices heard and considered with respect to the matter. Illegitimate because there was no good reason to close the AfD early. The blocks are unfair and against policy becuase the blocks themselves, being that they have no basis in policy, are a violation of WP:CIVIL. Johntex\^talk 00:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked both. I can find no rule that allows their blocking. They did not say "come and vote 'x' way", just "come and vote". That is not in any way a blockable offence. All it does is increase knowledge and partipation. If leaving unsolicited messages on more than one talk page about issues is spamming then everyone, including Jimbo, would have to be blocked because 100% of Wikipedians "spam" under that definition all the time. Indeed Clyde is guilty of spamming by alerting various users to what he did. If they are blocked for spamming, then so must he, and everyone else. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This is wikilawyering nonsense. Gaming the system is disruption and disruption is blockable. It is irrelevant what one says in spamming, since spammers invariably notify people they feel are likely to see things their way. Informing one or two knowledgable people, who might add insight to the debate is one thing, but anything more than that is an attempt to play the numbers game. Frankly to compare this to general posts on userpages is just idiotic. And actually, your unblocking is out of process and may well be viewed by arbcom as wheel-waring. --Doc ^ask? 00:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

When in doubt and you cannot find a rule to defend your argument, throw some snide comment about "wikilawyering"!!! Some things never change. There is no rule against contacting users in a non-advocational manner. The arbcom can confirm that. I simply applied the rules. Try learning them sometime. Nowhere in Wikipedia did we give you wikipope powers of infallibility to give you an ability to make up your own rules as you go along where they suit you. Cyde broke the rules. The rules were inforced and his clearly erronious block rescinded.FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't have hard and fact 'rules', we have non-negotiable policy, and we have loose process as a means to an end. The written stuff is a record of what actually tends to happen, it is not a fixed rule book. We use common sense, not nullum crimen sine lege here, some things bad (m:dick). I called it 'wikilawyering nonsense', but since you object to the word 'wikilawyering', I'll withdraw that one word. --Doc ^ask? 00:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that this should not be written policy somewhere; if it happens often enough to be argued about and discussed as an unwritten policy, for heaven's sake someone write it down so that you can point to it and warn people "Hey, don't do that". We have achived instruction creep, but it's not documented, and that's not fair to the users. "Commonly held informal policy" is generally by nature arbitrarily and randomly abusive to users.

Write 'er down. Georgewilliamherbert 00:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, Merecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was doing the same kind of vote-stacking stuff, but I didn't realize it soon enough and didn't block him with the other two. Now that my other two blocks have been reverted ... things get interesting. --Cyde Weys 00:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• I support unblocking the two users immediately. I have also sent the matter to Deletion Review [43] because this closure was against policy. People have a right to discuss this issue without the discussion being unilaterally closed. This is especially true since User:Cyde has expressed his personal distaste for the idea of deleting the article. Johntex\^talk 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• By the way, the article is now listed on the Deletion Review. JoshuaZ 00:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Merecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for starting to vote-stack already on the DRV which was just put up. This is unreal. We need to deal with this nonsense, not sit back, claim we can't do anything about it, and let it happen and overwhelm our processes. --Cyde Weys 00:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a third user you have now unjustly blocked. What is outrageous is that you continue to throw blocks at people who are disagreeing with you. Again, there is no policy against posting messages asking people to come share their views on a topic. I request you unblock Merecat immediately. Johntex\^talk 00:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you realize he was only contacting people that voted delete on the AfD? --waffle iron ^talk 01:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not realize that, but it makes no difference. People have things like WP:SCH and WP:Schools and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship. People post a notice there and pretend like they've made a neutral notice - but in reality they are posting to an area where they think they will find an enriched set of supporters. There is absolutley nothing wrong with selectively notifying people you think will agree with you. Johntex\^talk 01:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

How is this not vote stacking? Isopropyl 01:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is something wrong with it, spamming talk pages for votes is a disruption and subverts the idea of consensus. No one can claim with a straight face that soliciting votes is done in an evenhanded manner. It's clearly done to draw like-minded editors to a vote in a raw test of numbers. Interested in an issue? Watchlist it, engage in the debate and find common ground, don't disrupt by polarizing editors and creating interest groups. Rx StrangeLove 01:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde must resign or be sacked as an admin immediately

This is getting crazy. He closed a vote out of process, having blocked people for telling other people a vote was going on. His blatent abuse of his position, which led to the forced closure, is being discussed on the Deletion Review page. So he goes and blocks people informing people that his behaviour and actions are being discussed at Deletion Review!!! Even if there was some rule somewhere (which there isn't) saying that users could not tell other users about a discussion on the Deletion Review page, for the user whose actions are being discussed on that page to block people who mention the fact is so gross an abuse of power that Clyde clearly has to be desysoped. Users have been blocked (and not just tonight) for less clearcut and gross abuses of power. If he doesn't resign immediately he should be sacked immediately as an administrator. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea about Cyde's blocks. But I wish people would stop saying vote-stacking is OK. Arbcom has condemned it in at least one case. I'll find the refs if you want. --Doc ^ask? 01:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do, I think that that would help. I, for one, would be interested. Snoutwood (tóg) 01:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "vote stacking". To me, that implies sock-puppet voting, which is clearly not OK. However, recruiting anyone and everyone to share their opinion on an issue should not only be OK but encouraged. If they ArbCom has ever taken a different stand, I'd say they acted without a policy to base upon which to base their condemnation. Johntex\^talk 01:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I see vote stacking as including the act of identifying users with the same point of view and asking them to vote, knowing they will side with you. To be totally fair it would be best to advise all recent editors of the page, not just the ones you consider allies. --waffle iron ^talk 01:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

seconded, this cyde person has no idea what it means to seek community support, and clearly has no business being a sysop at all if he deals this poorly with people--Capitalister 01:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Re Doc's comments. Vote stacking and communication are different things. Clyde doesn't seem to realise that. Nor does he realise that as his actions are being reviewed on Deletion Review under no circumstances should be be involved in blocking people for discussing that matter. If rules were broken (and they weren't) it was up to someone else to enforce them. Clyde broke every rule in the book by personally blocking a user discussing his actions. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have issues with Cyde's methods, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. However, rather than creating a bigger mess here at WP:ANI, perhaps you should file an WP:RFC or take another step down the mediation path. Isopropyl 01:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I should add that soapboxing here isn't going to get Cyde desysopped anytime soon. Isopropyl 01:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

(meta-note) - this is why unwritten policies are so dangerous. If it's not written down, not everybody knows it, and a lot of people will disagree with it upon discovering it.

I urge everyone to abide by written WP policies (and not use unwritten ones to block) until this gets sorted out, to avoid further frustration and anger. Georgewilliamherbert 01:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

(after many edit conflicts) While it may have made sense for Cyde to issue a warning prior to blocking, the behavior the editors were engaging in constituted disruption which is blockable by itself. Second, closing a highly acrimonious, disrupted AfD early where the AfD is clearly going to result in a keep or a no-consensus is well-within the discretion of an admin. Any objections to that should be brought to the deletion review page, not here, and are then only relevant for a relisting or not of the article and are not relevant to demands that Cyde relinquish his adminship(which frankly, I find a bit ridiculous). Furthermore, please note that the current messages being sent about the DR only to the poeple who voted for deletion is exactly the same sort of unacceptable votestacking. JoshuaZ 01:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing unacceptable about it. Anyone should be free to notify any number of people about a topic they may feel is of interest. Johntex\^talk 01:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed. That is one of the major reasons why such projects are extremely controversial, and in any case doing so in such a blatant manner is unacceptable as in this case is unacceptable. To somehow pretend that its ok because other people get away with it by skirting the line is unreasonable in the extreme. JoshuaZ 01:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:ANI doesn't have the authority to desysop. Only ArbCom does. --Cyde Weys 01:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Spamming user talk for votes, to a skewed subset of the community is not acceptable - see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the ArbCom case you cite that actually backs up your claim. The word "spam" does not even appear in the ArbCom case. They talk about sock-puppets and recruiting meat-puppets from off site. Please provide a quote that supports your claim they have anything at all to say about posting notices on talk pages. Johntex\^talk 01:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The sockpuppets cited in the ArbCom cased were used to spam self-identified Christians user talkpages to come and vote on AfD to save articles which Gastrich wrote.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This desysopping request is totally non acceptable and should not under any cases happen. Whilst you may disagree with the actions, calling for a desysopping over a dispute is hardly the way to get things done. Instead of having people work with you, you have turned people against your point of view with an out of the blue extreme request for a desysop. There is no way Cyde will be desysopped over this and there is no way he should. Focus on the issue, not revenge, ok? -- Tawker 01:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If anybody feels passionate enough to call for an RfC, please do. For all of you clamoring about process, we have a process in regards to de-adminship. It's called the dispute resolution channel. BlueGoose 01:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree - any call for desysopping over Cyde's actions would be very premature and unwarranted at this stage. However, he has not unblocked the users he blocked, even though he has cited no clear policy for the blocking. That is a grave concern. Johntex\^talk 01:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Jtdirl had already unblocked the users. If this is the case, how Cyde cannot re-unblock them. Isopropyl 01:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, here is one case (I think there are more, but I haven't had time to go look for them) where the Arb Com ruled that spamming talk pages for votes in an almost identical manner to this constituted disruption and the user was blocked for it. JoshuaZ 01:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you misread it. In that case, ArbCom said:

On March 4, StrangerInParadise used the Special:Whatlinkshere feature to contact 43 users with a certain userbox. He spammed them with a deliberately provocative attempt to stack the ongoing userbox policy poll. The messages, headed "Your userpage was briefly delisted by a rogue admin" constitute personal attacks [32]. StrangerInParadise was subsequently blocked.

It seems to me what was disruptive was making a personal attack by claiming someone was a "rogue admin". Arbcom did not say there is a policy against using the Special:Whatlinkshere feature to find people to notify. Johntex\^talk 01:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If that were the only issue they would not endorsed him for "disruption" only "personal attacks" They say he was disruptive because among other things "He spammed them with a deliberately provocative attempt to stack..." which is exactly what happened here. JoshuaZ 01:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. I still disagree. If you think it should be policy, then let's put it up for a proposed policy poll. It is unreasonable to expect all users to know about all ArbCom cases. Johntex\^talk 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Joshua misread or mispresentated the arbcom judgment. They did not condemn him for spaming. The condemning him for doing so "with a deliberately provocative attempt" . . . It would be a help if you actually reflected the judgment. They ruled not on methodology but on conduct of the methodology. Obviously you don't grasp how the arbcom makes decisions, or indeed how any structured judgments are made. Simplistic misreprentations from Joshua are no help. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

While that might be a good thing to discuss at some point, the basic point remains: If even the editors who are unhappy with Cyde agree that its a plausible interpretation of the Arb Com rulings, it's very hard to see how he can be reprimanded for it(especially whent there are other editors like myself who interpreted the Arb Com ruling in precisely the same way). JoshuaZ 01:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are not referring to me when you speak about editors who agree that is is a plausible interpretation. What I said was, "Possibly. I still disagree." By using the word "possibly", I menat to hold the door open for further consideration of your view - I did not mean to say I currently think your interpretation is plausible. I'm less interested in reprimanding Cyde than I am in clearing the name of the 2 3 blocked users. It is completely unreasonable to assume they know about this ArbCom case and what it may or may be saying. Johntex\^talk 03:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The simple fact that many of the editors replying here are so non-outraged by Cyde's actions is an indication that there's some level of support for the principle in question. Maybe it'll find its way into a policy or guideline soon. Trying it out first to test the waters seems perfectly valid and appropriate to me. Vote-stacking is unacceptable, why isn't that written down yet? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sacked by whom? Only the Arbcomm can do that. If you object, write an RfAr. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

How is spamming or vote stacking if you simply contact a user directly because you think they may be interested in the the vote? That's obviously not spamming. It's not stacking because he's not telling the person what to vote. So what if he seeks like minded individuals? There is nothing that says he must select from a wide variety of individuals to notify and it's rediculous to expect him to do so. --Strothra 02:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Contacting like-minded individuals to attract additional votes is vote stacking. Just don't do it, and one won't be blocked. That a sysop would be attacked like this for a valid block is repulsive and disrespectful. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Repulsive? Don't be so melodramatic. Wikipedia isn't the world. As I said, It's rediculous to expect anyone to seek out and contact a wide variety of users to contact if he wants to contact any at all. He is free to contact anyone he well pleases. If he feels that these individuals would be interested than he's free to do that. Can you even cite that policy? --Strothra 02:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Melodramatic? Don't be so dismissive. Just don't vote stack. It's a vicious cycle. It only makes others try to 'balance' the stacking. It shouldn't be permitted, isn't permitted in practice, and that won't change and shouldn't change. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

We need to be clear about this, spamming talk pages for votes subverts consensus. Drawing like-minded editors to a vote in a raw test of numbers disrupts by polarizing editors and creating interest groups. Jimbo consistently drives this point home, consensus is reached by thoughtful editors discussing and debating issues. It is not reached by testing strength of numbers formed by calling editors to a page they haven’t been paying attention to and “voting”. Rx StrangeLove 02:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's not an official policy why is he banned for it? Also, why was the ban not consistent for all users involved in "vote stacking?" If you're going to ban people for being annoying then you might as well be consistent about it. --Strothra 02:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

They didn’t get blocked for being annoying. They acted in a way that fundamentally undermines how consensus is formed on Wikipedia. This is expressed in several “official” policies all throughout Wikipedia, starting with “Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy”… going on from there. You shouldn’t need this spelled out in an explicit official policy…there are few things as important as how consensus is formed here. It's important that people understand that. Were the blocks fair? I dunno....but it's clear that their actions were directly at odds with the way Wikipedia forms consensus. Rx StrangeLove 03:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the outcome of this discussion should be reflected in WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming, which at the moment is basically a manual how to do it, which in turn seems to imply to me that it's generally not a blockable offence. -- grm_wnr Esc 02:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Good find. Ever since this diff in November 2004, that page has said of "internal spamming": It's too early to make any definitive rules about this... Perhaps things have changed enough for a rewrite? Apparently the issue of vote-stacking has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Spam before, both here and on this subpage, with an opinion from Jimbo himself, which is only tangentially related. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of starting a section at the WP:SPAM talk page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Lordy...if I blocked editors just because they spammed other editors about an Afd or similar, my block numbers would double. People do it through the email all the time...relisting the article now will only continue to polarize political POV's...how about I create an article Rationales for not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008...is that any less a POV pile of nonsense than what we have here? I think not. Cyde absolutely shouldn't have blocked these editors and definitely should not have closed the Afd 5 days early. Now we have a bigger mess than we did, thanks!--MONGO 02:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Amen. --Strothra 02:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice beans, MONGO. JDoorjam Talk 03:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Next time, protect it...it was recreated...beans indeed.--MONGO 03:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it unfortunate Cyde has said on his talk page he will "I'm not one to step down from doing what is right just because I may run into some opposition."
Deletion Policy states "If a clear consensus for non-deletion is quickly reached, discussion may be closed before the end of the typical period, for example, a clear consensus for speedy deletion, a clear consensus for a speedy keep, or a consensus for a redirect. The debate should remain transcluded on the appropriate deletion page. If the proposed solution has not achieved a very clear consensus, the listing should remain for the full five-day period. Any substantial debate, regardless of how lopsided the keep/delete count may be, implies that an early closing would be a bad idea. [44] (emphasis mine) Clearly, discussion was ongoing and the AfD should not have been closed. Cyde was not "doing what is right". He had even voted on the AfD prior to closing it. He was not a neutral party and he should not have closed this AfD even after the normal time period, let alone close it prematurely. Johntex\^talk 03:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

He is involved in the vote and blocked spammers (3 total) and closed the Afd early....none of this is good.--MONGO 04:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde's behavior has been completely appropriate. He might run into some conflicts with people that disagree with him, but I have seen no basis for stating that he "wasn't doing what was right". I've seen him use discretion appropriately in the past, and I believe he's used it this time as well. Daniel Davis 04:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If we're still looking for the arbitration case concerning talk-page spamming, it was Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IZAK that included the finding "6) IZAK has used the communication system of Wikipedia aggressively in an attempt to influence the outcome of Wikipedia polls, particularly with respect to Isr/Pal issues." and the accompanying principle against such actions. Also, as a voter in the StrangerInParadise case, and the one that wrote up all the proposals, I can say that the vote-stacking spam was absolutely a major part of the disruptive behavior that got him sanctioned. In any case, arbcom precedents do not generate policy, though they ought to be useful measures of good practice, but I find myself astounded that anyone would defend talk-page spamming. It is ridiculous to assume that any useful measure of consensus can be gotten when such disruptive behavior takes place. Dmcdevit·t 04:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Amen. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it is not a defense of talk page spamming...this goes on all the time...since when was there a policy that states that spammers will be blocked. There isn't one AFAIK. The arbcom case above brought action based on many issues, not just the issue of spamming usertalk. All the commentary I see here is related to the actions after the spamming, not during.--MONGO 04:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, Dmcdevit is an Arbitration Committee member. When he is commenting on how the ArbCom has ruled on certain issues, we should be listening, not trying to argue with him. --Cyde Weys 04:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

How dare you lecture me about this. I can read the arbitration. He is not God and you best stop acting like you are. Your unilateral actions are going to get you in some hot water and soon. I'll just sit back with some popcorn and watch it all fall in your lap. ie:Userboxes, cite.php and now this...keep it up.--MONGO 04:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm restarting this AfD. - Mailer Diablo 05:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that spamming talk pages to get votes creates disruption, the problem to my mind is that A) if there is no written policy and B) none of the editors was warned first, then how can a block be justified? Also, regarding the AfD I think this quotation from Cyde's RfA is appropriate:

"I think WP:IAR is more important for normal actions, but WP:PI is more important for admin actions, as one can sow the seeds of malfeasance and distrust much farther with admin actions."

Thatcher131 06:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Cyde's actions were absolutely correct. Talk page spamming is disruptive. It is the duty of mop-handlers to stop disruptive editors. If he resigns, I resign. As I have the same attitude to disruptive editors, nothing else would make any sense. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If it was this clear to everyone, why on earth didn't anyone put it down in written policy?

Random users having to hang around admin pages watching side conversations or read admins / arbcom members minds' to understand what is ok and what isn't is very, very wrong. I'm fine with this being an official WP policy; having it an unwritten but blockable WP policy is WP community abuse of lower level WP members. Spell it out, or don't enforce it. This won't cover new innovative methods of abuse the first time or two they happen, but this is far from the first time WP has seen AFD related spamming. Georgewilliamherbert 21:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Wikipedia official policy on sockpuppetry:

It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to externally advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated, or where one wishes to stir up debate, in order to attract users with likely known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate and influence consensus or discussion. It's also inappropriate to invite "all one's friends" to help argue an article.

Does this policy really apply? I keep seeing mixed signals on "inviting all one's friends". Some say it is fine to invite people to AfDs, but my reading of the official policy explicitly forbids it. If vote stacking really is allowed could the language of the policy be clearer on that? Weregerbil 09:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the block on principle, I disagree that it should have been applied without a warning first. Thatcher131 11:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Cyde did fundamentally the right thing bringing that cat fight to a speedy close. Whether he went about it the best way possible is open to debate, but we really do not need vote-stacking, or indeed the impression that there is a vote to stack. It was completely out of hand. Just zis Guy you know? 12:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JzG. It might have been a little overstep of the mark to close the AFD early, but we absolutely don't want people votestacking, as it makes a mockery of AFD. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Block of Merecat

Somehow Nescio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Morton devonshire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been unblocked but Merecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked a second time by Tony Sidaway. I request an explanation. I also note that under the new Monicasdude rule for AfDs, the one person who should be blocked is the one who posted these tasteful remarks,

• "Blue goose, you are just spewing bile ignorantly. You have made no edits, and are factually ignorant as far as i can tell about anything to do with the article." [45]
• "My notion is that people who vote should make themselves something other than ignorant" [46]

I am not impressed. Thatcher131 01:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

And We are not amused--Queen Victoria131 02:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with Jtdirl's decision to unblock the miscreants in the earlier case. I certainly am pleased to see that I'm not the only one who chose to block Merecat for his talk page spamming. --Tony Sidaway 02:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I got his spam on my talk page also, despite the very large "No solicitation" notice at the top. Mackensen (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it wrong because it was annoying personally or because it unduly influences the process? When Nescio tried to stack the RfC he filed against Merecat, no one seemed to mind. Perhaps I should have complained then. Thatcher131 02:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The reason this thing is getting so hot is because individuals are being incredibly one sided about this and don't seem to care about even hiding it. Certain individuals seem to be unduly against Merecat when he was not the only individual in the wrong, if he was in the wrong (depending on who's standards you use.) I wonder if that has anything to do with their difference in personal opinions. --Strothra 02:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's not go there at all. This is messy enough as it is. Thatcher131 02:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I thought it was curious. That's all I'll say on it though. --Strothra 02:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I did block Nescio for vote-stacking as soon as I learnt of it. It's not my fault he was unblocked. --Cyde Weys 02:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Both Nescio and Merecat have been testing 3RR today over the utterly idiotic issue of whether the Rationales page should include {{citation style}}, in addition to the problems mentioned above. Both of them could use 24 hours away from Wikipedia to calm down. Although, if Nescio's block has been (improperly IMO) lifted, Merecat's probably should be as well. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent block of User:Sgrayban

• Ongoing discussions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adam Carr
• Adam Carr (talk · contribs) posts private e-mail from Scott Grayban [47]
• Scott Grayban Sgrayban (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely by Jdforrester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), apparently for "legal threats", despite the fact that actions were taken only through e-mail, and Adam Carr had re-posted them.
• Scott Grayban appealed block, on grounds of message was e-mailed, off-wiki; follows through with {{unblock}}

User talk:Sgrayban

• Master_Jay (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unblocks Sgrayban (talk · contribs). Rationale here. --Jay(Reply) 02:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Master_Jay to review his unblocking, pending an opportunity for other admins to consider the situation. Briefly,

• Jdforrester, the admin who placed the block, hasn't had a chance to comment (unless there was off-wiki communication...?).
• The block is more than a week old. A few hours to discuss shouldn't make a difference.
• Sgrayban made legal threats on-wiki following his block: [48].
• I'd like to avoid any actions that might be seen to have even a hint of wheel-warring to them.

I hope that Master Jay will reverse his action pending a discussion here. I don't mean to come down too hard on him—it's a Good Thing that he posted a notice here for review in the first place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I posted a response to this[49] if Wikipedia admin want to enforce there laws over the rights to privacy and allowing private emails to be posted and then used against the users here then I would start looking for new jobs. Not one person here admin or not is above the US Laws regarding emails and electronic privacy communications. If Adam Carr wants to post emails sent to him that his problem and no one elses. Wikipedia admin should have deleted the email since it violates US Law and reminded the user that it is illegal and not to mention it reveals personal imformation which is another thing Wikipedia says it doesn't allow. So either wikipedia Admin are above the law and can interprete there own meanings are they also willing to finish this to end because I am more then willing. Although I really think James Whales(Jimbo) will agree that the actions by the admin that banned me was illegal and he should have removed the private email from wikipedia instead. Think about this first, is anyone really willing to see this through? I suggest to let me be and let me handle this the way it was started in the first place which was in private emails and not on wikipedia. --Scott Grayban 05:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reblocked Sgrayban indefinitely for the above on-wiki legal threat, since the rationale for unblocking, if I'm reading correctly, were that his legal threats were off-wiki and that if it had been on-wiki he should have been blocked. Legal threats are absolutely intolerable. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats

This user has contacted me and hinted at legal action directly against the Wikimedia Foundation. Any further information should be passed on to User:Danny or me.--BradPatrick 14:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Coordinated astroturfing for DISH TV

Patrolling with VandalProof tonight is showing a lot of results for DISH TV external link spam, specifically:

• http://www.rapidsatellite.com/home/directv/
• http://www.dishpronto.com/home/mpg/
• http://www.essonne-enligne.com

What is the procedure for adding links such as these to the spam blacklist? This is a pretty clear astroturfing campaign by an agency. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 03:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think linkspamming needs to be blocked by someone who is an administrator on Metta. Please see Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming. Johntex\^talk 05:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

request for review by admins

Please see User talk:87.202.74.190. While I don't agree with the actions of that anonymous user (keep in mind that this is a dynamic IP), I believe his/her blocking should happen after a longer discussion and communication per WP:BITE etc. I would also like to know if User:Macedonia is within the limits of the user page policy. Thanks and take care. talk to +MATIA 07:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Complaint about deletions by User:Ghirlandajo

On this administrators' page's history at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=history we can see that user Ghirlandajo deleted an important comment of valid concerns ("08:02, 4 May 2006 Ghirlandajo") immediately after it had been posted for the administrators to review by Digi Wiki ("07:58, 4 May 2006 Digi Wiki").

That article reveals serious wrong doings by two Wikipedia users, similar to the wrong doings which user Ghirlandajo himself has been caught of participating in at Wikipedia's Varangian page.

For instance, at the Varangian article history page at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Varangians&limit=100&action=history we can see that with the foot note "18:03, 3 March 2006 Ghirlandajo (rm the latest attack by Kvenites)" the user Ghirlandajo deleted referenced contributons made by another user to Wikipedia only moments before. The user Ghirlandajo did not provide reasons for his action.

The user Ghirlandajo has continued these type of radical actions, without reasoning or any conversation. Today he did it on this administrators' page. Thus, can someone now put an end to his ilfated tactics and behavior which do not belong to Wikipedia. While conducting his own delete/revert strategies, the user Ghirlandajo is not providing sources or reasons for his actions, nor does he engage in any conversation regarding his deletes of the referenced and sourced information provided by others.

Another example: At the Varangian article's talk page's history at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Varangians&limit=250&action=history the user Ghirlandajo deleted a discussion comment on March 15, 2006, with the following history page marking: "15:13, 15 March 2006 Ghirlandajo (Wikipedia is not a dump for copyrighted material)".

That can only be considered vandalism by Ghirlandajo, because althoug quotes were used in the discussion comment of the other Wikipedia user Drow Ssap, no copyrighted material was used without permission. On the top of Drow Ssap's comment which the user Ghirlandajo deleted, it was clearly stated that a permission had been granted for use of the quoted text. To confirm please check the page in question at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Varangians&diff=43900059&oldid=43889395.

Administrators, based on the information provided above, please proceed to place the proper sanctions against the user Ghirlandajo !

Digi Wiki, May 4, 14:11, 2006

This user under multiple accounts (see User:Mikkalai/arkven) adds disputable information to various pages and fails to discuss the issues with other users. His behavior is disruptive and complained by several other users. `'mikka (t) 15:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks at Talk:Quizzing.co.uk

This page is the subject of a POV dispute, including repeated name-calling based on the fact that an editor that has tried to keep the article NPOV, User:Jw6aa, owns a similar site (which various IPs from different ranges characterise as a rival who is editing in bad faith). The last post mused on whether Jw6 was autistic. I've begun removing new comments which continue these attacks wholesale, rather than just removing the worst bits, as I didn't see any of the comments as constructive. See this edit of mine. Further eyes would be appreciated. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to start blocking IPs to enforce WP:NPA soon, by the way. The name-calling is continuing and I'm about to remove another post despite the inevitable 'stop censoring' objections. --Sam Blanning^(talk)

Shit. The most egregerious name-caller is an AOL IP. I issued a 15-minute block, but if he comes back I don't feel bold enough to semi-protect the page - there are anons which are managing to keep up a pretense at civility. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Administrator deletion of OITC Fraud article

Today an administrator by the name Tony Sidaway deleted the article in reference, saying that "the result of the debate was delete as misinformation". As any person who checks the deletion debate can ascertain, this is simply not true. The majority of Wikipedia users that intervened in the debate (7, to my count), voted to keep and/or move or clean. Only two, including one of the people who vandalized the article, voted for deletion.

If there is no respect whatsoever for the results of the debate, as in this case, what is the sense of having one? I respectfully request the reinstatement of the article. An explanation by Tony Sidaway would also be appropriate. >(talk) [[50]]

Please take this to deletion review. --Doc ^ask? 13:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I would have appreciated a personal dialog on this subject in the first instance. Doc is right that this case should go to deletion review. While I attempt to make the right decision in the best interests of the encyclopedia, I'm not perfect and this was a very hard decision to make. --Tony Sidaway 13:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Doc, I shall take the request to the page, as you suggest.

Tony, As you may have gathered from the discussion in connection with the deleted article, it has been a long and arduous issue, particularly because of the vandalism of people related to the OITC. In addition, the article you deleted is the result of many weeks of research. Apologies if you felt hurt by our bringing the matter directly here. We prefer to deal with it as directly as possible.--24.215.205.169

I've taken this to deletion review [51]. --Tony Sidaway 13:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Lesbian and bi girls are awesome

I have denied the unblock request of this user twice now. The block was instated due to the choice of username. The user in question demands a review from more admins so here we are. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This user is almost certainly the same troll I username blocked as User:Jack Hates Jesus. Keep blocked - indeed I would let his IP stay blocked for a while too. --Doc ^ask? 14:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, good that we actually can agree on something. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur. This is probably not the best indicator of a NPOV. --Syrthiss 14:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have now protected that user-talk page. I see no reason to waste more time on this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Not even "almost" certainly - see [52] FreplySpang (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this one is so cut and dried. The block of the original username I find correct; this one's borderline. The user clearly needs to be pointed to WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA but, with several productive edits prior to the block, I see no reason why this user shouldn't be given a chance to demonstrate productivity. If the user fails, a new block would be easy enough. RadioKirk talk to me 14:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Which of the edits do you consider as productive? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As User:Jack Hates Jesus, here, here and here are a few examples; User:Lesbian and bi girls are awesome, while obviously confrontational on the user talk page, only had the opportunity to participate on Wikipedia:Deletion review. I'm just not sure this is enough of a history to impose a permablock, especially of that user's IP. A new user name and a pointer to policy pages, and the possibility still exists that this one could be productive. RadioKirk talk to me 14:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the block on username alone. Is it offensive? No. Would it be appropriate on MySpace? Yes, if their policies allow it. Is it the username of an encyclopedia editor? No. --kingboyk 14:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• I also support the block on username alone. The name is not condusive to building an encyclopedia. And they are awesome, by the way. Johntex\^talk 15:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• I do not support the block based on username alone. It would be another thing entirely if the username was "Lesbian and bi girls kill babies", but this is most certainly not the case. What is offensive about saying a group is 'awesome'? And why can't the username of an encyclopedia contain such? If the policing of usernames requires the determination of them being 'encyclopedial' or some vague notion of what's appropriate for an encyclopedia, then what's next? Why, in that case, have usernames at all, and force everyone who edits non-anonymously to use their real name. Also note that what you are leaning to right now is the creation of policy, and if that's going to happen this issue needs a lot more attention than this. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• I don't support it either. The name seems to be borderline, and I'm inclined to assume good faith here. JoshuaZ 15:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Meh. Are you saying they don't kill babies? User:I want to marry El C, Geogre, Giano, Anthere, KillerChihuahua, and FreplySpang. 15:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

I would have assumed good faith (tho perhaps have advised the editor that the name would evoke strong opinion) had there been no connection to the previous username. As it is, I suspect they were blocked originally and went to the username policy page to try and craft something that when blocked could be use to troll us with. --Syrthiss 15:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So, it can't be a simple "okay, I can't have that user name, let's try this one"? Again, I don't see enough history to be sure... RadioKirk talk to me 16:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any way in which someone would register that name except for the purpose of being confrontational. Userboxes have been deleted for that very reason. It reminds me of -Ril- signing with that annoying ~~~~ signature, and putting on his user page that he was going to keep that signature unless the arbitration committee forced him to change it ("live with it" or "learn to cope" or something like that). If you want to edit an encyclopaedia constructively and professionally, you don't choose that name. I fully support the block. AnnH ♫ 16:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• I 'do not support the block. Why not give the benefit of the doubt for borderline usernames? -lethe ^{talk +} 16:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I support the block. I find this username inappropriate. A lot of people would consider it offensive. In addition, the user's first edit was this. What does that say? --Darth Deskana (talk page) 16:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• I would weakly support the block on it's username alone though I would definitely unblock if a good reason for the username was given, but I definitely DO NOT SUPPORT AN UNBLOCK due to the attacks that this user has made on other editors, including the admins he's communicated with on his talk page. "don't be an asshole" is entirely innapropriate and along with his hostility and several other similar comments, along with his edits he should definitely not be unblocked. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 16:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• I support the block per kingboyk's reasoning. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• I too support the block. Snoutwood (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• The user name is a goof. It would be a goof coming from Gloria Allred, from Andrea Dworkin, and from Larry Flynt. It's designed to tweak somebody's nose, and that is exactly what we don't want. I don't care if the user name is "DeepFriedTwinkiesAreGoodFood," the point is that it's not a witty play on words: it's a didactic statement. Block on name alone. Anything more would be predictable. Geogre 16:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Repeated unjustified blocking

I am new to Wikipedia. I created an account using Solo999 about 2 weeks ago. I am an aol user.

Since that time I have had difficulty with edit blockers, who have quoted various offences which are nothing to do with me.

Yesterday I was blocked after I'd eited a the talk page on biological psychiatry. The blocker on this occasion was 'canadian caeser'

Significantly I have not been blocked when entering other edit talk pages, during the same online visit.

It therefor appears to me that a the blocking manouevres are being used to fence me off from the biological psychiatry edit page, biological psychiatry being listed as a controversial issue.

I would be grateful for any assistance which would assist me. Solo999 17:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Am replying on user's talk page... --Syrthiss 18:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

dogtoyco dog toy spamer

Doesn't quite fit AIV policy, so filing here.

This user:

Dogtoyco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked yesterday for linkspamming. 27 minutes after the block expired more link spam for this web site came from:

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

I think that it is obvious that this was done by the same person or organization and that this IP should be blocked as well.

- Trysha ^(talk) 17:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Drug Free/not drug free user box

On april 30, the user box 'not drug free' has been nominated for deletion. I would just like to know, since most of the people concerned with this have voted a 'keep' motion, when I will be able to stop arguing with people about its status and when the 'keep' motion will be upheld? The motion can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_not-Drug-free.

Cheers --DragonFly31 17:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote spam account blocked

Considering that previous blocks of accounts conducting vote spamming have been a little controversial, I figured I would toss this one up here. I have indefinitely blocked the new user account User:Rictonilpog, as, aside from setting up a bunch of user boxes on their user page, the account's only actions have been to spam user pages to call for votes on a certain AFD. I don't normally like to get into these types of controversial blocks, but this is almost certainly a sockpuppet account of someone, given how much knowledge they displayed of the project. (Userboxes, AFD, etc.) And they were going 90 MPH with their spamming. - TexasAndroid 18:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The block has been lifted. Someone is playing a joke here, and I fell for it, though I don't think they intended for an admin to fall for it and drop a block on them. Check out the user's talk page to see what developed. - TexasAndroid 18:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what they were spamming for, spamming is spamming and the account should be blocked for that alone, but it should also be blocked as a role account. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, such spamming is disruptive and likely to be a sockpuppet account no matter what they were spamming for. Ian13/talk 18:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like WP:POINT and that he was trolling for a block. 128.151.71.19 19:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The more I look at it, the more I wonder what is actually up here. While it technically spoils whatever the joke is, I feel the joke/prank is over at this point. User:Rictonilpog created a subpage of his User page, User talk:Rictonilpog/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political fallout from seperation issues. Notice the AFD part of the name. That is what I saw and acted upon. The page is actually about whether a certain cat is cute. He then started the Spam run, asking people to come vote on the cute cat page. But nothing on the spammed notice showed what the vote was actually about. And if you hovered over the link, as I did, and did not read close enough, as I did not, you may only see that it appears to be a vote on an AFD page for a potentially inflamitory topic.

I get the feeling that someone was trying to stir up a reaction of some sort, fooling potentially politically sensetive people into coming racing to a political vote page only to find a cute cat vote instead. I still do not think they planned on an admin being the one fooled like I was.

Given the recent kerfuffles over vote spamming, I wonder if someone wasn't trying to make some sort of point with all this. That would be a flagrant WP:POINT violation, but it's hard to know at this point.

At this point all I know for certain is that the reasons under which I blocked him, spamming for an AFD vote, were not true, so I could not justify leaving him blocked. If someone wants to reblock him for the spamming itself, or for WP:POINT violations, that's up to them. - TexasAndroid 19:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a suspicion which it would be pointless to voice. If he starts it up again or does other blockable things, block and RFCU; if this is a one-time WP:POINT game and he's finished, then leave it as blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punative (I think). Thatcher131 19:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO, spamming is spamming whether it is to an actual AfD page or to some joke page. JoshuaZ 21:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ceraurus

User Ceraurus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (aka Mark Bourrie and Isotelus) was blocked indefinitely on April 12 for using sock puppets to circumvent the 3RR rule at Rachel Marsden. One of the IPs he used is 70.25.91.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as shown by checkuser: see here. Today this IP joined several others in a reversion war on the Rachel Marsden page. I've asked for semi-protection of the page, but I think the IP should be blocked too until this users block is lifted. Bucketsofg✐ 20:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)